There is a fundermental event going on in Hong Kong right now, which would affect everyone in the next five years. But virtually no one cares, because they could not participate. Frankly speaking, even they could participate, they could not change the results!

And of course, I am talking about the election of the election committee members for the selection of the Chief Executive.

The election committee is theoretically similar to the Electoral College for the election of the president of the United States. People select their representatives to vote for the leaders of the place. But in the HK case, there are two fundermental differences: 1) The candidate would not tell you who they support beforehand, so there is no way a voter could vote on the candidate that would support the candidancy of the Chief Executive along with the wishes of the voters; 2) Unlike in the American version, where every adult has a vote, the voters eligible are make up of only 250,000 people (out of a 7 million population), and mde up of mostly professionals and company directors. And of course, everyone knew that who would turn out to win anyway. So, no body cares!

But if the general public continue to choose to ignore about this, and the professionals which dare to make a difference to stand up for running a candidancy, and promising voters to have an alternative candidate. This “election” will continue to uncontested, unquestioned, undebated and un-scruntinzed!! So, should you were one of the members of the Election Committee, do exercise your rights to vote and do vote for a candidate that clearly indicated that they would support for an alternative candidate. Should you were the silent majority of those who are not entitled to vote, you shouldn’t feel pity of yourself, and you should ask yourself, why I am not allowed to vote our Chief Executive under the simpliest method of ‘one man , one vote’?

We may say that the current environment in Hong Kong is very much “in harmony””. But they are nonetheless, pseudo-harmony.

The negative comments on the former Governor Chris Patten by the Financial Secretary, on the former Chief Secretary of Administration by the pro-Beijing and their allies in the media have exhibited that the harmony situation so cherished by the Hu and Wen administration is not really in harmony. The comments on the latter have been very much an outright attack at the personal level, which basically falls into the following categories: a) Questioned her links with the West; b) Questioning her “sudden” advocacy for democracy”, and c) her true intentions. One established newspaper, which have become simply a propaganda tool for the government, even quoted Patten’s “memoir” “The Last Governor” that the former Chief Secretary for Administration has attempted to halt Patten’s pace for the changes in the elections.

The critics has made these serious errors: 1) Hong Kong has always been a city linking the East and the West, and in fact, it would be difficult to find someone in a prominent position without any Western links, by the way, is there any links on making a speech at the FCC and wearing traditional Chinese clothing to be more “Western friendly”?? If so, no existing government officials should go to visit overseas (remember that the first place in which the Chief Executive went to “sell” his constitutional review is not in Hong Kong but the US!!) and that the Chinese government should declare traditional Chinese clothing as a “spiritual pollution and a symbol of decedent from the West”, and demolish them!

2) The critics failed to realize that people can change, even the former Secretary for Security so championed by the pro-Beijing circle would call for a concrete discussion of democracy! (She even say that the bicameral system is not suitable for Hong Kong). So why not let the former Chief Secretary for Administration to change to facilitate a more elaborate discussion of the political future of Hong Kong?

Thirdly, about her intentions, it is a “common known fact” we do everything according to our wishes, there are intentions out of everything we do, a professor from the Department of Social Work clearly pointed out that all of these groups created by former civil servants have their political motivations. I can say explicitly that the former Secretary for Security’s think tank is to address to the needs for an acceptable format of electoral method by the central government, and the former Chief Secretary for Administration’s group is to address the needs for an acceptable format of electoral method, as well as other things that should and could be change by the government, and to be acceptable by the general public.

Whether the “pro-Beijing” cohort likely or not, it is inevitable that the issue on the political future of Hong Kong, whereas it is simply about the electoral methods in the future, or many aspects of how the government and its policies are running, should and would be discussed. As the Basic Law clearly stipulated that universal suffrage is inevitable. The problem is, whether Hong Kong people’s, and not simply the views of the pro-Beijing cohort, would be heard in both of the governments!!

The comments on Patten and the former Chief Secretary for Administration are, however, not really an objection to their comments, as it simply indicated the negative perspectives toward us from those who made these comment. A mere call for “harmony” could not change the perspectives. After all, it is easy to change one’s decisions, but their perception stays forever! Nonetheless, the continuation of this “pseudo-harmony” environment, although how unhealthy it is, would stay as long as the perception of some changes.

In the study of the future development of Hong Kong politics, don’t underestimate the growing importance of “perception” of different groups, they will continue to facilitate (and to haunt) the political development in Hong Kong.

It seemed that whoever in the post of Financial Secretary often stated more “explicit” message when dealing with sensitive issues, by using the wordings would one may commonly heard in a “tea restaurant” (or perhaps, in the City Forum in Victoria Park..) I would say the Financial Secretary’s on Patten’s comment does not suit his identity as the third most senior official in the Hong Kong SAR Government, don’t you think so?

I would not expect a senior civil servant to make an open comment in these sort of languages. (The last one was worst enough!) As Chris Patten is no longer the “sinner for a thousand years”. Hence, the comments from the Financial Secretary certainly won’t added value for the blessing from the Mainland anymore. He could have simply said “Oh! The economic situation is different now, and as a responsive government, we though that it will be an appropriate moment to introduce GST!” Simple as that!

Also we all aware about the reliance of the economy over properties proposition, but it is certainly not “out of the economic principles”—As everyone in Hong kong knew that we need to accommodate 7 million people in such a small piece of land, the demand for land is hugh, and whoever got the land (well, technically speaking, they only got the rights to use the land for a specific period) could make a fortune. The demand of more land pushed up the prices for everything, as people need to pay the rent, thus inflating the prices. Also, many revenues from the Government are resulted in the transactions of properties , including proceeds from land auctions. Hence, we all say that the economy is relying on the property.. But then, it revolves on simple economic principles— strong demand and a limited supply of land leads to high demands and thus prices for land!

Probably the latest comments from Patten most reflected the reality and the most fair, that is it would be an extremely difficult task for the Government to impose GST under this economic climate. Patten’s the man—period!

Although there is absolutely no intention for the Government to introduce the GST at this stage (just look at the nine month consultation period, the Government would not consult us for a whole nine months on something that it wants to do. Remember Article 23, such a controversial law just takes two months for “consultation”). I believe that most of us do not want sales tax, we will have to tell the Government that the majority of us do not want GST EVER! Today will be the start of the nine month battle against GST!
Some immediate comments on the Government’s proposal:
1) Hong Kong is already a “thousand tax” city, so the argument for narrowing the tax base is weak;
2) Too many administrative costs for calculation of taxes and keeping of books, how can the SMEs survive?
3) The concessions given to the CSSA recipients and the low income families would further antagonize the relations between the poor and the rich;
4) Do the middle class really wanted to broaden the tax base so eagerly? The current government’s proposal, there “savings” in the directed taxes would simply be taken by the GST!
5) The concessions for other household simply could not cover the costs over GST
6) The reliance of the property sector in the economy is again confirmed under the exemption on residential properties
7) It discriminates those with no income—the students, the retired, the housewives and the elderly
8) The lack of discussion on how to spend the revenue gained from GST, and on the basic direction of the spending of the Government in general..
9) The mode of doing businesses in Hong Kong would be dramatically changed after the introduction of a minimum threshold for charging GST. Businesses will think twice on investing in Hong Kong!
10) Most importantly, the introduction of the GST for merchandise brought from overseas by travelers would literally be a excise duty for imports. The image of Hong Kong being as a “free port” will be tarnished!!!

Should the government wants to introduce to broaden the tax base, and to ensure that everyone has the responsibility to pay tax as a civil duty, why not try the introduction of environmental tax, road pricing or even a fixed rate of “poll tax” for every adult population?

There are just my preliminary thoughts, more will be discussed later!

It is just a concert to support the students striving for their aspirations on freedom and democracy in 1989. A substantial number of concerned citizens in Hong Kong, surely including many civil servants, including a substantial number of high-ranking ones, would provide whatever they could (in their capacity) to support the movement. Since what a senior civil servant could do at most in their capacity is to attend these ‘gatherings’. One among the crowd would probably include Mr. Tsang himself. Even though if we have been misunderstood Mr. Tsang for all these years, and that he did not indicating his support to the students and workers in 1989. I would not believe that Mr. Tsang would have to lie.

But what if both Mr. Sezto Wah and Mr. Tsang insisted on what they said were both the correct version? (Generally speaking, we all trust an old teacher more than, let’s say, a politician). Probably the best response is to ask the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for an interpretation. The interpretation would have included the following:

The concert was not organized by the Alliance for the Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement in China, and therefore Mr Tsang’s statement that he did not attend any activities of the Alliance is correct. and the wording ‘to participate’ shall be interpreted as ‘wholeheartedly engage in the activities concerned’. Then,

Mr. Tsang did not ‘participate’ in the concert, he simply happened to pass by the racecourse and made a greeting to a particular individual called Szeto Wah
OR
Mr. Tsang did not ‘participate’ in the concert, he was simply ‘accompanying’ his son for a dinner at the Jockey Club
OR
Mr. Tsang did not ‘participate’ in the concert, he was simply ‘accompanying’ his son (That is why we need national education in schools!)
OR
Mr. Tsang did not participate in the concert, the person that the volunteer saw is not Mr. Tsang, he is a just another person wearing a bowtie
OR
Mr. Tsang did not participate in the concert, the person that the volunteer is a stunt double for Mr. Tsang (He has breached his terms of contract and has been terminated from his contract already after all, Hong Kong shall be run by patriots in principle.)

Thus,
Mr. Tsang did not ‘participate’ in the concert, he has told the truth!! (Remember that Mr. Tsang did have two seconds of thoughts about this, and thinking that his handshake with President Hu would then be extended to thirteen seconds!)

and

Mr. Sezto Wah has told the truth, because he has!!

Many politicians (or their relatives, including the marital ones) could have done something in their past or even during their political career that it was embarrassing, or they would have thought it would be embarrassing. Frankly to say, honesty is the best policy, that the truth!

P.S. It would be more embarrassing (not politically embarrassing, but strictly embarrassing) for Mr. Tsang to attend to a concert from a pop idol , isn’t it?

Dear Citizens of Hong Kong:

Today is 4th June. A day that everyone (not just for the Chinese) should have remembered. Some that have witnessed the events, either through the media, or personally witnessed those events, may have suggested that they have forgotten, but I presume that they were, as 19th Century English poet and critic Matthew Arnold suggested ‘and we forget because we must, and not because we will.’

The events in 1989 have changed the lives, perceptions, aspirations of many. Seventeen years has passed, and many have changed, China has also changed, in terms of economic development, as well as the emphasis for a more responsive government. But what we saw was that the immense progress in economic development in the past seventeen years did not result in a tremendous progress in a more open government, in which the government indicated tolerance on the expression of opinions differ from itself, the realization of a free-speaking media, the creation of a platform where cover-ups from officials when disasters occur would not be allowed, and most disappointingly is that the adaptation or even promotion for the use of nationalistic sentiments to cover the social misfits and ills occurring in the Mainland as in today.

The theme of this year’s vigil is the ‘defending for rights’ (wenqian) movement. Many in the Mainland, which were being the victims of all kinds of social problems, are assisted by warm-hearted people, fighting for their rights as ascribed by law. I presume that what the events in 1989 has taught the people in the Mainland is the adaptation an more significantly, the importance of ‘rule of law’ in the Mainland, and that people in the Mainland could truly put forward their cases in the court and solve it by legal means. That would, I hope, would lead to the realization for further involvement of citizens in the policy-making process in the Mainland.

The events in July 1, 2003 have been proclaimed as changing the perspectives for participation in current events, especially for young people in Hong Kong. But after all, the effects on the events in 1989 were far more effective in revealing the power of the people in putting forward issues to be reformed. It is undeniable that Hong Kong and the Mainland has been always interconnected and tight, and many in Hong Kong were genuinely hoping that the reform in the government in the Mainland could be put in place through the events in 1989.

It has often been proclaimed by some that we should stick to economic development, and let the bygones be the bygones. In particular, Hong Kong people should have uphold the opportunities of economic development in the Mainland and should have focus on economic development, so as to avoid the ‘marginalization’ of Hong Kong Such proposition is most naïve and superficial. Hong Kong’s cornerstone, and frankly to say, the essential quantities in which Hong Kong has not to been marginalized—that is, the strict adherence of the rule of law, an open government, free participation of citizens in public affairs, a free media working with fear, a civil service system operating without favour, the preservation of academic freedom in research and making commentaries, to name a few, were also the quantities in which the Mainland still needs to learn, to adopt, and most importantly, to realize that these quantities have no conflict vis a vis with economic development, rather , they would foster economic development on a scale much more than they would have seen,
I am optimistic on the development of a free, democratic, and tolerant government in the Mainland, I urge the people of Hong Kong rather than giving up on our essential quantities for short sighting and short term purposes, we should cherish our ‘treasures in the teapot’ (Li Ruiran’s wordings), and should sow the seeds of the treasures to the much larger teapot in the Mainland.

J.M. Barrie once said “Someone said that God gave is memory so that we might have roses in December.” I would say, somebody gave memory to the world so that we might see a free, democratic and open China in June some year!

With the defeat of the government’s motion on the constitutional review, everyone got what they want this Christmas!

250,024 (+1) of the general public here would be satisfied cause it ensures that the undemocratic constitutional reform package would not become a reality!
 
Another 780,000 or so would also be joyful, as they would not be accused for being falsifying records by legislators.

…詳盡more…

Did you happen to sign your name, when representatives from the Concerned Union on Constitutional Review urge you to ’support universal suffrage’ or ’sign if you like the Chief Executive’) in their 700+ stands (or in the coaches on the way to the ’seafood dinners’  organized by your local district council members) under their blue sky banner last Sunday? Did you have the image that, at the first instance you saw them, with the word ‘Concern’ on their title, that they are affiliated with the Article 45 Concerned Group, or did you notice that they failed to express explicitly on what they actually say what they are concerning about, or what do they stand for?

…詳盡more…

I remember that Queen Elizabeth II  of the UK has said that for her and the royal family of Britain,  1992 was an ‘Annus Horribilis’, means horrible year, in Latin, why I brought out this story is that I do believe that, after seeing the newspaper headlines and reports in recent days, the newspaper reports in the first ten days in December is also pretty ‘horribilis’…

…詳盡more…

普選啊:

雖我等你等到我心痛，但我哪有一天不想你？
你知不知道，我現在還在等你嗎？
何時有時間表與你相見，雖今日我卻竟不知道，
但我仍然是覺得你是最好的，你知道嗎？

…詳盡more…