(1) Seven mistakes in recent speeches that hurt others and hurt themselves
——Carrie Lam said that the past three years (referring to the second half of 2019 to the present) have been affected by “many things”, “there are only two years of doing what the Chief Executive wants to do seriously (referring to the second half of 2017 to the first half of 2019)” . People will ask: What does “many things” mean? The “Amendment Incident” caused by the Chen Tongjia case? If there are only two years of “serious work”, then “a lot of things” are not “serious things”. But who is responsible for these “many things”? Where did the origin of the event come from? Ask her to answer.
──She said that the Hong Kong government made no mistake in promoting the revision of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (referring to the original intention), but “because the interpretation work at that time was not done well”, “our principal officials did not give a serious explanation, and did not even issue a clear Q&A ( Q&A)”. However, the people clearly remember that at that time, she often stood up to explain that from the beginning of her refusal to “suspend” and then to “end of life”, she was always “playable”. Think she’s alluding to Li Jiachao and Zheng Ruohua)?
──She said, “It’s too late in the later stage, and other people’s propaganda work has already been overwhelming”, and “Micro-films are opposed to regulations.” People will ask: Are there few official and institutional propaganda? Is it too late? Not overwhelming and imposing enough? neither. The key is whether you can convince the people! Moreover, Lin Zhengyue’s words contain the meaning of “the propaganda work of her own camp is not good”, which is another move to increase the ambition of others and destroy her own (team) prestige (this is a ill that she often commits).
──She said, “There are always people in the society who want to sow discord, between civil servants and citizens, and between senior officials and frontline colleagues in the public service system.” The public will ask: Can the outside world be able to divide by “provocation”? Isn’t this child’s play? Moreover, why did the outside world succeed in sowing discord? Where is the cohesion between the official and the establishment? You must know that she is the leader herself.
──She said that in addition to the political infighting in the Legislative Council (meaning the pan-democratic camp), “the media and opinion leaders have also amplified officials’ remarks and measures, causing officials to suppress their personal potential and dare not break through and innovate, but choose to do their own thing. Minute”. There are three major fallacies here. (1) Does her remark imply that there are no media and opinion leaders within the official and institutional establishments that can guide mainstream public opinion? wrong! In fact, there are many, but the objects and effects are different. She said this, in fact, belittling her own people. (2) The outside media and opinion leaders can exert influence, not because of “amplifying officials’ remarks and measures”, but because of policy measures and her own problems. (3) Can the media and opinion leaders really “suppress the potential of officials”? If this is the case, it depends on the quality of officials and leaders.
──She said that after stepping down, she would definitely not consider setting up a think tank, because it “was tantamount to interference and even affected the work of the current government.” These remarks not only denounced Tung Chee-hwa, who founded the United Hong Kong Fund, and Leung Chun-ying (both former chief executives), who founded the Greater Bay Area International Information Technology Association, but also condemned the establishment think tanks, including the National Hong Kong and Macau Research Association. According to Carrie Lam, aren’t the above-mentioned think tanks constantly “intervening”?
– She said she would not interfere with the next government, but added that “the current government has a lot of work to continue, most obviously in the northern metropolitan area.” She reiterated that in terms of land supply, “(the current government) predecessors planted trees, and (the next government) future generations enjoy the shade.” These words reflect that she wants to take credit and interfere with the next Li Jiachao government. Although Li Jiachao also participated in the current plan, what to do in the future is his power, and Carrie Lam does not need to be so explicit.
The above seven mistakes not only reflect her confusion of logic and thinking, but also reveal her fatal flaw as a high-level political figure. From a low point of view and requirements, she does not understand the meaning of treating people and making friends, nor does she know how to handle affairs and life; from a high point of view and requirements, she does not understand the political ethics and rules of being in the officialdom, let alone political wisdom. . Her individualism, stubbornness, and her never-right personality disorder lead to her character tragedy. But she was also in a high position, which turned into a social and political tragedy that the existing system could not check. This is more damage!
(2) “Three crooked” and “one pair” are more twisted
——Carrie Lam said that after the implementation of the “Hong Kong National Security Law”, the freedom of speech, assembly and the press of Hong Kong people has not changed. The media can still criticize the government and even severely criticize her (I hope she feels that this article does not criticize her.) harsh). But these are all from the official point of view. They believe that the chaos has been brought into order, from chaos to governance, from governance to prosperity, and everything is normal. However, the folks feel that this is not the case. Instead, they think that she distorts the phenomenon and interpretation, and this is “one crooked”.
“If the media self-censors, it can’t be controlled,” she said. The public will ask: Is the current state of media “self-censorship”? Or is it due to official suppression? This is “two crooked”.
She also said that after the handover to the implementation of the national security law, “the number of media registrations has grown, and there are many foreign media among them.” The public will ask: Is the growth in mainland media (also outside Hong Kong)? Or foreign media? Was it deliberately confusing? Of course, foreign journalists are bound by the law, but they are generally feeling increased pressure, which can be seen from the treatment of the Hong Kong Foreign Press Conference. This can be understood as a method of “strengthening oneself and weakening the enemy”, but does this mean that press freedom remains unchanged? This is the “three crooks”.
──She said, “I have no team, no thugs, and no spokesperson. I’m just a person.” People in the circle found that no matter what the reason, whether it is adhering to principles or being lonely, she has long been alone. Difficulty in grouping or converging. She has this self-knowledge that she is a “pair” (perhaps the only “pair”).
The above-mentioned cases show that twisting and twisting, taking time out of reality, and reversing the consequences are the three methods that she often uses consciously or unconsciously, which causes her words and deeds to be divided, difficult to convince the public, and unable to gather strength. She opened a score sheet for herself, saying that she “was worthy of herself”, but the public said that she “was worthy of the people of Hong Kong”. She drew a “complete end” to her 42-year public service career, but the public thought it was by no means a perfect end. This article does not mean that people go to tea and settle accounts with her, but hope that those who come can follow her and not repeat her mistakes. After all, she is already “difficult to return with a lantern”, but if it is “difficult to return” to Hong Kong, how can it be what you and I want to see?
The author is a current affairs commentator
(If the current affairs articles published on this website are criticized, the purpose is to point out the errors or shortcomings of the relevant systems, policies or measures, the purpose is to urge the correction or elimination of these errors or shortcomings, and to improve them through legal channels, and there is no intention to incite others to criticize the government or the government. hatred, resentment or hostility from other communities)