Faced with cool politics, suddenly a bit nostalgic for Donald Tsang

After watching several videos of Donald Tsang being interviewed, either when he was the Chief Executive or after he served his sentence, the general feeling is that he speaks “human words”.

Donald Tsang was charged with misconduct in public office and served a year in jail. He was cleared on appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, but he has served his full sentence and paid a heavy price. He was restored to freedom, became a devout believer, and returned to being an ordinary person, experiencing both the highs and lows of his life.

In the interview, he talked about his political career, his family and faith, forgiveness and his attitude toward the pain of life.

The interview rarely touched on his work, except to say that he keeps goldfish and whistles, all as a way to relax after work. He said he could not multi-task and had to use his own way to relieve the pressure of work. It is not surprising that the public scrutinized him with a harsh eye when he was the Chief Executive, but now it seems that perhaps we can be a little more tolerant of him.

In the face of Lin Zheng, who has spared no effort to destroy Hong Kong, remembering Leung Chun-ying, who is hiding in a dark corner and trying to make a comeback, and seeing from time to time the old foolishness of fighting for the party and the state, somehow I miss Donald Tsang, who has disappeared from the public eye.

When Donald Tsang was first presented as a “politician”, he was ridiculed by the community for a while, but only because he did not look deeper into the concept of politician. A politician is not the same as a government official. A politician needs to have his own political ideas, a unique set of ideas for governing society, and he should have a profound impact on realpolitik and history. He should have a far-reaching influence on real-life politics and history, while a politician only handles administration and ensures the normal operation of the government.

Has Donald Tsang had any influence on the political livelihood and history of Hong Kong? If so, it was probably the incident of repelling international predators during the financial turmoil, when Tung Chee-hwa made the decision within half an hour, but hinted that Tsang would be responsible for making such a decision. Donald Tsang said that if the operation failed, he, Joseph Yam and Rafael Hui would all lose their jobs. At the critical moment, he dared to take the responsibility imposed on him by history than the old Tung’s stepping down of his shoulders, which is still worthy of recognition.

Looking back now, among the four Chief Executives, the one who has done the least harm to Hong Kong is Donald Tsang. He has done his part to balance the relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and the people of Hong Kong, without leading to social unrest and conflict between the government and the people. Compared to Leung Chun-ying, Lam Cheng and Tung Chee-hwa, who are still running for the Chinese Communist Party, Tsang can have a clear conscience for Hong Kong.

History is written by the people, and the people decide the merits and demerits of political figures.

The fact that Donald Tsang became the Chief Executive is the result of the time and the situation. When the Chinese Communist Party forced Tung to step down because of the Article 23 legislation that led to the 500,000-strong march, it was the turn of Donald Tsang.

During his term of office, Donald Tsang did not do much, but only maintained the normal operation of society. The SAR government did not want to attract new fire, but only wanted to work steadily on the economy and people’s livelihood, when the Chinese Communist Party was making a lot of money by muffling, so it was better to do less than nothing, and Hong Kong could be quiet for a few years.

The establishment of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive was originally a “one country, two systems, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” arrangement. The Chief Executive played the role of an intermediary between Hong Kong people and the Chinese Communist Party, passing on information to and from them, and there was no problem. Foreign affairs and national defense are not cared for, but only the day-to-day operations, everything has the old habits can be followed, the difficulty is not high. At that time, the Chinese Communist Party was not strong enough, and it was not yet time to clean up the Hong Kong people.

The legislation of Article 23 is a constitutional responsibility of Hong Kong, but there is a difference between legislation made according to the will of the Chinese Communist Party and legislation made according to the will of Hong Kong people. Since the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong’s capitalist way of life will remain unchanged for 50 years, it must of course be based on Hong Kong people’s capitalist way of life, not on the CCP’s socialist way of life.

It is a pity that Tung Chee-hwa and Yeh Liu, in order to please the CCP and against the wishes of Hong Kong people, made Article 23 into a cool law for the dictatorship of the proletariat, causing resentment and backlash among Hong Kong people.

The CCP never tried to understand Hong Kong people, although it gave in temporarily, but since then the relationship between the CCP and Hong Kong people has gone from mutual understanding to mutual suspicion and grudges, and even developed to the point that the CCP has gone out of its way to look at Hong Kong people with the darkest mentality, thus sowing the root of unrest.

The Chinese Communist Party did not take action in time, not because it did not want to, but because the time had not yet come. The economy has not yet taken off, the strength is not enough, once the heavy hand to fix Hong Kong, will cause the international community to turn their backs, and destroy the peaceful environment needed for reform. The Chinese Communist Party will endure until Leung Chun-ying takes power.

If the Chief Executive stands in the position of the Chinese Communist Party, of course, will be heavy-handed to fix Hong Kong people, if the position of Hong Kong people, will try to act as a peacemaker, for Hong Kong to the Chinese Communist Party to ease the cheek, from which flexible position, in a moderate way, to maintain as much free space in Hong Kong. The reason why Donald Tsang is less troublesome is that he is cleverly maneuvering between the Chinese Communist Party and the people of Hong Kong, while Leung Chun-ying and Lam Cheng, with the word “courage” plastered on their hearts, are eager to make Hong Kong a mainland city tomorrow.

There are two very different attitudes: defending the interests of Hong Kong people or defending the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. History will have a proper evaluation of Donald Tsang, and as for the other three, of course, they will not be spared.