Like Tree22Likes

CY Leung isn't even communist

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    345

    CY Leung isn't even communist

    Nice observation by the famous economics professor, Paul Krugman:

    So Mr. Leung is worried about the 50 percent of Hong Kong’s population that, he believes, would vote for bad policies because they don’t make enough money. This may sound like the 47 percent of Americans who Mitt Romney said would vote against him because they don’t pay income taxes and, therefore, don’t take responsibility for themselves, or the 60 percent that Representative Paul Ryan argued pose a danger because they are “takers,” getting more from the government than they pay in. Indeed, these are all basically the same thing.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/op...ios-share&_r=2

    CY Leung is very right wing. He would fit in well with the Republican party in the US. CY Leung's quote is very much comparable to Mitt Romney's 47 percent quote.

    So much for communism. In fact, CY Leung is at the opposite end of the spectrum as communism.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,921

    True, but he never said he was communist in the first place. Nor would he be able to claim he is one even if does have communist party membership, since as a CE, you are not technically allowed to have a particular party affilation.

    In any case, what the CCP strategy is in Hong Kong has nothing to do with communism as Karl Marx would understand it. The CCP's "united front" strategy has always been to ensure the power brokers in Hong Kong, the business elite, are allied with them. In return, the CCP will protect these elite's interest. That is why you find a HK government (and implicitly Beijing) as the protector of the rich in HK. Now that would be anything except communist.

    Why?

    When this united front strategy was first devised (in the 80's), the business elite indeed was the key to HK's wealth and stability. Therefore, to protect investor confidence in Hong Kong after the handover, the CCP naturally sought to reassure the elite that their business dominance would be safe.

    However, the problem with this strategy was that since the handover, HK society has changed. The upward social mobility that characterize HK's rapid modernization in the 60's, 70's and 80's has gone. Whereas before, even if times were tough (and they often were), so long as you worked hard and put in the effort, you will have a decent chance to improve your circumstances and enjoy a reasonably good standard of living. Now however, the young people here find that increasingly, no matter how hard they work, they will not be able to obtain that elusive apartment. They are trapped in poverty forever, essentially.

    And part of the reason is that the business elite that was once responsible for the upward social mobility has become the barrier to it. They monopolize many key industries in HK. There are few opportunities for new businesses to breakthrough these barriers to entry. The government has been oblivious to it. And so has Beijing. Their strategy has resulted in a polarized society of tycoons pitting against the poor youngsters. But the CCP either can't or won't change this out-of-date policy.

    Last edited by Cho-man; 24-10-2014 at 09:06 PM.
    Skyhook, Mefisto and Liked like this.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by Cho-man:
    True, but he never said he was communist in the first place. Nor would he be able to claim he is one even if does have communist party membership, since as a CE, you are not technically allowed to have a particular party affilation.

    In any case, what the CCP strategy is in Hong Kong has nothing to do with communism as Karl Marx would understand it. The CCP's "united front" strategy has always been to ensure the power brokers in Hong Kong, the business elite, are allied with them. In return, the CCP will protect these elite's interest. That is why you find a HK government (and implicitly Beijing) as the protector of the rich in HK. Now that would be anything except communist.

    Why?

    When this united front strategy was first devised (in the 80's), the business elite indeed was the key to HK's wealth and stability. Therefore, to protect investor confidence in Hong Kong after the handover, the CCP naturally sought to reassure the elite that their business dominance would be safe.

    However, the problem with this strategy was that since the handover, HK society has changed. The upward social mobility that characterize HK's rapid modernization in the 60's, 70's and 80's has gone. Whereas before, even if times were tough (and they often were), so long as you worked hard and put in the effort, you will have a decent chance to improve your circumstances and enjoy a reasonably good standard of living. Now however, the young people here find that increasingly, no matter how hard they work, they will not be able to obtain that elusive apartment. They are trapped in poverty forever, essentially.

    And part of the reason is that the business elite that was once responsible for the upward social mobility has become the barrier to it. They monopolize many key industries in HK. There are few opportunities for new businesses to breakthrough these barriers to entry. The government has been oblivious to it. And so has Beijing. Their strategy has resulted in a polarized society of tycoons pitting against the poor youngsters. But the CCP either can't or won't change this out-of-date policy.
    Would seem (if I can trust the news, which always a big gamble) that the students have forced a minor breakthrough. Are the people going to hang the rich???
    Cho-man likes this.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,452

    You don't have to hang them. Anti-Monopoly laws and some better housing policies would be a realistic start
    Well, if that'll ever happen, the tycoons will probably wish you'd hung them instead.

    Liked and HK_Katherine like this.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    458

    CY Leung is too little of a politician to be an effective CEO of HK.

    He was actually trying to describe the problem of the tyranny of the majority (my guess based on his entire transcript) but really botched it up.

    Cho-man is absolutely right about how the tycoons and business elite have become the barriers towards the youth of HK, and it's become a problem similar to that of the PRC. The elites are now spending more efforts towards increasing barriers than they are to improving HK (and the PRC). They spend all their time hanging onto power that they've forgotten what they should be doing with that power.

    Cho-man and R.O. like this.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Viktri:
    CY Leung is too little of a politician to be an effective CEO of HK.

    He was actually trying to describe the problem of the tyranny of the majority (my guess based on his entire transcript) but really botched it up.

    Cho-man is absolutely right about how the tycoons and business elite have become the barriers towards the youth of HK, and it's become a problem similar to that of the PRC. The elites are now spending more efforts towards increasing barriers than they are to improving HK (and the PRC). They spend all their time hanging onto power that they've forgotten what they should be doing with that power.
    Government policy enables the tycoons. The recent CH Tung led trip of the powerful and connected to Beijing to be informed of XXXXXXX (we were never told) indicates that it is still Beijing's policy (and hence Hong Kong's) to actively reward tycoons for being patriotic (willing to do the parties dirty work).

    Trying to point the finger at the tycoons is like trying to blame a fox for gorging on chicken when the farmer who took the door off the coop...

    THE issue is a system of government that is non-representative and the plans of Beijing to keep it that way.
    Last edited by East_coast; 13-11-2014 at 08:23 AM.
    Cho-man likes this.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,921
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Government policy enables the tycoons. The recent CH Tung led trip of the powerful and connected to Beijing to be informed of XXXXXXX (we were never told) indicates that it is still Beijing's policy (and hence Hong Kong's) to actively reward tycoons for being patriotic (willing to do the parties dirty work).

    Trying to point the finger at the tycoons is like trying to blame a fox for gorging on chicken when the farmer who took the door off the coop...

    THE issue is a system of government that is non-representative and the plans of Beijing to keep it that way.
    True, Beijing is ultimately to be blamed of course, they are the ones who control all the strings. But tycoons, while puppets of Beijing, aren't absolve of their responsibility. They are the ones picked to govern HK (i.e. Tung) or those serving their interest are picked (i.e. Tsang). But in either's case, they have done a pretty lousy job. Beijing expected the tycoon class to govern HK well, they have a lot of other things to worry about, they do not want HK to consume so much of their time and requiring their direct aid and intervention. But so far, the tycoon governing class have disappointed them.

    Tung showed a complete lack of political skills, although I suppose you could at least say he was always well-intentioned, muddle-headed as he was. But Donald Tsang was in some ways, far worse. He knew what needed to be done (increase housing, decrease HK's economy reliance on the tycoons), but instead of addressing those issues, left it to rot and try to ease his way into the good graces of the tycoons. He placed his personal interest above that of HK, by weaseling into a position to benefit from the tycoons for his personal benefit at the expense of the rest of HK.

    In a way, CY is actually better than those two predecessors, he at least is trying to address the housing shortage and in some small way, looked after the interest of locals (i.e. banning unrestricted trading of baby powder across the border). Many tycoons (i.e. Li Ka Shing) actually opposed his election as the CE. But whatever his good intentions, he is hamstrung by the same political system that bedeviled Tung and Tsang. He is accountable to Beijing, not Hong Kong. There is next-to-nothing he can do regarding the future CE election but toe the line of Beijing.

    So yes, ultimately, Beijing is responsible. They design a system such that it places loyalty to them above governing competence. But the tycoon class also bear responsibilities. Whatever prowess they showed in their own business and industry has translated poorly into the political arena.
    David Smith and R.O. like this.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    853

    What if CY Leung declared tomorrow. "The system of selecting the next Chief Executive designed by China is not suitable to Hong Kong. There will be free elections".

    What would happen?


  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    853

    So what? He is rich enough. But HK would have democracy (maybe) since it would be embarrassing for Beijing to go through the process of imposing lack of democracy "again". If CY had a pair, he would do that, and sacrifice his career for the good of Hong Kong (isn't that what a CE should do???).


  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,965
    He is rich enough.
    That be easily fixed with multiple investigations, court cases and what not ... Not to mention he will have to get used a whole new class of friends like long hair ..

    Not just his career .. his family's future. Unless he has done what all communists with money seem to do.. moved funds to unknown countries and arranged for passports for the rest of his family.
    Last edited by shri; 13-11-2014 at 01:51 PM.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast