The biggest danger that can befall us | Lee Yee
The debate around the pan-democrats’ leaving or staying is heated. What I am concerned about is the thinking during this debate. Perhaps the process is more important than the result.
I quoted from Mao in last week’s article: “We must support whatever the enemy opposes, and we must oppose whatever the enemy supports.” This is a common way of thinking, whether among the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists, Hong Kong pro-democracy camps, young protesters, and even certain political commentators. They often use this line of thinking to judge and justify their words and actions.
My article sparked discussion on LIHKG, with the focus on whether we should act in the opposite direction as the “enemy”. Some think that I was mainly targeting and reprimanding the LIHKG community, because many of them oppose certain words and actions based very simply on whether “the CCP is the happiest”. Others pointed out that YouTube KOLs mention “the CCP is the happiest” like a broken record.
Days ago, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said, “Some U.S. politicians suppress China because they are afraid of China’s development. The harder they suppress, the more it proves China’s success, and the more it shows that China did it right.”
Luo Huining, director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government, said in response to the sanctions imposed by the United States, “This shows exactly how I did all the right things for my country, for Hong Kong.”
Alvin Yeung said in an interview a few days ago, “The Civic Party was the DQ (disqualification) champion, four out of six of our candidates were disqualified, and three out of our four incumbent lawmakers were disqualified. This proves that the regime does not like what we have done.”
A commentator said, “The CCP and Hong Kong Communists wish to see that we split, therefore we must do the opposite, avoid splitting.”
Why is it that whatever the enemy opposes must be right, and whenever the enemy is happy it must be wrong? What is the logic behind right and wrong? The pro-Communists have discussed both options for the pan-democrats, does it mean neither should be done?
To do the opposite, the opposite must be justified. Only a lazy person with dependent thinking will oppose for the sake of opposing.
Whatever we do should be backed by our own principles and considerations, and not to base it on whether it makes the enemy happy or not to choose and judge words and actions. If being DQ’d means it was right, then does not being DQ’d mean it was wrong? Should there be a split between political parties, it should be one on the issues of principle. “Harmony” that reconciles but disregards principles is not desirable.
The CCP’s usual propaganda: China’s 1.4 billion people, including Hong Kong’s compatriots, support the “return”; 1.4 billion people, including Taiwan compatriots, oppose Taiwan’s independence. The thing is, the future of Hong Kong or Taiwan hugely impact Hongkongers and Taiwanese, but have very little to do with the interest of the 1.4 billion people. The Québec independence referendum only asked the Québec people to vote, and not all Canadians; the Scotland independence referendum only sought votes in Scotland. By the same logic, whether the pan-democrats accept the appointment to extend their tenures or not, only the opinions of the pro-democracy voters should be considered. Including the pro-Beijing voters is the equivalent of including 1.4 billion people into deciding for the future of Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Before the implementation of the national security law, Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI) conducted a public opinion survey on June 15-18 regarding the law. The results showed that the majority of Hongkongers opposed the law. However, a survey conducted by Hong Kong Research Association on July 2-5 showed that 66% of Hongkongers supported the implementation of the law, because the question asked was not whether to support the national security law, but whether it should be included in Annex III of the Basic Law. Clearly, the latter survey had a stance around which the question was designed. This sort of guiding survey is skewed.
Regarding the survey about the extension of the Legislative Council, it should first be asked whether the decision to extend for no less than a year is accepted, then within the forced extension of the Legislative Council, the options of staying or leaving en masse. In addition, the option of a small number to accept the appointment while the majority does not. If there is first the stance, then it is no different from a pro-Communist survey.
In 1946, American diplomat George Kennan sent a long telegram from Moscow, which launched the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The renowned diplomat offered a word of caution to the American policymakers: “After all, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are copying.”
The various aforementioned thinking has just entered the realm where “biggest danger that can befall us”, as warned by Kennan.
