Even in the end, the imperatives of reality and common sense

After the district council elections, many people believe that the entire strategy of governing Hong Kong should gradually be closer to reality and gradually return to rationality. This kind of conjecture is of course very reasonable, because such a shocking election result will completely change the composition of the next chief executive election committee, and it is very likely that the central government will be passive and unable to decide the future chief executive candidate of Hong Kong. In addition, the passage of the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act" by the United States indirectly endangers Hong Kong's status as an independent customs territory and financial center. Under such an environment, should the central government and Hong Kong-related departments change their course and adopt a strategy that is closer to the mainstream public opinion in Hong Kong and more considerate of international perspectives? However, in the past month or so, it is not easy for everyone to see signs of this change; instead, they have heard that Hong Kong should follow Macau and successfully implement the Macau version of "one country, two systems". A warm current. Why? Is it really not afraid that the situation will continue to deteriorate, without taking into account the attitude of Hong Kong's mainstream society, let alone worry about the impact of the change of Hong Kong's economic status on the entire country? How could it be so unrealistic?

Looking at it from another perspective, the defeat of the district council election and its associated consequences may be a political crisis in Hong Kong for the central government. In other words, the main issue facing Hong Kong in the future is no longer whether the financial center can survive, let alone the support of the public, but whether Hong Kong's political power can be preserved. When one thing rises to the height of "regime defense war", everything else will give way. What's more, now that the entire country has entered a movement mode, what we generally call "reality" is usually excluded by the established mode of the movement itself. To give a simple example, private enterprises are facing difficulties nowadays. Logically speaking, while introducing this bailout strategy, we should also completely stop the pace of "advancing the state and retreating from the private sector" in the past few years. However, the recent news of a series of resignations and retirements of the founders of giant companies seems to give completely opposite signals. Since we may face full-scale competition with the United States in the future, we should prepare for education now, and use the logic that higher education and academic research should have to cultivate talents and promote knowledge. But what we have seen is that one of the top schools has changed their school regulations, deleting "freedom of thought" and even "exploring the truth" in order to strengthen the leadership of the party. With a little knowledge of national history, one knows the ineffectiveness of reality and common sense in the face of the movement. The "Great Leap Forward" was unrealistic from the very beginning, but it lasted for three years; the "Cultural Revolution" shook the foundation of the country and caused endless troubles. Is it realistic? reasonable? Actually had to wait until the reform and opening up, the reality was rediscovered.

There is another kind of logic in it, and there is naturally a completely different interpretation of reality from ordinary people. For example, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, many of our friends who have observed Hong Kong's current affairs all the year round, actually know her shortcomings. The executive, known for his aggressiveness and efficiency, often disregarded the political consequences of a set of policies. She is unpopular among her colleagues in the official arena, lacks extensive contacts in the political arena, and is even more unpopular during the election of the chief executive. Whether it is the establishment or the pan-democrats, as long as they use the most basic common sense to examine, they will probably agree that she is not an ideal candidate to govern a complex city. Today's situation is so dangerous, although it is unexpected, but it is not without reason. So why did you choose her in the first place? Looking at it from another angle, we will find that all her shortcomings turned out to be advantages. Pushing the policy regardless of the consequences shows that she is obedient and dares to take on the task of death. The relationship between the political arena and the powerful class is not good, which means that she does not have her own faction, let alone a vassal of some business groups. The failure to win the favor of mainstream public opinion in Hong Kong shows that she can only pledge her allegiance upwards. Similar cases have been seen frequently in the past, but modern Hong Kong people may not be familiar with this kind of "knowledge" of employing people.

Many friends have criticized me for being too pessimistic about what I have written here in the past few years, and my stance is dubious. Especially in recent months, it seems that I deliberately poured cold water on the fiery protest movement. Frankly speaking, when I write current affairs commentary, it never occurred to me that my responsibility is to cheer up any movement. If I have any position, it is to insist on maintaining political sensitivity to reality at all times, while maintaining the most basic common sense in terms of public reason, even at extreme moments when reality is crushed by political logic and common sense is entangled by political positions. What is the most basic common sense in public reason? Let me give you an example that definitely makes many yellow silks unhappy, that is the "yellow economic circle" that everyone has been talking about recently. It is clear to me that a certain consumption pattern is chosen due to political orientation. But in my opinion, destroying blue merchants is completely unacceptable. The reason is simple, if someone expresses any point of view that I disagree with, what should I do, shouldn't I discuss and argue with him on the platform of speech? How could I go and smash up his shop just because his political stance is different from mine? If Huangsi can tolerate this kind of "bravery", is it also reasonable to understand that Huangdian was destroyed by Lansi? Of course, I also know how annoying such words are today.

When I opened this column, I didn't intend to write so many comments on current affairs. I just lived in the current situation, so I inevitably felt compelled to post. Looking back, whether it is the miscellaneous things I originally wanted to write, or the discussion about current affairs, I actually didn't write it well, which made me ashamed of the wrong love for Mr. Dong Qiao and Mr. Li Zhiying back then. From the original "Tuoshan Parrot" to the current "ordinary readers", I sincerely thank you two and the chief executives of "Apple Daily" for their tolerance. I especially feel sorry for the editor, who is always overwhelmed when I can't deliver the manuscript because of my busy schedule. Therefore, I have resigned my pen twice to avoid your troubles. Now that I have been approved, I hope it is also a kind of release for readers.

(Original article first published in Apple Daily)