JIN ZHONG
HONG KONG, China, Dec. 12
In Hong Kong's by-election for the Legislative Council last week, pro-democracy candidate Anson Chan was proclaimed the winner with 170,000 ballots, while pro-Beijing candidate Regina Ip received some 30,000 fewer votes. The gap was wider than expected.
Many commentators interpreted the result as a strong signal from Hong Kong citizens calling for universal suffrage in 2012.
Surprisingly, when Chan took her seat in the Council three days later, Tsang Tak-sing, head of the Home Affairs Bureau, verbally attacked her during a meeting. Tsang accused her of becoming a "sudden democrat" who "suddenly cares about people's livelihood," pointing out that she was formerly an official under the British colonial government in charge of people's livelihood affairs.
Chan responded that Tsang's offensive remarks were a personal attack and asked for an apology. Other Council members of the democratic camp commented that Tsang's insulting the new councilor was to show off his panache as an official. This incident became a headline story in local media.
Tsang Tak-sing actually violated the principles of the Council; government officials were supposed to be attending the meeting as guests or observers and to respond to enquiries from the councilors. The idea is that public servants should report to the legislators, who represent the public, and be interrogated by them. What was the sense in reversing the positions of host and guest and initiating an attack on a councilor?
Secondly, Chan is a councilor elected by 170,000 voters and must speak on behalf of the voters. Everyone can choose one's own political leanings. This has nothing to do with the "sudden democrat" issue.
What's more apparent, Tsang has revealed his bias and deep hostility to Hong Kong's democracy.
As far back as 1967, at the peak of the Cultural Revolution, Tsang participated in leftist-inspired riots against the British and was jailed for two years for his activities. After that, he became the one chosen and groomed by the Chinese Communist Party to rule Hong Kong. He was editor-in-chief of Ta Kung Pao, considered a pro-Beijing newspaper, and served four terms as a Hong Kong deputy to the National People's Congress in Beijing.
After Hong Kong's handover to China in 1997, Tsang was immediately recruited into the Central Policy Unit, which was created in 1989 as a government advisory body. In this capacity, for seven years Tsang served as an advisor to the chief executive. Moreover, when Chief Executive Donald Tsang's term of office was renewed this year, Tsang Tak-sing was appointed head of the Home Affairs Bureau and became part of the top leadership in Hong Kong.
Tsang Tak-sing's behavior at the Legislative Council has been described as an outbreak of "leftist poison," an unscrupulous act that defies the civilized practices within Hong Kong's political circles. The leftists in Hong Kong defended him by saying his words merely reflected his own personal feelings and views.
This excuse could be excellent and very true. What was he feeling and thinking about? Perhaps he was distressed that a "supporter of an evil cause," the previous British administration that he has hated for decades, was widely welcomed into the Council 10 years after Hong Kong's handover.
Or maybe he felt bad that the so-called pro-democracy camp -- renamed "the opposition camp" by the leftists -- besides siding with Western power to bully others, the behavior of Chinese traitors, was captivating the people in the name of democracy. Despite the leftists' victory in the District Council elections in October, they could not defeat the reputation of Anson Chan. Without dashing her image, how could the leftists effectively control the drive for universal suffrage in 2012?
Perhaps most important was that Tsang's experience wallowing in political circles gave him confidence that the central government will never switch its policy of supporting the leftists in Hong Kong, that China's powerful rise will not be stopped, and that what Hong Kong needs is the courage he possessed when he went to jail, to oppose the previous British administration.
So now he needs to bravely stand out to fight the opposing power of an adverse current. This would explain why Tsang Tak-sing behaved like a man with strong backing and no fears. Tsang's outburst of "leftist poison" represented his vision that as soon as the leftists gain full control over Hong Kong, they will punish all the organizations and individuals that threaten their power and interests.
People said that Tsang's humiliation of Anson Chan was humiliating 170,000 voters. In fact, his insult impacts a much higher number.
--
(Jin Zhong is editor-in-chief of Open Magazine, a political journal based in Hong Kong. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the Chinese original can be found at www.ncn.org and in the December 2007 issue of Open Magazine. ©Copyright Jin Zhong.)
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2007/12/12/obstacles_to_hong_kongs_democracy_2/1668/
Many commentators interpreted the result as a strong signal from Hong Kong citizens calling for universal suffrage in 2012.
Surprisingly, when Chan took her seat in the Council three days later, Tsang Tak-sing, head of the Home Affairs Bureau, verbally attacked her during a meeting. Tsang accused her of becoming a "sudden democrat" who "suddenly cares about people's livelihood," pointing out that she was formerly an official under the British colonial government in charge of people's livelihood affairs.
Chan responded that Tsang's offensive remarks were a personal attack and asked for an apology. Other Council members of the democratic camp commented that Tsang's insulting the new councilor was to show off his panache as an official. This incident became a headline story in local media.
Tsang Tak-sing actually violated the principles of the Council; government officials were supposed to be attending the meeting as guests or observers and to respond to enquiries from the councilors. The idea is that public servants should report to the legislators, who represent the public, and be interrogated by them. What was the sense in reversing the positions of host and guest and initiating an attack on a councilor?
Secondly, Chan is a councilor elected by 170,000 voters and must speak on behalf of the voters. Everyone can choose one's own political leanings. This has nothing to do with the "sudden democrat" issue.
What's more apparent, Tsang has revealed his bias and deep hostility to Hong Kong's democracy.
As far back as 1967, at the peak of the Cultural Revolution, Tsang participated in leftist-inspired riots against the British and was jailed for two years for his activities. After that, he became the one chosen and groomed by the Chinese Communist Party to rule Hong Kong. He was editor-in-chief of Ta Kung Pao, considered a pro-Beijing newspaper, and served four terms as a Hong Kong deputy to the National People's Congress in Beijing.
After Hong Kong's handover to China in 1997, Tsang was immediately recruited into the Central Policy Unit, which was created in 1989 as a government advisory body. In this capacity, for seven years Tsang served as an advisor to the chief executive. Moreover, when Chief Executive Donald Tsang's term of office was renewed this year, Tsang Tak-sing was appointed head of the Home Affairs Bureau and became part of the top leadership in Hong Kong.
Tsang Tak-sing's behavior at the Legislative Council has been described as an outbreak of "leftist poison," an unscrupulous act that defies the civilized practices within Hong Kong's political circles. The leftists in Hong Kong defended him by saying his words merely reflected his own personal feelings and views.
This excuse could be excellent and very true. What was he feeling and thinking about? Perhaps he was distressed that a "supporter of an evil cause," the previous British administration that he has hated for decades, was widely welcomed into the Council 10 years after Hong Kong's handover.
Or maybe he felt bad that the so-called pro-democracy camp -- renamed "the opposition camp" by the leftists -- besides siding with Western power to bully others, the behavior of Chinese traitors, was captivating the people in the name of democracy. Despite the leftists' victory in the District Council elections in October, they could not defeat the reputation of Anson Chan. Without dashing her image, how could the leftists effectively control the drive for universal suffrage in 2012?
Perhaps most important was that Tsang's experience wallowing in political circles gave him confidence that the central government will never switch its policy of supporting the leftists in Hong Kong, that China's powerful rise will not be stopped, and that what Hong Kong needs is the courage he possessed when he went to jail, to oppose the previous British administration.
So now he needs to bravely stand out to fight the opposing power of an adverse current. This would explain why Tsang Tak-sing behaved like a man with strong backing and no fears. Tsang's outburst of "leftist poison" represented his vision that as soon as the leftists gain full control over Hong Kong, they will punish all the organizations and individuals that threaten their power and interests.
People said that Tsang's humiliation of Anson Chan was humiliating 170,000 voters. In fact, his insult impacts a much higher number.
--
(Jin Zhong is editor-in-chief of Open Magazine, a political journal based in Hong Kong. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the Chinese original can be found at www.ncn.org and in the December 2007 issue of Open Magazine. ©Copyright Jin Zhong.)
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2007/12/12/obstacles_to_hong_kongs_democracy_2/1668/
没有评论:
发表评论