Quote of the Day: The Battle of Language

Rita Fan chides Chris Patten for being behind the times with Hong Kong

A war of words has erupted between the pro-Beijing camp consisting of Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai and Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, and former governor Chris Patten.

The man affectionately known as "Fat Pang" says the UK has a "moral and political obligation to ensure that China respects its commitment" set out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration to "guarantee Hong Kong's way of life for 50 years after 1997".

But today Fan and Leung hit out at Patten, saying the Sino-British Joint Declaration made no provisions for universal suffrage at all, and that he should not be meddling in China's internal affairs, and adding that he was still stuck in his memories of the handover.

Excuse me -- did you say there were no provisions for universal suffrage at all? So now you're saying we have "universal suffrage" but China's version of it?

Someone who was there during negotiations of the Joint Declaration ought to tell us if this is really true or not.

Nevertheless, as said earlier, this is a war of words.

Which brings us to the quote of the day.

James R. Holmes has an article in The Diplomat out today, called "China's War on Maritime Law". The first paragraph, giving words of advice to Washington, could very well be suited to us in Hong Kong:

Never surrender to China in the battle of language, Washington. Ceding control of the words we use can be fatal to diplomacy. If you let someone define the words used in an argument how he pleases, or if you let him use terms so imprecisely that they lose all meaning, you let him establish the assumptions from which the argument proceeds. And once he sets the assumptions, he can prove whatever he wants. You will lose every time. Call it rhetorical battlespace preparation, or call it "three warfares". Whatever the name, it's a never-ending campaign for Beijing. Blunting it demands similar persistence.

Hong Kong people must define their home by their own terms. We cannot let Beijing determine it for us.

And by vetoing the electoral plan it has in store for us is the first step, because it is better than its version of "universal suffrage" which mocks the intent of voting for who we believe is the best chief executive to represent Hong Kong.

Tung's Charm Offensive

Former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa did his best to sugar-coat the situation

Beijing is now on the charm offensive, trying to soften the blow of Sunday's news to Hong Kong people by trotting out former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa out earlier today.

He gave his first press conference for the first time since he stepped down from office in 2005, looking a lot older, but wielding more power now that he is vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

Tung claimed he understood the pan-democrats' disappointment and anger in the National People's Congress Standing Committee's tough guidelines on how candidates for the next election for chief executive will be chosen for 2017.

"I understand how they feel. I understand how deeply and strongly felt those emotions are," he said.

Does he really? Then why does he support the decision to have 1,200 people picked by Beijing to choose the candidates, who must have at least 50 percent of the nominating committee's vote?

It is interesting to note that in 1996 he was chosen by a panel of only 400 members, whereas in 2012 current Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was voted in by 689 out of 1,132 people.

In addition, Tung remarked that from 1997 to 2017 -- "a short time of 20 years" -- Hong Kong has gone from a governor who was parachuted in to 5 million being eligible to vote.

"From 2017 onwards the people of Hong Kong will elect the chief executive by universal suffrage, fulfilling the collective aspiration of Hong Kong," he said.

"Today, on the eve of Hong Kong's crucial development in our long history, on the verge of our going for the biggest political leap, how can we possibly choose to stand still? How can we let our march towards democracy stop and stall? We cannot," he said.

But we still can't nominate the candidates so how is that universal suffrage according to international norms?

"I appeal to people of all political stripes to come together and turn negative sentiments into positive energy. Hand in hand, we will build a sound electoral arrangement on the basis of the foundation laid down by the NPC," he added.

Grandpa Tung even has the gall to say: "Five million voters personally picking their leader... is democracy, real and substantial".

He is obviously doing his best to sugar-coat the situation, but we all know he is speaking in half truths in the hopes of getting greater consensus on this. But Tung already said he was opposed to Occupy Central, so he is not offering any other suggestions on how people can make their voices heard, or other avenues for negotiation.

Tung is hardly the voice of reason, but the voice of propaganda... does he really have Hong Kong's interests at heart?

Hong Kong's New Normal

Looking at Hong Kong from a new perspective...

Hong Kongers are still reeling from Sunday's news about so-called election reform set out by the National People's Congress Standing Committee.

Many feel defeated and wonder how to move forward. There seems like there is no room for any negotiations. Take it or leave it.

Tonight I took the bus home after an early dinner and was surprised it was completely full. It got me thinking about each of these passengers, how we are all eking out a living on salaries that have not risen with inflation, rents and housing prices going through the roof, and with it the price of food in restaurants, new clothes and entertainment.

We are all in survival mode, thanks to the handful of tycoons who control the city, and a lame-duck government that carries out orders from Beijing.

Did Occupy Central push too much? Perhaps in China's eyes it did. There's confusion over whether there is still an appetite to commit civil disobedience now, and doing it on a public holiday seems useless.

In fact doing anything to protest now seems even more pathetic than what we did a few months ago.

What is going to happen to Hong Kong now? We are all just focused on trying to survive, instead of thinking outside the box and making Hong Kong grow and develop into a community and society we want to live in.

The city is fast losing its lustre with its "Lion Rock" spirit fast evaporating. It's not sheer hard work and determination that will get you far here -- it's who you know and have a pro-Beijing attitude.

The Hong Kong we used to know is fast disappearing before our eyes and we have to quickly adjust to the new normal...

Imposing American Values on Chinese Youth?

Chinese students take the SATs in the hopes of escaping this scenario

Hong Kongers feel helpless following Beijing's decision on how the next chief executive will be elected in 2017.

And tonight Central was crawling with police -- posted on overhead walkways and police vans filled with officers wearing flourescent vests were ready to move at a moment's notice.

But nothing has happened -- yet.

However, we can take some comfort in the United States College Board being accused of imposing American values on China's best and brightest in the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

That's because the board announced plans in March to redesign the SAT to include US founding documents in a portion of the test called the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing by spring 2016.

"The vital issues central to these documents -- freedom, justice, and human dignity among them -- have motivated numerous people in the United States and around the globe," the College Board said.

But those are the exact values that the Chinese Communist Party has deemed as threatening to its rule -- Chinese activists who have tried to promote such values have been silenced or imprisoned, like Xu Zhiyong, who was sentenced to four years in prison who started the New Citizens Movement.

Hong Kong columnist Kelly Yang is the one who brought this to the attention of Beijing, saying the focus on civil liberties may "change the mindset and world view of an entire generation of Chinese youth".

"If the new SAT succeeds, it will be the first time America is able to systematically shape the views, beliefs and ideologies of hundreds of thousands of Chinese students every year, not through a popular television show or a politician's speaking tour, but through what the Chinese care about most -- exams," Yang wrote.

She is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley and Harvard Law School.

Will the SAT single-handedly indoctrinate mainland Chinese students? For most of them eager to study in the US, they have already bought into what America stands for and the exam is a way to make them really study the rights and freedoms they have heard about.

Nevertheless it is amusing to find the Chinese government is very worried about this latest possible development, of brainwashing its people with foreign ideologies.

Could China then make the argument the US is meddling in its internal affairs?