|
The demo on July 1 2003 had the imprimatur vested sectarian groups
Laugk Updated: 2004-02-25 09:15
Let us cast aside the conspiracy theory that the US could be behind this massive demonstration. Pointing fingers at the US is sidetracking the issue - why are the people in Hong Kong expressing their dissatisfaction and anger?
I am rather cynical that the hoi polloi in HK marched in solidarity out of fear their freedom would be curbed. The whole exercise was a muddled mix of dissatisfaction at the economic downturn and the subsequent loss of earnings by the people. Martin Lee and Szeto Wah and their democrats cleverly exploited this and wrapped it out with a demonstration against Article 23 as a ploy to rob not only the political freedom of HK but also the undeniable right of the people to make a decent living.
We examine three irrefutable proofs that the demonstration was contrived and stage-managed:
(1) The date chosen for July 1
(2) When HK was a British colony, the people placidly accepted repressive measures with equanimity
(3) Burning of the CCP flag
In (1) is a clear sign the demonstration had a political motive and not free outpouring of concern for the freedom of the territory. That date was the Sixth Anniversary Celebration of the handing over of HK to China, and also a date where the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao would be in the territory. Indeed, looking at the date, it was a strike to awe and intimidate China.
It was not the Hong Kong hoi polloi that chose the date. The vested organisation, sectarian groups that sought to embarrass China and to sabotage the 1C2S (One Country Two Systems) were behind this.
Now in (2) you see the awe for Britain. Have you seen Hong Kongers talk to a British and a Chinese from Mainland? Look for the different postures adopted. This reminds us of the rather demeaning scene in many TV police episodes, where a subaltern addressed his superior, now a Chinese, with "Yes Sir" in English when the episodes were in Cantonese. Unless the Hong Kongers have pride as Chinese, they will always dream of the British good old days of laissez faire. Under this free wheeling, the hoi polloi had untrammelled freedom to make money without nary a thought of the means of attaining it, and the British had all the untrammelled audacity to exploit the people and enrich Mother England with the sweat and toil of the Chinese.
Then we come to (3). Why burn the CCP flag, which we all know is a surrogate of burning the Chinese flag, which the agitators were clever not to antagonise other Chinese? Who hate the CCP? The answer here is Taiwanese Taidu, Falungong, and those influenced by Cold War mentality. Furthermore, the act was so contrived, and one has only to reason it took a dozen or two of Martin Lee-Szeto Wah democrats, together with Falungoners and Taidu, to dramatise the effect that HK must not be governed by CCP.
It was also one clever ploy of the Taidu to sabotage the 1C2S.
As one Hong Konger wished it, the 1C2s could never work.
May we ask who are actively fanning this seditious idea? First Taiwan. This is not the end. Second the Falungong websites waxed lyrical and encouraged the people to revolt. Surely it is no more a religious organisation based on meditation and health exercises - it is glaringly a political organisation taking on China?
Perhaps those who might have entertained the notion that the demonstration was a benign expression should consider that many demonstrators joined out of grievances for being disenfranchised from the freewheeling and perks of the British colonial era?
Could they be demanding the freedom to that untrammelled disorganised path and irresponsible attainment of wealth?
The ordinary people with no seditious intent against HK or the Mainland could not be bothered with Article 23. But they would come out in force if Article 23 were distorted as a legislation to curb their freedom to material wealth.
If we take the 500,000 in the streets (against Washington Post's 350,000) then that is less than 10% of the populace of HK.
We conclude that this less than 10% is the manipulated minority that masked the detachment of the silent majority to Article 23. The more than 90% majority were not taken in by Martin Lee's and Szeto Wah's distortion that Article 23 is also a danger to the freedom to make out a decent livelihood by them, as this could be 'abused' by HK authorities to disenfranchise those they disliked, even the harmless activity of making a decent living.
July 1 2003 demonstration is not as peaceful and benign as we are led to believe.
If mishandled, without an official enquiry of the cause in public, this would be a start of a fracturing of the 1C2S. As it is, this is the precursor to the frothing of the Hong Kong cauldron. Perhaps we need to look at the arrogance of some in power, and the blithe manner the legitimate fear and concern of the hoi polloi is brushed aside.
The impression conveyed would be: "Tremble and obey!"
Clearly this was never the intention of China, but if no damage control and good public relation organisations are in the aoffing, then vested groups will exploit further demos.
And if people of Hong Kong cause that fragmentation of the Chinese race, they will lose all the subsidy and special treatment hitherto enjoyed by them.
Are they playing into the hands of Taidu (Taiwan separatists)?
Or Just holding the 1C2S to ransom?
Lau Guan Kim
Singapore
| The above content represents the view of the author only. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
