Saturday, October 06, 2007

 

10 reasons NOT to vote either one

The Legco election coming up in Hong Kong between Anson (Got her Fangs on) Chan and Regina (Broom-Head) Yip to replace the un-mourned Ma Lik who died this summer is getting close. As is the norm in political campaigns they are each doing their best to gain the votes needed to win the election. Strangely, I've not heard either of them give any really solid reason why people should vote for one of them over the other. They appear to me to be kind of two-peas-in-a- pod though Anson is a little more wrinkly pea.

Well be that as it may; here are the ten reasons in rank order why I don't think Hong Kongers should vote for either of them.

1. Neither one believes in a democratic Hong Kong
Regina Yip was in favor of Article 23 While most sins are forgivable, this one isn't in a political sense. No one, not one person in Hong Kong except hard core DAB members should vote for the Broom Head simply because of her involvement in supporting this issue.

Anson Chan was a high ranking Civil Servant for decades under the British government and never to my knowledge was very vocal about anything but advancing her career. Can you really say you are pro democracy when you willingly worked for a government that was determined to not allow it?

We need leaders in Hong Kong who long for a government of the people and by the people not of the party and for the Motherland.

2. They are both Running Dogs
Old Anson was almost the private lap dog for the British Imperial government for many years. I'm not sure a lap dog isn't a lower animal in this case than a running dog. Regina seems to want to be Hu Jintau's personal poodle in Hong Kong. Both of them are tied to powers outside Hong Kong that would like to either regain or establish an inordinate amount of influence over Hong Kong.

We do not need officials in Hong Kong who are excessively tied to either Beijing or London

3. Neither one knows the difference between an "Administrator" and a "
Bureaucrat"
I'm sorry, but Anson Chan's assertion, taken as a compliment by Regina that both of them have many years of administrative experience is a horrific example of the wrong mentality exhibited by officials here. Governments don't administrate anything. Most of the time the best that a government can do is to mismanage anything. More to the point I think that most locals here feel that the Hong Kong government is what we'd have called in Texas, a "good - ol'- boy club." It may not be, but it certainly looks to me as though the main purpose of a Hong Kong 's bureaucrat's existence is to simply ensure that their extremely highly paid, cushy, more benefits than Bruce Wayne on a good day job remains their job.

We need fewer officials who want to grow our government by greasing the bureaucratic skids


4. Neither seem to have clear understanding of economics
At best they see a social problem and throw money at it to make themselves feel better. I've not heard either of them speak about how the mortgage defaults in the US will affect Hong Kong, problems with the dollar peg and currency rate. Taxation issues; or anything that deals with the dollars and cents of governance.

We need leaders who have and who can communicate a clear and coherent monetary policy.

5. Both come from wealthy, pampered backgrounds and have never really known what it is like to live as a normal person in Hong Kong
This one is pretty self explanatory. Not that being wealthy is a sin in and of itself. But some wealthy people do a better job connecting with normal people. Warren Buffett, for example, sent his kids to public school and lives in a house that is worth about USD $150,000. He drives a low-end luxury car. Neither Miss Broom or Mrs Fangs On have ever lived anywhere except in the lap of luxury. Even the time Regina spent at Standford in a small apartment would be a luxuriously high life to many university students.

We need leaders who understand what the average person who lives here experiences.

6. Neither, to my knowledge has ever had a job except in government
This is kind of the same thing as number 6 except that how can we expect either one of these two to have clue about what the working conditions are like in Hong Kong when they've never done anything that would give them a clue? Oh sure, they hobnob with the odd billionaire tycoon now and again or other (un)Civil Servants but that doesn't give them a great deal of insight into work-a-day Hong Kong.

We need leaders who know how to work not, to borrow Anson's misappropriated term, "administrate."

7. Arrogance and Condescension
Both of these two ladies just drip with a holier-than-thou attitude. God, it makes my skin crawl! I just want to hit the mute button anytime either of them speaks on TV. Perhaps it is because I grew up in the US which is a lot less class conscious society than either the UK or the PRC but the attitude of "I'm the great and glorious one so far above you plebs." makes me nauseous. I'll say this about them. They've given me a whole new level of understanding of the causes of the French Revolution.

We need leaders who do not talk down to us. The Noble's Obligation is a French thing and shouldn't be a Hong K0ng thing.

8. Both view this election as stepping stone to the CE office in 2012.
I'm not sure that this necessarily a bad thing but excessive political ambition will mean that either of them will be more concerned about the next step in their career path than the job at hand. More than that, it appears to me that both of these women view the CE's (Mayor's or Governor's) office as their entitlement, something they deserve because of who they are. They've lost sight of the function of of elected officials. They believe they are Royals.

We need leaders today not in 2012 and we need elected leaders not Queens or Kings

9. Neither one has shown the ability to think creatively.
There is certainly a place in government, as in all professions for the clerk who follows the rules and grinds it out. But leaders should have a vision, a guiding star or a moral compass that they use to set their political direction and guide their approach to policy. Both these ladies appear to simply be opportunist.

Hong Kong needs leaders who lead through inspiration and because of their ideas, not a bureaucratic compromise artist.

10. The Hair.
Anson looks like she buys shoe polish to color her hair from the same place Jang Zhamin did and Regina really used to deserves the nickname "Broom head" given to her during the article 23 protest marches. Since her return from Stanford she's gotten even worse and her current hair cut makes her look more like wet-mop-head. Perhaps this is trite but appearances matter. Is it too much to ask of either of them to go to the Beauty shop and buy clothing that is neither for a twenty-something Wan Chai shop girl or a frump?

We need leaders who don't look like clowns on TV.


Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who'd like to run against these two frauds



Labels: , , , , ,


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?