The Horse Race
Anh-thu and I enjoy some killer fresh spring rolls at the Foreign Correspondent's Club and catch up on the latest buzz in Hong Kong. Phony 1,000 currency notes (worth @ $130 USD each) have been discovered floating around the city, and they're such high quality counterfeits that some have ended up in bank machines. Now no Hong Konger will be caught dead accepting one, which effectively takes the $1,000 banknote out of general circulation. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, just before yeh mah --"evening horse", the weekly nighttime horseraces at Happy Valley--the police discovered some mysterious "devices" buried under the turf.
What were they? The police are being closemouthed about the investigation, and the news reports are sketchy. Some papers say they were "explosive devices". Others describe the buried booby traps as "projectiles". Now they are testing the strange liquid found inside the devices.
Surely, Al-Qaeda has not decided to turn its terrorist gaze on the most fanatical community in Hong Kong: turf aficionados.
No, it's probably worse than that, says Anh-thu. "Somebody wants to fix the race."
The fix is already in on the Donald Tsang-Alan Leong Chief Executive election race. Of course it has been in from the very moment the Civic Party decided to put their candidate into an "election" that's decided by around 800 representatives, most of whom are vetted by Beijing. For the last month, the papers have been filled with coverage of this theatrical pseudo-campaign spectacle straight from the annals of Baudrillard.
But now, as we're down to the final stretch (the votes will be cast this Sunday morning), the campaign coverage has suddenly dropped "below the fold", as we say in the newspaper biz.
No surprise there. A mystery sabotage at the mah cheung is a far more compelling read than a re-hash of an election that is about to hit the finish line in a thunderous anti-climax.
Roland at ESWN and others are wondering about the odd results of public opinion polls taken after the Donald Tsang-Alan Leong TV debates. How can it be that the Hong Kong public thought Leong was better in the debates--but still overwhelmingly supports Tsang for Chief Executive? Were the polls faulty?
Perhaps. But I don't see any contradiction in the results at all. Hong Kong people aren't fools when it comes to the art of do mah, placing their bets. You watch two horses warming up on the turf. Doi Gan, "Pocket Hanky", has a fresh healthy glow, and he's frisky and chomping at the bit. Clearly, he's a more attractive horse than the lumbering, predictable Bou Taai.
But you've been on the phone with your bookie, who's tipped you that Mainland operatives have planted mysterious projectile devices under the election venue at Asia Expo Convention Center. In this race,without a doubt, Bou Taai will come in first.
No respectable Hong Konger is going to throw money at the fresh, frisky horse that's a sure loser.
So when the call comes from the researcher at Hong Kong University, or Polytech, asking you which candidate did better in the debates, you might want to jaan, to praise and show appreciation to the energetic contender on his fine showing. In which case, you respond: "Alan Leong." But then, when the pollster asks who you support, you'll put your real money on the winner: Donald Tsang.
I am completely sure of this. And I'll bet you a crisp new $1,000 bill straight out of the cash machine that I'm right!
What were they? The police are being closemouthed about the investigation, and the news reports are sketchy. Some papers say they were "explosive devices". Others describe the buried booby traps as "projectiles". Now they are testing the strange liquid found inside the devices.
Surely, Al-Qaeda has not decided to turn its terrorist gaze on the most fanatical community in Hong Kong: turf aficionados.
No, it's probably worse than that, says Anh-thu. "Somebody wants to fix the race."
The fix is already in on the Donald Tsang-Alan Leong Chief Executive election race. Of course it has been in from the very moment the Civic Party decided to put their candidate into an "election" that's decided by around 800 representatives, most of whom are vetted by Beijing. For the last month, the papers have been filled with coverage of this theatrical pseudo-campaign spectacle straight from the annals of Baudrillard.
But now, as we're down to the final stretch (the votes will be cast this Sunday morning), the campaign coverage has suddenly dropped "below the fold", as we say in the newspaper biz.
No surprise there. A mystery sabotage at the mah cheung is a far more compelling read than a re-hash of an election that is about to hit the finish line in a thunderous anti-climax.
Roland at ESWN and others are wondering about the odd results of public opinion polls taken after the Donald Tsang-Alan Leong TV debates. How can it be that the Hong Kong public thought Leong was better in the debates--but still overwhelmingly supports Tsang for Chief Executive? Were the polls faulty?
Perhaps. But I don't see any contradiction in the results at all. Hong Kong people aren't fools when it comes to the art of do mah, placing their bets. You watch two horses warming up on the turf. Doi Gan, "Pocket Hanky", has a fresh healthy glow, and he's frisky and chomping at the bit. Clearly, he's a more attractive horse than the lumbering, predictable Bou Taai.
But you've been on the phone with your bookie, who's tipped you that Mainland operatives have planted mysterious projectile devices under the election venue at Asia Expo Convention Center. In this race,without a doubt, Bou Taai will come in first.
No respectable Hong Konger is going to throw money at the fresh, frisky horse that's a sure loser.
So when the call comes from the researcher at Hong Kong University, or Polytech, asking you which candidate did better in the debates, you might want to jaan, to praise and show appreciation to the energetic contender on his fine showing. In which case, you respond: "Alan Leong." But then, when the pollster asks who you support, you'll put your real money on the winner: Donald Tsang.
I am completely sure of this. And I'll bet you a crisp new $1,000 bill straight out of the cash machine that I'm right!
I just don't understand at all why anyone would go through the traditional mind-altering public relations crises like the horse race bombs if it doesn't matter...
I think you're on to something, but a distraction from the "race" is not what this race bomb was about...
Reply to this
Huh? I am sorry, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Do you think I was suggesting some grand conspiracy is afoot, and that someone sabotaged Happy Valley to distract media attention from the CE election?!
Good heavens. The only conspiracy going on (besides the real mystery at the racetrack) is the conspiracy amongst Hong Kong newspapers to find the juciest stories to sell more copies of their fish wrappers....
Reply to this
Wow, talk about missing the point.
In any case, my favorite theory so far has been the "compressed gas" machinery laid by the 歹徒.
Reply to this
Interesting article but I also came across another interesting article about HK's success in the times uk. Here's the link. http://tinyurl.com/2opgu3
Any thoughts?
Reply to this
I think the article puts forth basically the same line that the Civic Party and its supporters have been pushing since they launched the Alan Leong candidacy--written with lots of background for the benefit of a foreign audience. I do agree with the writer's statement that is it likely China will be more like Hong Kong in 50 years (democracy-wise) than Hong Kong's political system will become like China's is now.
But I have a big problem with the writer's self-congratulatory Colonial attitude:
It is still, essentially, British values that make the little miracle of Hong Kong what it is. Its survival these past ten years owes principally to the energy and courage of its citizens, who have forced Beijing to accept their rights grudgingly. But it is another powerful example of the civilising heritage of Britain.
Really, is that old cliche still in currency!? I guess if you are a self-satisfied pundit at the Times in London, it is.
Reply to this
DM, I'm in total agreement with you on your theory. My only question is why didn't people simply say Bowtie (instead of Alan) was better when asked by pollsters who they thought came out better in the debate, knowing fully well they were going to vote for Bowtie anyway? Results of the two different polls seem to suggest that most Hong Kong people suffer from split personality!!
If Alan Leong is a symbol of change while Bowtie is one of the status quo, an issue that this saga underlines is how hard it is to persuade most people to accept or initiate changes to existing institutions even though they know in their heart that these are in dire need of reform for the social good. But then again, from the practicality viewpoint, what is the point of supporting change if you have already been told it is not going to happen? Can you blame Hong Kong people for being schizophrenic?
Reply to this
Are Hong Kong people schizophrenic or just practical?
There's another possibility, too, that I didn't put in the essay, which is that Hong Kong's citizens may be more sophisticated than, say, the media-jaded voters in the USA.
We Americans, since the Nixon-Kennedy debates, are convinced that there is some correlation between a candidate's television debating skills, his or her ability to "communicate" and "feel our pain", and being a world leader. So we make our voting decisions strictly on the basis of which candidate comes across best in the media.
Hong Kong people haven't been over-saturated with tv politicians. They can separate the two qualities of media charisma and political and administrative talent.A pretty sophisticated electorate, if you ask me! So on one hand, they can appreciate a great debater, but still vote for the other, less likeable but more qualified guy.
Not that I think that Donald is, but.....
Reply to this
Unfortunately HK people are not politically mature enough to appreciate what Bill Clinton says is a basic criterion for good government: if a government (or its leader) lacks both good politics and good policies, it cannot be expected to give good governance.
My own two cents of opinion is that HK people are just too numbed to say what's really in their mind - "If China wants Bowtie to win, so be it. Just get the whole thing over with and let's get on with our lives" is probably the general attitude!!
Reply to this
Hi Daisann
Great post. Particularly loved the Bou Taai bilingual pun :-)
Reply to this
I think you forgot the part about the threats of the mainland backed triad coming to break your knees and cutting off a finger or two, if the young frisky horse actually won.
The Central People's Government, the DAB, the tycoons, etc. have been issuing veiled threats about grave repercussions for Hong Kong's economy/fate for 10 years about allowing the Hong Kong government to be controlled by pan-democrats.
You may really want the young, frisky horse to win as you think he's a better choice except you also appreciate your knees and don't want your home mysteriously going up in flames.
Dual personality or pragmatism in the face of duress. Are you willing to tell your captors what they want when you're being threatened?
And I'll bet you a 2000 HSBC $1000 note with wet ink that Roland knows this quite well and is intentionally creating anti-democratic FUD with questions, cuz that's his job at his blog.
Reply to this