Editorial: Carrie Lam’s egg-uncooking governance of Hong Kong | Apple Daily HK

Published (HKT): 2021.05.04 11:49

By Li Ping

The news that a school principal in Hunan published an academic paper titled “Boiled egg turned raw and hatched” has been circulating widely on the Chinese Internet. The official media slammed it as insulting the IQs and hurting children. In comparison, a state mouthpiece published an interview with Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who claimed that after “improving” the electoral system, education, media, and the civil service systems are the next to be “improved”. When Hong Kong managed to become an international financial center and lay golden eggs, was it not because of the advantages of the existing system? Today, in the name of “improvement”, the authoritarian regime overthrew the existing system. How is that different from killing the hen to retrieve the egg, boiling the golden egg to make swallowing it more convenient? Yet it spins it as restarting Hong Kong. How is such governance different from placing the hopes on uncooking an egg?

The principal of a vocational training school in Zhengzhou, Henan Province published a paper “Boiled egg turned raw (uncooking egg) – the realization report of incubating chicks”, claiming that under her guidance, a group of specially trained students were able to use ultra-psychological mental power to uncook boiled eggs, which were incubated and hatched to produce live chicks. More than 40 chicks were hatched this way.

After the paper was circulated on the Internet, the public was shocked, and even CCTV and other state mouthpieces published commentaries to denounce the school and the journal for suspected false propaganda and failing to hold the bottom line. However, the administration is nothing but full of “double talk”. While the state mouthpiece criticizes the campus uncooking egg theory as ridiculous, it is at the same time advocating another uncooking egg theory in politics. Outlook Weekly, a magazine under Xinhua, published an interview with Carrie Lam. She neither spoke of safeguarding the core values of Hong Kong, nor affirmed the advantages of the system that allowed Hong Kong to lay golden eggs, but loudly criticized foreign powers for messing with Hong Kong, and clearly claimed that there must be improvements on this system and that system in Hong Kong.

From a small fishing village to an international financial center, the credits must go towards Hongkongers’ hard work and perseverance, as well as Hong Kong’s perfect administrative and legislative systems and norms which guaranteed freedom and the rule of law. Without the freedom of entry and exit, the free flow of capital, neutral, efficient and clean civil servants, judicial independence, freedom of press, and campus autonomy, Hong Kong would never have laid those golden eggs. However, according to Carrie Lam, these systems all must be “improved”. Simply put, these are reforms to be carried out in accordance with the demands and standards of the CCP. As the world just celebrated the World Press Freedom Day, Hong Kong’s contribution was to settle the score with RTHK, to delete the popular programs online, and not to renew the contract with Nabela Qoser.

Carrie Lam admitted that Hong Kong is a free and diverse society, but deliberately disregards that a diverse society is bound to have diverse interests, and turned to attack some foreign governments and politicians who use Hong Kong to reach their goals and described them as having double standards, being hypocritical, and lying. She said that the biggest lies were around the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Every time a person claims that China has violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration but cannot name the specific provision that was violated, “they are silent, because they couldn’t specify the actual provision.”

That’s the biggest lie! When the CCP refuted the accusation that it has violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration, it stressed that the document was an expired historical document which did not give the British responsibilities and rights, nor the Americans rights to interfere in China’s internal affairs, rather than whether or not it had violated the specific provisions of the declaration. The declaration listed 12 policy commitments from China, among which the second provision specified that “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People’s Government.” Now that the CCP is exercising full governance in Hong Kong, has it not violated this provision? Isn’t Carrie Lam lying through her teeth?

What’s more apparent is that by stripping away the legal system and laws that protect Hong Kong’s freedom, it makes it more convenient for the CCP rich and powerful to encroach on Hong Kong’s political and economic interests, and therefore no different from killing the hen to retrieve the egg. In the 40 years of China’s opening up and reform, from Shenzhen SEZ to Shanghai Pudong New Area to Tianjin Binhai New Area, which of these hasn’t been repeatedly screaming the slogans of building an international financial center? And? Other than a handful of CCP officials and royal scholars truly believe that these cities could replace Hong Kong as international financial centers. The self-boasting of system superiority has not and will not give birth to any international financial centers in mainland China.

What’s more is that as the NPCSC enacted the National Security Law and election law in Hong Kong, Hong Kong’s status as an independent customs territory and a financial center is also challenged by foreign countries. Hong Kong, the hen that laid the golden egg of an international center, is almost cooked. All the while, Carrie Lam is still strutting her kooky egg-uncooking governance of Hong Kong. In Mandarin, we call this “hard as a dead duck’s beak”; in Cantonese, we say “holding up a pot lid with a dead chicken”.

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: Opinion@appledaily.com

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.


Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play