Solo, Duet, and Orgy
By Chip Tsao | published Jun 03, 2010
A Shenzhen merchant can pirate European brands like LV or Prada overnight. Shanghai’s World Expo can steal a Japanese pop music tune for its opening theme. An SAR government official may take a PR cue from his former colonial master Chris Patten and visit street markets and kiss babies. But a live television debate over Hong Kong’s democracy, as laid down by Chief Executive Donald Tsang to the leader of the Civic Party Audrey Eu, apparently modeled on similar stunts performed by candidates in the American presidential and British general elections, has left Tsang’s knuckles rapped by an unimpressed and unconvinced Hong Kong public.
Those who have attended too many Chinese wedding banquets or local company cocktails must agree that the solo performance of a tensed Chinese person in front of the microphone is hardly a virtuoso scene. The duet of a debate between two Chinese people in an assembly hall is even duller. Not only are we genetically inarticulate, but it is a cultural norm that a Chinese public speaker look like a waxwork buzzing out an electronic chant of broken words from his miraculously sealed lips with a cue card in his hand. Think of an apple-juggling chimp posing as a human. China is an ancient civilization, but not particularly well-known for producing an eloquent breed of orators like Julius Caesar. We have generations of eunuchs and concubines kowtowing to the emperors instead of honing bold speaking skills. Being silver-tongued means possessing a fluency in expressing one’s own thinking—an offense punishable by death in China.
Rumor in the pro-China camp has it that the daring Chief Executive could in fact be a British mole. It is too un-Chinese for Tsang to initiate such a game—he should know that political power only grows from a gun barrel, and the only debate understood by his supreme master would be the whizzing of bullets: a cross-fire, and not of speech. By staging a live TV debate, Tsang seems to be showcasing a method through which political rows could be resolved without locking up or incapacitating rivals. All in all, an ambitious feat of genetic restructuring starting here in Hong Kong.
Except that the example should be followed wholesale. Audience members from all walks of life are normally invited to such debates. A suitable venue would be a TV studio or a university lecture theater, rather than the HKSAR government headquarters, as Tsang suggests. If the Chief Executive improvises a witty remark or cracks a good joke, a shot of a laughing and approving audience would work in his favor. But Tsang rejected the idea, claiming that the debate, broadcast live, would allow all seven million Hong Kong people to “participate” in the game. What a new theory! Anyone who has ever seen a pornographic movie knows exactly how it is to jump into bed and share in an orgiastic climax with the fellow performers. Tsang is a devout Catholic. He has perhaps neither been told by a Western master how pornography works, or how to conduct a debate.
A Shenzhen merchant can pirate European brands like LV or Prada overnight. Shanghai’s World Expo can steal a Japanese pop music tune for its opening theme. An SAR government official may take a PR cue from his former colonial master Chris Patten and visit street markets and kiss babies. But a live television debate over Hong Kong’s democracy, as laid down by Chief Executive Donald Tsang to the leader of the Civic Party Audrey Eu, apparently modeled on similar stunts performed by candidates in the American presidential and British general elections, has left Tsang’s knuckles rapped by an unimpressed and unconvinced Hong Kong public.
Those who have attended too many Chinese wedding banquets or local company cocktails must agree that the solo performance of a tensed Chinese person in front of the microphone is hardly a virtuoso scene. The duet of a debate between two Chinese people in an assembly hall is even duller. Not only are we genetically inarticulate, but it is a cultural norm that a Chinese public speaker look like a waxwork buzzing out an electronic chant of broken words from his miraculously sealed lips with a cue card in his hand. Think of an apple-juggling chimp posing as a human. China is an ancient civilization, but not particularly well-known for producing an eloquent breed of orators like Julius Caesar. We have generations of eunuchs and concubines kowtowing to the emperors instead of honing bold speaking skills. Being silver-tongued means possessing a fluency in expressing one’s own thinking—an offense punishable by death in China.
Rumor in the pro-China camp has it that the daring Chief Executive could in fact be a British mole. It is too un-Chinese for Tsang to initiate such a game—he should know that political power only grows from a gun barrel, and the only debate understood by his supreme master would be the whizzing of bullets: a cross-fire, and not of speech. By staging a live TV debate, Tsang seems to be showcasing a method through which political rows could be resolved without locking up or incapacitating rivals. All in all, an ambitious feat of genetic restructuring starting here in Hong Kong.
Except that the example should be followed wholesale. Audience members from all walks of life are normally invited to such debates. A suitable venue would be a TV studio or a university lecture theater, rather than the HKSAR government headquarters, as Tsang suggests. If the Chief Executive improvises a witty remark or cracks a good joke, a shot of a laughing and approving audience would work in his favor. But Tsang rejected the idea, claiming that the debate, broadcast live, would allow all seven million Hong Kong people to “participate” in the game. What a new theory! Anyone who has ever seen a pornographic movie knows exactly how it is to jump into bed and share in an orgiastic climax with the fellow performers. Tsang is a devout Catholic. He has perhaps neither been told by a Western master how pornography works, or how to conduct a debate.
Labels: Politically Incorrect, 陶傑
posted by Gemini Saga at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home