China’s Two Sessions(plenums of the National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference) are currently being held in Beijing. Hong Kong people are extraordinarily concerned about the discussion regarding Hong Kong political affairs. It seems that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is resolved to bypass the political reform procedure stipulated in the Basic Law, and override the local law-making power of the SAR government. Despite the final details of the solution not yet declared, Hong Kong’s “political reform” is to be legislated by the highest echelons of the state and party. Looking at the tidings circulating among the masses, one will find that the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) for the Election Committee, which have been dumped for a long time, are rumored to be coming back and substantially increase, while the number of seats for geographical constituencies drastically decline, and the seats for District Council members vanish. In terms of the general direction things are heading over, what all this suggests is the CCP is keen on gaining the total control of the election results in Hong Kong, as well as turning imaginations such as “35+”, which could not really happen in the original system, into fantasies, or even something people dare not contemplate, under the new system.

A series of proceedings including the groundless and excessive indictments against the 47 pro-democracy activists, “patriots ruling Hong Kong” redefined by Xia Baolong and the CCP exceeding its position to meddle with the “political reform” have simply shown that the CCP is wild about purging the opposition camp in Hong Kong from stem to stern. That said, the reshuffle of Hong Kong political forces carried out by the CCP is not sheerly levelled at the pro-democracy camp. Tian Feillong, one of the “guardians” of the CCP and an executive director of the One Country Two Systems Legal Studies Centre, professed that even if a new election system is to be implemented in Hong Kong, Beijing will not appreciate “rubber stamps or loyal good-for-nothings”, and those taking up the positions must be “capable and virtuous patriots”. Though he did not single out anyone by name, the insinuations he made about the pro-establishment camp and even the SAR government functionaries are evident. An overhaul of the pro-establishment camp is essential in the restructuring of Hong Kong blueprinted in Beijing. After all, how the political development of Hong Kong ended up can be mainly ascribed to their incompetence.

What are “loyal good-for-nothings”? Guardian Tian did not elaborate clearly. However, the anti-pandemic measures taken by the SAR government recently are perfect examples of the phrase. As regards the simple vaccination project, had the government got it done scientifically, it would have been administered without a hitch. Yet, operated by “loyal” Carrie Lam, it boiled down to politics at every turn, and what she did turned out to be a clumsy sleight of hand. In the first place, she tried to toady to the state and party by ensuring a certain proportion of the population inoculated with the China-developed Sinovac vaccine, which is not widely trusted in, and declining to let the citizens choose their own vaccine. Consequently, the citizens became even more doubtful about the vaccine. She remained unswerving in her decision until Macao SAR announced its citizens were allowed to pick their own dose. Later on, when Sinovac arrived, Carrie Lam, aged 63, turned a blind eye to the medical instructions that people aged above 60 or suffering from chronic diseases are not advised to get vaccinated with it, and took the initiative with a bunch of pro-establishment notables aged above 60 to get a jab in order to put on a show “thanking the party for the vaccine”. Worse still, trying to be a smart-aleck, she went so far as to put no restriction on the people getting jabbed, and even let the elderly have it first. Eventually, three people died after getting vaccinated. Brushing aside whether the three died of inoculation, Carrie Lam’s “loyalty” gives rise to distrust among Hong Kong people of the China-developed vaccine and even the mainland, which is not conducive to improving the relationship between Hong Kong people and the Chinese Hong Kong government. Who else is she if she is not a good-for-nothing?

What is interesting is that notwithstanding her character flaws, she is supposed to be literate as a veteran Administrative Officer fostered in the British colony. Why did she turn away from the medical instructions? Why was she not be able to simply “play by the book”? What turned a HKU elite who used to rank number one in class every year into a good-for-nothing? The crux lies in “loyalty”. Being loyal will not make one stupid, but imbecility is generated when everyone is forced to be obedient to the leader of a totalitarian system in the name of “loyalty”. Firstly, obedience does not allow of independent thinking and dissent. Secondly, the leader of a totalitarian regime will bungle. Last but not least, implementers who are absolutely obedient will not remind them, but just escalate the imbecility.

At the beginning of the Second Word War, the army of Nazi Germany made a clean sweep of the battles in continental Europe without a single good match. The Allies were daunted by the outstanding command abilities of German generals such as Heinz Guderian, Erwin Rommel and Erich von Manstein, while Adolf Hitler, who was incapable of engaging in military affairs, ascended to the summit of power, and trampled one-thirds of Europe underfoot, just because of putting his trust in those specialists. Nevertheless, under a totalitarian system, any achievement is attributed to “the great leader”, while any mistake is ascribed to “improper implementation”. When the tables were being turned in the war, the rift between Hitler, who was ignorant of military strategy, and those battlefield veterans were widening. The generals who remonstrated with the dictator about what should not be done because of their loyalty to Germany were deemed disobedient, and those who, for turning the tide, were in defiance of orders given by Hitler were reckoned having committed a crime. Gradually, under Hitler’s “command and deployment in person”, the competent generals either gave up their independent thinking and became executors who were absolutely obedient to the leader, or were replaced with the obedient, put in idle positions, and even penalized. Thus, the failure of Nazi Germany was then inevitable.

With the requirement that everyone is absolutely obedient to a totalitarian leader, in the end, elites and specialists in the system will either become “loyal good-for-nothings”, or be replaced with “loyal good-for-nothings”. It applies to Nazi Germany as well as Hong Kong nowadays. To this end, Carrie Lam, all the well-educated government officials and political and business elites have been turned into “good-for-nothings” one step at a time under a totalitarian regime. The requirement put forward by Tian Feillong – be both “capable” and “virtuous” – is an antinomy, and is patently impossible. Maybe what is gratifying is that is the way a totalitarian regime rides for a fall.

(Lam Hoi, journalist)

Click here for Chinese version

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play