Memoirs of a Loser 173: Democracy in the First Decade of 1997

A friend in Taiwan told me that Li Zhiying should be the unification party! From Jimmy Lai to openly oppose Taiwan independence and Hong Kong independence, and even instructed the editorial director of Hong Kong "Apple" to curb articles that promote "local", which led to the "buying strike" of Hong Kong young people in Hong Kong "Apple" in the later period. Young people in Hong Kong refer to him and the pan-democrats as "Greater China glue", and "glue" means "ideological rigidity". For example, "Zuojiao" refers to the "rigidity" of the idea that "equality" overwhelms freedom. "Greater China glue" refers to the pursuit of Chinese social progress, democracy and freedom, to the point of "ideological rigidity" that ignores reality.

According to my understanding of Jimmy Lai and the pan-democrats, I cannot describe it with the dichotomy of "unification" and "independence" that Taiwanese friends often use. I don't think they are "unified" and certainly not "independent" either. As far as Jimmy Lai's basic thinking is concerned, it should be "American" and belong to the "Neoconservative" faction in the United States. The pan-democrats including him, or the "patriotic democrats" I mentioned before, actually do not support "unification": whether it is the reunification of Hong Kong towards one country, one system, or the reunification of Taiwan and China. But they also do not support "Taiwan independence" and "Hong Kong independence".

The reason is that from the perspective of international relations and political reality, Taiwan independence and Hong Kong independence are unrealistic. What the United States and the Western world support is "no unity, no independence." As far as Taiwan is concerned, the West supports maintaining the status quo and opposes changing the status quo by any means, especially force; as far as Hong Kong is concerned, the West supports all of China's commitments to one country, two systems, as listed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and opposes China's claim that "" The Sino-British Joint Declaration has no practical significance" and also opposes Hong Kong's independence from China.

As far as the international strategic situation and real politics are concerned, maintaining Hong Kong's state at the beginning of 1997 was the best and only option that Western countries and Hong Kong people thought at the time; for Taiwan, the propositions of "unification" and "independence" are meaningless. , therefore, "not unified nor independent" is also the only option.

The biggest difference between me and the pan-democrats in this regard is that in 2015, when the “Hong Kong Ethnic Theory” was proposed by the student newspaper “Academic” of the University of Hong Kong, I started from the basic human right of safeguarding freedom of speech and believed that “Hong Kong people have propaganda. Freedom of Speech for Hong Kong Independence". Because "speaking" is nothing more than action, let alone action, why not? Of course, Hong Kong people also have freedom of speech to promote one country, one system, that is, complete unity. I wrote an article in the "Apple" editorial "Hong Kong people have freedom of speech to promote Hong Kong independence." It is known that Jimmy Lai was very cold, but he did not tell me face-to-face.

But this is a change in the later period of the anti-communist movement in Hong Kong.

In the early days of the Anti-Communist Party, that is, in the early 1980s when China and the United Kingdom were negotiating the future of Hong Kong, I had known Situ Hua, who would later become a major protagonist in the pro-democracy faction, for a long time. In 1981, in the fundraising of "70s" which was independent from the left, Situ Hua and several backbones of the Hong Kong Education Professionals Association (hereinafter referred to as the Education Association), of which he is the chairman, invested a total of 100,000 Hong Kong dollars to support me in starting a new business. One-seventh of the shares is a group with more support. Judging from his actions, what he cares more about is not "one country" but freedom in "two systems".

I have a close relationship with Situ Hua. He was left-leaning in his early years. He participated in the Youth League of the CCP, and he also tried to ask to join the CCP, but he was not accepted. I met him in the early days of Seventies. In the 1980s, many views were exchanged on the future of Hong Kong. His "patriotic" thought contains the ideal of "democratic China" pursued in the past. Therefore, he accepts the CCP's light-hearted "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". After the June 4th Movement, he still took "supporting the patriotic and democratic movement" as his lifelong ambition.

I once argued with him. I said that the CCP, as a Lenin-style political party, coupled with China's 2,000-year-old authoritarian tradition, is still consistent in its power-only regime. But after taking power and before taking power, the concept of status and power is completely different. It has transformed from a leader to a ruler. How can its democratic commitment be trusted? Situ Hua believes that the CCP will rely on Hong Kong economically and will not break its promise. He also believes that maintaining the status quo in Taiwan is good for Hong Kong, because Jiang Zemin said that Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" has the role of "taking the lead in setting an example" for Taiwan. Since the Basic Law clearly defines "dual universal suffrage" for the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council as the ultimate goal, democracy can be achieved as long as the people of Hong Kong are mobilized to fight for it.

Logically speaking, he was right. If any leader measures from the national interest, he should see that upholding one country, two systems in Hong Kong and operating in accordance with the original system is absolutely beneficial and harmless to China. Even in the Qing Dynasty, they knew how to hire the Englishman Robert Hart (1835-1911) to serve as the General Taxation Department of the Customs for half a century (1861-1911), in order to eliminate the corruption of the customs and ensure the stability of the imperial court. And growing taxes.

But the CCP regime is worse than the Manchus. As the British philosopher Russell said 100 years ago: China is the exception to all rules. In the trend of China's opening up, almost all leaders from the top leadership to those in power, large, medium and small, have been involved in the whirlpool of exploiting power for personal gain. A person in power in China, even if he is a kind, just, and clean person, cannot really take into account the interests of the country, but will only consider the interests of the privileged class and individuals. Otherwise, he will not be able to survive in the Chinese officialdom. All the high-sounding or wolf-warning language and actions to the outside world are just to protect the country's face. As an international financial center, Hong Kong is the most convenient and cheapest money laundering base for the elites at all levels. "Leading the Example" to Taiwan? Personal interests are currently out of the question.

Based on this, to promote democracy in Hong Kong is to strengthen the supervision of public opinion to protect the original system of Hong Kong. This is in conflict with the interests of China's privileged class. Therefore, no matter how the democrats express their patriotic stance, even if it is unreasonable and meaningless to vote for the "anti-Taiwan independence" motion in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, it is only a face-to-face for China. What the CCP really cares about is that the democrats in the parliament oppose the bills that are conducive to Chinese infiltration, and demand to expand democratic participation in the election of the chief executive and the election of the Legislative Council.

It was probably in the first ten years of the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong. China had not yet intervened politically in Hong Kong from the dark to the open, the Chinese upstarts had not eroded the lives of Hong Kong citizens, and the local ideology in Hong Kong had not yet emerged. At that time, my speech tended to be Support the democrats led by Situ Hua and Li Zhuming, although they do not agree with all their propositions. Because at that time only the democrats could check and balance the establishment and contain the CCP’s interference.

(Original post published on July 17, 2022)

"Memoirs of a Loser" serial catalog (continuously updated)

164. The Mystery of Tung Chee-hwa's Resignation (Part 1)

165. The Mystery of Tung Chee-hwa's Resignation (Part 2)

166. The mystery of Dong Xia Zeng Shang

167. In the second half of the political career, I think of Ni Kuang

168. A new record of tombstones in the cultural circle of Hong Kong

169. Misunderstandings of patriotic democrats

170. The establishment of a country depends on a ge

171. Conjunctions that fascinate me

172. Do n't understand, don't understand, don't understand

173. The democrats in the first decade of 1997