‘An English-speaking Mao Zedong’|Lee Yee
In mid-November, a friend of mine, a youngster, texted me: “He’s really stingy.” I replied: “It’s OK! Even though we have been holding different views for years, he has been putting up with my audacity.”
Since we met because of June 4 at a dinner with other pro-democracy movement figures, we have been acquainted with each other for more than 30 years, during which we had frequent dealings and contact with one another for a number of years. Asked by him about how much money was needed for running a magazine, I, the operator of The 90s, a business with small capital, told him to put in ten times of mine for a weekly publication. In the end, he invested a hundred times of it in running the most influential magazine that cornered the market in town. Later on, he founded a newspaper which also changed the media ecology in Hong Kong, initiating an unprecedented market setting all at once.
Inspired by the democracy movement in Beijing to switch to another line of work, he surely did it for his compassion for China. I used to have it myself, and it stayed strong until June 4, after which I merely hoped for the indigenous values of Hong Kong to be preserved. In light of the Handover being imperative under the circumstances, to get the democratization of Hong Kong moving seemed to be the only way out, though I reckoned the chance of success was slender as well.
In terms of our beliefs in freedom, democracy and the rule of law, there hasn’t been much difference between us. As to our outlooks on the prospect of democracy of China and Hong Kong, I have always been pessimistic while he has always taken the opposite view. It is understandable because pessimism is never an obstacle to my writing while it is to an operation of such a big media business.
In 2005, I was invited by him to become a writer-turned-editor in charge of the opinion page. He promised me back then he would never meddle in my editorial orientation. As I recommended on purpose a commentator who had fallen foul of the paper, he consented without hesitation. It’s a shame that I was finally turned down by that commentator.
From being an editor to being fired nine years later, from writing editorials to writing a column, I have been disagreeing with him on a number of issues over the last decade: localists versus pro-Greater China camp, freedom of discussion about independence, evaluation of the youths and the valiant, support for or criticisms of the pan-democratic alliance, “conspiracy theories” in all previous elections… But as my boss, he has been putting up with me, delivering to me his opposite viewpoints through somebody else. And he never hampered me from publishing articles I showed him in advance that bluntly criticized him.
With his compassion for Greater China, opening up of China was definitely appealing to him. As far as I know, China did try quite a number of times to take him in in its united front work. There was an occasion that one of his good friends met him in Taiwan, saying to him that he was invited by the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) to pay a visit to China, that he was to be allowed to run newspapers there about everything – entertainments, sports and the society, except for politics, and that in view of the growing economy of China, he would earn a big fortune. No sooner had he finished listening to it than he called the security guards to send the guest off. Later, he explained to me why he did it so abruptly instead of euphemizing. He said he was actually afraid of not being able to resist the enticement, and that he would abstain from the principle of distancing himself from the power. Listening to the story about his being aware he would get feeble, I admired him in all sincerity.
At whiles I just think he displeased the CCP not because of his words and deeds, but the fact that he couldn’t tell good from bad. Who couldn’t be bought off? Not least he’s just a businessman. That was just so riling!
When the publication began in Taiwan, I was told that according to the tacit business regulation in Taiwan, kickbacks had to be given to those who were empowered to do ad placements from the clients’ side. Yet the boss disapproved of it, which made things difficult for the staff in the advertising department. I asked him why he couldn’t bend the rule a little. He said as we kept laying bare under-the-table deals among politicians and businessmen, it was hard to justify ourselves if we also engaged in the same dirty deals. He is really somebody who insists on complying with laws, attaches importance to rules and ethics. Whenever I think of such a person being imprisoned, I feel sorrowful about him and the society.
It has been more than a year since last time I got in touch with him that he gave me a call asking me to stop writing my memoir for a few days to talk about the anti-extradition movement in my column in March last year. That was the only time he has ever suggested a writing topic for me. I agreed for I was going to do the same thing.
The youngsters in touch with me have always been discontent with him and his paper because of a lot of events over more than a decade, but I have always told them to take a look at a bigger picture. He is said to be an English-speaking Mao Zedong in the newsroom. Maybe it’s true. Mao’s merits and demerits aside, his manifest stubbornness and insane words and deeds showed he was somebody that would achieve something big. Winston Churchill was also an eccentric and moody person, but he did a marvelous feat against all odds. It seems Trump belongs to the same category, so does he.
「churchill saying」的推薦目錄:
churchill saying 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
Without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half (Lee Yee
Yesterday the Xinhua News Agency ann
unced that the Hong Kong version of national security law would be included on the agenda of the coming meeting of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Just a day after, Tam Yiu Chung, a member of the Committee, said he didn’t receive any information about the arrangement. The ridiculous fact that the agenda can be suddenly updated without any advance notice proves again the Committee is nothing more than a rubber stamp. If this can happen to an organization of national level, how can one expect the local officials here in Hong Kong to have any free will?
The aforementioned arrangement is clearly a deliberate delay so as to wait for the outcome of the Hawaii meeting between Yang Jie-chi and Pompeo. Possibly, to avoid severe sanctions from the US, Beijing has tried to trade off with a milder version of the national security law in Hong Kong. As things unfolded, after 7 hours of “constructive” dialogue, the negotiation just broke down. Right after that, the updated agenda was announced and the spokesperson of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated, “China’s determination to push for a national security law in Hong Kong is unshakeable.”
Obviously, the Legislative Council (LegCo) election in September is the reason why Beijing is rushing the Hong Kong version national security law through. Tsang Kwok-wai, the Secretary for Hong Kong’s Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, publicly stated that those who are against the national security law are putting their loyalty to the People’s Republic of China to suspicion. This in fact provides a ready-made excuse to disqualify candidates in the coming election. In view of this, all pro-democracy candidates will have to face a very difficult dilemma: be expressive of their standpoint about the national security law and get disqualified, or go against their will, support it and get casted aside by their supporters.
The Hong Kong version of national security law is simply against common sense. Recently, Cheng Yeuk-wah, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice, stated that it is “unreasonable and unrealistic” to expect the law to be implemented in accordance to the principles of the common law, and the addition of a sunset clause to it is something “unnecessary”. Such saying is clearly a violation of the Basic Law, which outlines that Hong Kong maintains the common law system. What’s more, it is inappropriate to put the Hong Kong version of national security law in Annex III, which is made for national laws only. From a more practical point of view, It is scary for the general public to a see such happenings as the arbitrary implementation of the law, direct enforcement of it by mainland officials and the possible trials by courts in China.
All these are evidence that the protection of the Basic Law no longer exists. The sad reality is that the people of Hong Kong can only choose to emigrate, or stay but live without freedom. With the threat of the national security law and extensive disqualification, the prospect of the pro-democracy camp in the upcoming election is extremely gloomy, and the chance to have them dominating the Legislative Coumcil has virtually vanished.
On the other hand, it is worth noticing that on online forums popular among the young, the majority tends to support the implementation of the national security law, oppose the bargaining approach of the legal circle and pro-democracy camp, and prefer harsh American sanctions. But make no mistake, the young are no supporters of the legislation. They are rather diehard fans of the “mutual destruction” proposition.
The current situation just reminds me of a scene in a movie from the 80s called “Out of Africa”. While confronting a pride of lions, the hero suggests that the heroine should not run, because the gesture will just invite the beasts to pounce against her. Instead, if one doesn’t flinch, it eases the danger. And soon the lions go away.
As Churchill once said: “One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”
churchill saying 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的精選貼文
【律政司真係好失禮同丟架】
今天出席法庭聆訊,除了提到律政司的呈堂證供列表裡,竟包括不知警方從甚麼途徑得來的「黃之鋒手機訊息交流記錄」(明明我從沒向警員提供密碼),亦值得講講申請更改保釋條件,要求到牛津大學辯論社(Oxford Union)發表演說的情況。
當時在庭上,資深大律師駱應淦替我讀出和遞上牛津大學辯論社官方邀請信,提到自1823年成立以來,Oxford Union邀請所有演講嘉賓,包括邱吉爾、列根、尼克遜、卡特、愛因斯坦、德蘭修女、達賴喇嘛、登月第二人Buzz Aldrin、馬拉拉、Malcolm X……無論任何身份和背景,都會按照傳統親身到現場演講,並與學府精英交流。
即使駱大狀已說明Oxford Union不設任何視象通訊設備,亦強調這是對於二百多年傳統的尊重,律政司的代表律師(即檢控官)仍在庭上一尾堅持「為何不能用視象通話方式進行呢」,實在匪夷所思,更反映政府何等失禮和丟架。
最終,法庭在無給予原因和理由下拒絕我的離港申請,這給予國際社會一個怎樣的訊息,大家心裡有數。
https://twitter.com/joshuawongcf/status/1207641085515689984
It is my honour to be invited by the Oxford Union to give a speech. However, even with such a formal invitation, I am still barred from travelling abroad by the court and Department of Justice to share our thoughts on Hong Kong and call for more global support.
Nothing can be more ridiculous when US Presidents Reagan, Nixon, and Carter, Sir Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein and Malcolm X to Mother Teresa, Sir Elton John, the Dalai Lama, Anna Wintour, Malala Yousafzai, Buzz Aldrin, Gloria Steinem all had to speak in person, HKGov just asked me to stay in HK and speak via Skype.
The decision turns out to be more ironical when the Union mentioned in its letter saying, “It would be an honour if you were to continue this fine tradition.”Doubtless, the prosecution is limiting my freedom of movement even before I am found guilty. It is a deliberate attempt to reduce the international awareness of the Hong Kong democracy movement.
churchill saying 在 Quote attributed to... - The International Churchill Society 的推薦與評價
Here we go again: A questionable Winston Churchill quote caught our fact-checking attention, continuing the trend of social media users posting bogus quotes ... ... <看更多>
churchill saying 在 52 Churchill quotes ideas - Pinterest 的推薦與評價
He really said it, October 29, 1941: Churchill, 'never give in' (Quote of the Moment). More information. Winston Churchill · Churchill Quotes. ... <看更多>