Hong Kong's 'Rotten' Voting System

TIME Magazine discusses the upcoming Hong Kong Chief Executive election.

Whilst Hong Kong society is generally far more liberal than China, there is still along way to go before we have democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.

Hong Kong's people are not allowed to directly elect their own chief executive (CE), the title given to the de facto mayor. Instead, voting is by a 1,200-member Election Committee composed largely of business elites who take their cue from Beijing. The selection of the winner, already vetted by Beijing, is practically preordained; the system effectively prevents a pro-democracy candidate from taking office.

Source: TIME

Modern China, old fashioned disappearance

The whereabouts of artist Ai Wei Wei is still unknown after he was taken into custody by Chinese authorities as part of a major crackdown on dissent in China. Some have described as a return to the 'bad old days'.

The following is the timeline of his disappearance as reported by Western media.

October 11th 2010



November 8th 2010



March 7th 2011



April 3rd 2011


April 4th 2011


April 5th 2011

Photo: The Guardian

Massive disasters... and small gestures

A colossal natural disaster has struck Japan and as the world looks on and rallies around to help the stricken nation, the relationship between neighbours Japan and China is put in the spotlight.

When there has been strong animosity between two nations for many years, what happens when one of them is subject to a devastating natural event that causes loss of life on a huge, almost unimaginable scale?

When an earthquake struck Sichuan province in 2008 claiming the lives of around 90,000 people, China made the unprecedented move of accepting foreign help. Especially symbolic was the granting of permission for a Japanese team to join the rescue effort. They were first Japanese troops to set foot in China since World War Two.

The Japanese team did not locate any survivors (they were not allowed in until late into the operation) but they were thanked by Premier Wen and for many in China it was a small but meaningful gesture that (combined with an estimated 9 million USD in aid) hinted at the possibility of improved relations in the future.

Now the situation has been reversed. Some estimates have put the loss of life caused by the Sendai earthquake and tsunami at near Sichuan levels.

The Chinese Premier has expressed condolences and dispatched a 15-man rescue team. Aid of around 4.5 million USD has also been pledged.

Considering the scale of the disaster, it's not a lot. Yet even this contribution is more than what many Chinese would have offered Japan.

Such is the deep-rooted hatred felt towards the Japanese people amongst some Chinese, that some were openly celebrating the Sendai earthquake - cheering as though the event were some kind of moral or national victory.

Blog sinostand trawled the web as the tragedy in Japan unfolded and found some choice quotes (after initially finding many messages from people imploring their fellow Chinese not to celebrate the disaster):

“Japan earthquake, tsunami, oh ha ha ha ha ha. Brings satisfaction to everyone! Retribution, retribution ah!”

"We’re not small like Japan because we’re human beings, not pigs. Let little Japan suffer this little holocaust."

"Japan’s earthquake is worth celebrating. We should gloat. In the face of natural disasters, people are a country. Japanese people do not deserve sympathy. Give up the Diaoyu Islands, change the textbooks, then nothing will be wrong."

The last comment illustrates the source of these sentiments: war time atrocities and territorial disputes.

The writer of that article believes about there is a constant 20% of Chinese that hold these hard-line, anti-Japanese sentiments and that they run through all sections of Chinese society regardless of age or level of education.

The Japan Times published an article on Feb 27th 2011, just days before the disaster, in which a writer in Chengdu describes the deep-rooted mistrust of Japan amongst university-age Chinese. Its central quote is:

"What you must understand is we Chinese all hate Japanese."

heard by the author at a debate amongst students at Sichuan University.

Now that the full scale of the Japan disaster is unfolding, perhaps these views are not being expressed as openly but the lingering animosity is unlikely to go away.

A rescue team here, a few million dollars there. When disasters of such magnitude only result in such relatively small gestures, is there really any hope that these two countries will one day reconcile and put past differences aside?

Perhaps they are just the first, tentative steps in improving relations between the two countries? If only we didn't need huge tragedies and thousands of deaths to instigate them.

Story: Global Times

Story: International Business Times

'Dancing with Shackles On': A short film about the internet, China and freedom

Interesting viewing...

Dancing with shackles on from Janek Zdzarski on Vimeo.

via Danwei.org

Unhappy China forces Nobel boycott and launches own 'Peace Prize'

In an unusually overt and high-profile move, China has made its displeasure with the Nobel Foundation well and truly known by setting up its own rival 'Peace Prize'. The Confucius Peace Prize is to be awarded one day before writer and human rights activist Liu Xiaobo is honoured as the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Liu has been imprisoned by the Chinese authorities since December 2009 for subversion - his fourth prison term for political offences - and his awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize has seriously aggravated the Communist Party, unsurprisingly.

So much so that it has threatened consequences for other countries if they participate in the prize ceremony which has been held annually since 1901. The threat has been enough to cause 18 nations not to attend.

State news agency XinHuanet says:

Everyone knows that Liu Xiaobo, who is supposed to be "honored" in a ceremony in Oslo on Friday, is an imprisoned criminal and what he has done has nothing to do with "peace. Why did the Committee select Liu as this year's winner?

The answer is clear: Liu has done everything he could to subvert the Chinese government, and that suits the strategy of some organizations and people in the West toward China

Liu was one of the authors of Charter 08, a political manifesto published in 2008 which called for political reform and an end to one party rule in China.

He also played an instrumental part in persuading many students to leave Tiananmen Square during the 1989 protests, saving many lives. Ironically, for those actions he was dubbed one of the "Four junzis of Tiananmen Square". Junzi is a term meaning an exemplary, commendable person and was coined by... Confucius.

Liu is serving an 11 year sentence to run until 2020.


Story: Daily Telegraph

Related: Liu Xiaboa, Wikipedia

Related: XinHua

80% of earthquake disaster donations went to Chinese government

A recent study by Beijing's Tsinghua University has discovered that the vast majority of money donated by people for earthquake disaster relief actually went to the government, who then spent the money as though it were part of normal state income.

Unlike in the other countries where charitable donations usually go directly to charities or non-governmental organizations which then use the money to fund their activities, NGOs in China are not, it is reported, capable of carrying out activities such as delivering aid, building shelters and so on. As a result, the money raised is held by the government instead and they decide what to spend it on.

This means that the many relief appeals that happened after the Sichuan earthquake were, in effect, fundraising for the Chinese government itself.

I suppose if China eventually spends all of the donated money on disaster relief, then technically there isn't a problem but it does mix things up a bit. For example, how do you know if aid money isn't being spent on things the government should be paying for out of its own pocket? Realistically, there is no way of keeping track of donations once they go into the government coffers. Earlier this year there was a scandal over government officials using earthquake aid money to buy expensive luxury cars.

I prefer a system where you donate to a charity and the money kept and used by the charity but it looks like that is not possible in China.

In May of this year, the People's Daily reported that China received about 76.7 billion yuan in donations and that "Most of the donations have been or will be spent on the construction of new houses, schools, medical institutions, welfare and cultural facilities for local people." That article doesn't say how much the government is spending of its own money on the disaster.

This article from the Telegraph suggests that official government aid amounts to 1 to 2 billion yuan, a small amount in comparison, and even that is generated from a public lottery.

Story: Danwei

Related: Sichuan Earthquake: Red Cross Appeal Info

Two videos for 6/4

Former Communist Party official Bao Tong has been exiled by the Chinese authorities for the part he played in smuggling out the secret memoirs of ousted Party General Secretary Zhao Ziyang.

Zhao was a reformer on the side of the student protesters who was in favour of democracy for China. His smuggled memoirs have just been published in a book, 'Prisoner of the State', which lifts the lid on the inner workings of the Communist Party. It certainly looks like an interesting read. The Telegraph as published some extracts.

Secondly, a profile of Chai Ling, a Tiananmen Square student activist now forging a career in the West:

Jackie Chan's awkward position, and the controversy within a controversy

This is the video of Jackie Chan's recent comments about Chinese people needing to be 'controlled' that sparked such an angry response from many Chinese commentators. His comments were made during an interview about mainland media regulation.

In case you hadn't heard, Yahoo News (and others) have reported that:

A group of mainland Chinese academics and media professionals wrote an open letter calling Chan the "spoiled brat" of the Chinese race.

"You are born in Hong Kong, a free Hong Kong which provides you with excellent conditions to become an internationally renowned martial arts star," the letter said.

"You are now the cream of the crop, and yet you don't know the importance of freedom."

There have even been calls for boycotts of Chan's movies and concerts. The main part of what Chan said that caused such anger was:

In these ten years -I grew up in Hong Kong- I slowly felt, I don't know how much freedom we should have. Too much freedom and we'll be like Hong Kong right now, very chaotic. Or become like Taiwan, also very chaotic. I slowly feel like we Chinese needs to controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want.

If we don't control things, we'll do things as we wish. Why can't I eat gum in Singapore? You would think that not being allowed to eat gum is correct. If I give you gum, some people might take the gum and stick it on tables, put it on chairs without self-respect."

It is hard to read such comments and not see them as being critical of Hong Kong, so I think the anger of people in the SAR is understandable.

But that initial controversy has spawned its own controversies with Chinese bloggers claiming Chan's words have been misinterpreted, with some even claiming that it is an evil Western conspiracy.

CN Reviews claims the furore is the fault of the evil 'Western media'

"Westerners look like they’re frothing at the bits to use anything they can to paint China in a negative political light: “Oh look, even lovable kung-fu funny-man Jackie Chan has betrayed his own, selling out both himself and his kind to the evil Communist regime!” To which the Western masses reply in unison: “Gasp!”"

That's an extreme reaction, I think. Chan's comments were indeed critical of Hong Kong, or 'his own', the place that made him a star. And I think most people would accept that Chinese entertainment figures are indeed very careful not to upset Chinese authorities in the interests of their career. I don't think that's a crazy invention of the Western media.

EastSouthWestNorth chose to interpret Chan's words differently, coming up with a translation that doesn't use the inflammatory word 'control':

If there is too much freedom, it becomes like Hong Kong today ... very chaotic ... furthermore, it becomes like Taiwan ... it is also very chaotic ... eh ... I have slowly come to realize that we the Chinese people need regulation ... If there is no regulation and we suddenly opened up, we can do whatever we want.

Even if that is a grammatically correct translation (and I'm not the one to judge that), I'm not sure if the meaning is exactly right as Chan actually talks about personal freedoms and behaviour before and after the quote in question - not the sort of things usually referred to in English as 'regulation'.

cfensi blog also chose to translate the line differently as:

"I slowly feel like we Chinese needs to control. If we don't control things, we'll do things as we wish."

i.e. not 'be controlled', but to do the controlling.

What seems to have been missed in all the analysis is that however you translate the comments, the point he is making is basically the same when you look at the entire speech.

I would suggest that what Chan actually meant in his off-the-cuff remark was that Chinese people need rule of law. If we don't have rule of law, we'll do things as we wish. I base that on the fact that he talks about freedoms in Hong Kong immediately before, and laws in Singapore immediately after the comment in question. Is that simple statement something many of us would dispute?

My take on this whole thing is that for Chan, being asked about Chinese media regulation put him in an uncomfortable spot because he recently had a movie banned in China for being too violent. The journalist may have been hoping the actor would make a comment about his own movie being denied a release but Chan chose (perhaps diplomatically) not to do that and instead broadened his answer to make a generalised statement that ended up being in favour of control (or regulation).

To me, it seems he was just performing a difficult balancing act whilst in an awkward position - something Jackie Chan is very used to doing!

Related: The journalist who asked the original question responds

Sort out this Gurkha veterans mess

It's shocking and baffling how the British government can dither, delay and prevent granting older Gurkha veterans the right to resettle in Britain. There ought to be no question that these Nepalese soldiers who were prepared to put their lives on the line fighting in the British Army, not in defence of their own homeland but in British military campaigns, should be granted the right to live here if they so choose.

Gurkhas who retired after 1997 do have the right to resettle the UK but Gurkhas who stopped serving before that date do not. This is what the current campaign is fighting for.

Some interesting figures:

Maximum number of Gurkhas that might want to be resettled in the UK (includes every Gurkha claiming a pension plus 2 dependents each): 75,000

Estimated number of illegal immigrants in the UK: 725,000.

The disputed, worst-case scenario cost of resettling Gurkhas cited by Gordon Brown: £1.4billion.

Cost of war in Iraq in one year: £2 billion.

It should be simple and quick to sort this out: Grant older veterans the right to live here now. Many of them won't even take up the offer, they just want the dignity of having that right. Take the cost from the defence budget. And if the government feels it can no longer afford to grant Gurkha veterans this right, then just stop using them in the British Army. Simple, isn't it?

Story: Ministers in disarray as Gurkhas strike again

"This is a scandal!" (not sandal)

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao today joined the short list of world leaders who have had shoes thrown at them by angry protesters. You can see the immediate aftermath of the incident in this clip:



'Shame on you!' shout some observers in the crowd.

On the other hand, should we consider ourselves fortunate to live in a free society where such protests - shameful or not - can at least happen without the protesters being shipped off to a labour camp and never seen again?

Article: The Times

It would be an ironic twist if the shoe turned out to be made in China, wouldn't it?

CCTV: "Can we censor Obama's live speech? Yes, we can!"

This is the moment China's state-controlled TV channel CCTV decided part of Barack Obama's inaugural speech was a little, shall we say, unacceptable and hurriedly cut to a newsreader in their studio who seemed a bit surprised to be suddenly on camera.

The clip below shows what millions of viewers in China would have seen and gives an interesting insight into how an event we all watched freely in the UK would have been modified for us, had we been in China.

The line that triggered the cut-off was:

"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions."

I wonder if viewers realised what was happening?

Bloggers have also posted that another part of the speech that contained the line

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist"

has been left out of transcripts on some Chinese websites such as Sina.com.

I wonder if in this case, attempts to censor the speech have backfired and simply focussed attention on those sections that were 'interrupted'? At least those in China with internet access can now view his entire speech with subtitles, thanks to video sharing site Youku.com

Edit: Out of curiosity I've been searching for reports of similar censorship in Russia or Cuba. So far, I haven't found any.

China and America becoming one intertwined economy - 'Chimerica'

I don't know if any of you caught the interesting programme The Ascent of Money on Channel 4 last night but the presenter Niall Ferguson put forward the interesting idea that China's and America's economies have become so intricately connected and interdependent, that you can start to treat them as one, unified economic system - one he calls Chimerica.

I could find a clip of the original Channel 4 programme online, but here is an interview with Niall Ferguson where he discusses this idea (Sorry for the weird look of the video!). It's interesting stuff considering how the USA and China are considered as being diametrically opposed, politically. Talk about a love/hate relationship!:

Re-education, China-style

Photo: New York Times

After China's Olympic dream, a dose of reality...

I found this interesting report from Slate.com about China's policy of 're-education through labour'.

Criticized by some both inside and outside China, the system allows detention without criminal charges for up to four years and is often used against local dissidents who wish to do nothing more sinister than stage a protest.

The Slate article begins with the case of Wu Dianyuan and Wang Xiuying, two women in their 70s sentenced to year of re-education through labour because they wanted to complain about the amount of compensation they were offered for being forced to move as a result of local re-development works.

The emphasis in re-education-through-labor is on the labor: People sentenced to so-called laojiao may spend as much as 12 to 14 hours a day, according to some accounts, doing work like construction, making bricks, or mining. (U.S. Customs investigations have also implicated Chinese prison labor in the production of binder clips and diesel engines.)

That work serves as both a means of punishment and as a major source of revenue for a camp.

Full story: Slate.com

Another bbc blog to add to the roster...

Madam Miaow, a name I recognise from both Dimsum and the (what used to be called) britishbornchinese.org.uk messageboards has her own blog:

Madam Miaow says ...

Embarrassingly, she has opted for the same Blogger template as me, which must be the blogging equivalent of turning up at a party in the same outfit. Luckily, I don't think the latter is ever going to happen!

Related: bbcs on the BBC: 'Chinese in Britain'

Chinese security personnel fight Tibet protesters... on the streets of London.

The parade of the Olympic torch through London last Sunday turned into a debacle as several Tibet protesters broke through police cordons and managed to seriously disrupt the procession.

What was meant to be a brilliant public relations exercise designed to generate public excitement about the Beijing Olympics in 2008 turned instead into a chaotic mess that will be viewed as a success by pro-Tibet activists, and which has inadvertently managed to reinforce a negative image of China.

There has been a lot of disquiet expressed about the Chinese 'heavies' running alongside the torch during the parade and the manner in which they behaved when there was trouble.



Who were these mysterious men in tracksuits with earpieces shouting orders?

What jurisdiction did they have to manhandle members of the public, potentially causing injury to either themselves or others? Were they the ones running the show or was it the Metropolitan police, who were also there alongside them in great numbers?

You can see more footage of the clashes here.

Some observers felt that the altercations they witnessed on TV were a unpleasant taste of Communist China style policing taking place on British soil. And they didn't like it:

One protester who managed to break through the police cordon, David Allen said his anger at the parading of the torch through the capital flared at the sight of British sporting stars being guarded in the streets of London by Chinese security men. "What really got my goat was our sporting heroes being surrounded by the Chinese security heavies guarding the torch," he said. "It makes us complicit in the regime's repression. You have to ask, 'Where were these security men last week?' Beating up people in the villages of China, no doubt."

Article: International Herald Tribune

Well, that may be an exaggeration but according to Reuters, the specially selected 'torch attendants' were indeed hand picked from the ranks of the same armed police force that would have been patrolling the streets of Lhasa.

Employed by the Beijing Olympic Organising Committee (BOCOG), the "flame protection squad" was formed in August 2007 to safeguard the fire 24 hours a day on its 137,000-km (85,130-mile), 130-day relay, state media have reported.

Its members were picked from the ranks of the People's Armed Police, the security force spun off from the army that is responsible for riot control and domestic stability. Tens of thousands of "wujing", as they are called in Chinese, have been deployed to Tibet and neighbouring areas to quash recent unrest.

Article: Reuters

In an unguarded comment, London Olympics chief Sebastian Coe is reported to have said about the Chinese security guards: "One thing in Paris is to get rid of those guys. They tried to push me out of the way three times. They are horrible. They did not speak English. They were thugs."

Article: Daily Mail

A further sense of how some British people feel about this incident can be found on the Guido Fawkes blog 'Order Order', a well known political blog specializing in British parliamentary matters. It was especially critical of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's decision to be involved in the ceremony:

Article: Chinese Goons in Downing Street

A selection of some of the comments:

"Very worrying to see UK police surpressing protesters with the help of blue track suited Chinese special forces. The touch relay has nothing to do with the Olympics and everything to do with Chinese propaganda. We in the UK are somewhat free sometimes to protest, totally unlike those long hard suffering Tibetan people."

"The Met should have arrested one or two to make a point that the Chinese may be able to shove people around in Tibet but not in Downing Street. This whole debacle did nothing for this country"

"We were deeply ashamed to watch the whole damning episode on last night's news. There's really nothing even faintly amusing that can be said about seeing this embarrassing farrago and the disgusting sight of Chinese security men taking precedence in London streets and outside No 10."

"Why should I have to pay for some Chinese Properganda ON MY SOIL? Then to top it all off there was the sight of some Chinese stormtroopers marching in formation down Downing Street pushing people and ordering them about for a photo-op"

"I particularly liked the black leather gloves sported by the chinese secret police, all the better for smacking any protesters around."

Clearly the presence of the torch attendants did not go down well. So why wasn't the whole thing managed by the UK police? Well, in the aftermath the police have blamed the Beijing Olympic Committee for making many of the key decisions about the parade and the chaos that ensued.

I have to admit it's hard to imagine experienced, local London cops running an event in such a mismanaged and chaotic way as was seen that day.

Related: Olympic Spirit Comes to Britain

Related: Clashes along Olympic torch route

China clamps down in Tibet. How long can this go on?

Apologies for the lack of updates but I've been a little busy with work recently.

I'm sure you will have seen the recent news about the protests and violence in Lhasa, Tibet which started on the 49th anniversary of a failed uprising against Communist rule.

The protests are reported to have led to a number of civilian deaths (16 according to Chinese authorities, 100 according to Tibetan exiles monitoring the protests). It seems likely that some Han Chinese citizens have been attacked by Tibetans, and that the Chinese authorities have used force against the Tibetans although reliable figures are never easy to come by in these situations.

There are now reports that protests are spreading beyond Lhasa and that in response military personnel and equipment are being drafted in by the authorities.

Meanwhile British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made his stance clear by agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama when he visits the UK.


I think amongst bbcs you will find differing opinions on the issue of Tibet. I may be in a minority but I actually agree with calls for Tibet to be granted autonomy or even full independence.

I find it difficult to understand how any Chinese official can legitimately say to Tibetans that their homeland is part of China whether they like it or not.

The anti-independence arguments that I have read all seem incredibly flimsy and irrelevant. They cite historical claims of sovereignty over the territory and fears that granting Tibet independence would incite other territories to do the same. To which my honest answer is, 'So what?'

I think that when the population of part of a country consistently calls for independence, the worst thing a government can do is to use force to suppress those calls. It seems to me much more sensible and practical to start a dialogue and be willing to make some concessions. Why?

Because suppressing the will of the Tibetans with force is counterproductive. It uses up the state's resources needlessly, creates resentment, violence and aggression, and it clearly shows China as an oppressive, dictatorial state in the eyes the world. So really, why bother?

I think it would actually serve China's interests to grant Tibet a degree of autonomy and end this policy of forced integration. If other territories want to follow suit, then let them enter negotiations too.

A smaller, united China is far better than a larger, divided one in my opinion.

At the moment Tibet is a lose-lose situation for China and I hope it isn't long before a new, peaceful approach is tried in solving the Tibet problem.


Related: Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy
Related: Free Tibet
Related: Tibet protests chronology
Related: Tibet protest hits warriors show
Related: China acknowledges spread of Tibet protests

Poll: "Should we be afraid of China's might?"

The London Evening Standard is running a poll asking readers whether we should 'be concerned about Chinese companies buying British firms?'

Click here to cast your vote.

As of 9:00 pm, the poll stood at 70% Yes, 30% No

Related: Burberry may soon be 'Made in China'

Thousands in latest HK democracy demonstration

Photo: Reuters

There was another pro-democracy march in HK today. This time it was in response to the announcement by China that Hong Kongers shouldn't expect full democracy for another ten years at least

Last month China decided to delay the introduction of full democracy in Hong Kong from 2012 to 2017, with elections of the entire legislative council potentially stalled until 2020.

The reason given was (reportedly) that the people of Hong Kong lacked the political maturity to cope with democracy - they are simply not ready. The protest was aimed at proving this wrong.

Reuters reports:

"We want universal suffrage in 2012. Return our right for universal suffrage," the crowds chanted into loudhailers.

"Hong Kong's democratic development has been too slow, we want it to be faster," said protester Irene Wong, who works in the financial sector and marched with several friends.

Whilst Australia's ABC reports:

"Analysts say Beijing fears that a move to unhindered democracy could spark the same demand on the Chinese mainland and fuel social unrest in the country."

I think that's actually the real issue here: Beijing knows, I think, that Hong Kong is ready and able to cope with democracy. It's the rest of China that they're worried about, and how it can hold back or deal with demands for democracy right across the country.

Story: ABC (Australia)
Story: Reuters

Swim Donald Swim!

Whilst most of the city of Hong Kong is impressively clean and well maintained (especially when compared to London), the same cannot be said for its surrounding waters. In recent years there has been growing concern about the levels of pollution in the waters around Hong Kong with salmonella and tuberculosis amongst the bugs thought to be present, not to mention sewage and industrial toxic waste.

Earlier this year the makers of the new Batman film decided not to film a stunt that would have involved stuntmen and actors swimming in Hong Kong harbour. The press claimed that this was due to the filthiness of the water but that idea was later debunked by the film's director. The fact remains, though, that most people see the water around Hong Kong as unclean.

The situation has prompted a campaign in Hong Kong named 'Swim! Donald Swim!' The challenge laid down by the campaign is for Donald Tsang to demonstrate that he has delivered on his promise to clean up Hong Kong by swimming from Central to Tsim Sha Tsui.

Check out the official campaign homepage here: Swim! Donald Swim!

I like the cheekiness and the humour of the campaign - it's very Hong Kong. As to whether we will ever see Tsang put on his swimsuit (perhaps with a specially customized, waterproof bow tie?) and do what the campaign demands, only time will tell.

Related: Batman director says Hong Kong harbor pollution did not force scene cut

Donald Tsang apologizes after citing Cultural Revolution as an example of democracy

Chief Executive and bastion of Hong Kong's bow tie manufacturing industry Donald Tsang found himself in hot water this week after an RTHK radio interview (above) in which he cited China's Cultural Revolution as an extreme example of the consequences of 'people taking power into their own hands'.

The Cultural Revolution wrecked China's economy and education system, resulted in millions of citizens being victimised and persecuted and is thought to have resulted in half a million deaths. Wikipedia.

Tsang's comment was widely condemned.

"It’s outrageous. The Cultural Revolution was in fact mob rule and it showed a total failure of democracy," said Albert Ho, chairman of the Democratic party in Hong Kong.

"The damage to Tsang’s credibility is already done and people will doubt his commitment to democracy. His remark, made off-the-cuff, shows his genuine feelings towards democracy."

After a barrage of criticism, Tsang issued an apology but it remains to be seen how the incident will affect his not exactly solid standing as a politician and statesman.

"I am very sorry that I made an inappropriate remark concerning the Cultural Revolution… I wish to retract that remark," Tsang said in a short statement, adding that he shared the same aspirations as Hong Kong people in wanting to implement universal suffrage as soon as possible. "

Source.