Open-source intelligence (OSINT)
Keywords: Political correctness (政治正確) ; Political colours (政治顏色) ; Narrative control (敘事控制); Ruling class (統治階級) ; Working class (勞動者階級)
中文題名：政治正確，作為統治階級工具的藍黃政治顏色及敘事控制
London, June 17, 1879 ... For a number of years past (and at the present time) the English working-class movement has been hopelessly describing a narrow circle of strikes for higher wages and shorter hours, not, however, as an expedient or means of propaganda and organisation but as the ultimate aim.
The Trade Unions even bar all political action on principle and in their charters, and thereby also ban participation in any general activity of the working-class as a class. The workers are divided politically into Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, into supporters of the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry and supporters of the Gladstone ministry. One can speak here of a labour movement (proper) only in so far as strikes take place here which, whether they are won or not, do not get the movement one step further.
To inflate such strikes — which often enough have been brought about purposely during the last few years of bad business by the capitalists to have a pretext for closing down their factories and mills, strikes in which the working-class movement does not make the slightest headway — into struggles of world importance, as is done, for instance, in the London Freiheit, can, in my opinion, only do harm. No attempt should be made to conceal the fact that at present no real labour movement in the continental sense exists here, and I therefore believe you will not lose much if for the time being you do not receive any reports on the doings of the Trade Unions here. - Frederick Engels (1)
IMPORTANT : Political Colour
Frederick Engels (1820-1895) perfectly defined the capitalist colour politics (political colours) which has been further intensified with internet social media of today after the millennium. ''The Trade Unions even bar all political action on principle and in their charters, and thereby also ban participation in any general activity of the working-class as a class. The workers are divided politically into Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, into supporters of the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry and supporters of the Gladstone ministry.'' For Hong Kong politics, you can only need to replace the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry with BLUE 'pro-establishment' camp, the Gladstone ministry with YELLOW 'opposition' camp. Furthermore, trade unions designated for workers are under the control of four major labour aristocrat companies. In short, political colours are to divide and conquer the working class people by ruling class under capitalism in order to prevent them from taking general mass actions as a class. Instead, only fighting against different political colour camps (workers versus workers) is allowed by their employers. Thus strict rejection to any colour politics is politically necessary for the working class people to protect their own class interests and social lives.
Not only the issues of people's livelihood are political issues but also those are economic issues. Genuine political issues are issues of people's livelihood, in the same way, real economic issues are issues of people's livelihood. Political con artists of Hong Kong unanimously separate issues of people's livelihood, economy and politics in order to protect vested interests by abstraction and a distraction from grave issues. In other words, true social issues are issues of people's livelihood not any ''political colours''. CCP created a new slogan in 2020, called 'the people's livelihood is the biggest political issue'. Therefore, CCP is right that only legitimate ''political correctness'' is to solve the issues of people's livelihood not any other things. On the contrary, so called ''political correctness'' in capitalist society is set by monopoly capitalists in various fields of society to defend their vested interests and also legitimise oppression, eradication, purge, cancel culture, trolling, doxing, bullying, manipulation, censorship on different voices as people can see on social media platforms ubiquitously.
''習近平總書記既講「民心是最大的政治」，又講「民生是最大的政治」。兩個「最大的政治」是相通的、統一的。在發展民生中贏得民心，貫穿著馬克思主義歷史唯物主義的邏輯。習近平總書記多次指出：「一個政黨，一個政權，其前途命運取決於人心向背。」中國共產黨在革命、建設和改革中，都是緊緊依靠人民不斷創造偉業。人民是黨執政的最大底氣，也是黨執政最深厚的根基。正是從這個意義上講，民心是最大的政治。然而，民心何以向背？民心所向絕不是無緣無故的。人民群眾最樸實、最講實際，總是從現實利益中醖釀出感情，從直接感悟中昇華出理性認知。「民以食為天」，這個「食」在古代就是「吃」飽肚子，在當今也可以指代「民生」。「為政之道，以順民心為本，以厚民生為本」。民生問題，不僅僅是經濟問題、社會問題，更是政治問題。民生問題關乎我們的政治安全和政權安全，關乎我們政黨的合法性和公信力。人民群眾最關心民生問題，而發展中國家的民生又是矛盾最為集中的突出問題。經過長期艱苦努力，中國人民迎來了從溫飽不足到小康富裕的偉大飛躍，民生有了極大的改善。與此同時也要看到，中國仍處於並將長期處於社會主義初級階段，仍是世界最大發展中國家，還有相當數量的困難群眾，還有一些非常突出的問題。尤其是當前國內外複雜的情況下，民生問題切不可松懈，切不可掉以輕心。要進一步鞏固和贏得民心，必須多謀民生之利，多解民生之憂。'' (2)
In general, ''political correctness'' (a.k.a. official narrative or rhetoric ; which used to be called dogma/ dogmatism; the opposite term is ''thought-crime'') is set by monopoly capitalists / oligarchs (Who are they? See Hong Kong's Richest 2021 List) to systematically eliminate their competitors and dissidents. Then, ''colour politics'' (a.k.a. political colours) is the main narrative control device (narrative structure) of the ruling class (narrative managers; thought-police) to divide and conquer the working class people in both real and internet society. Hence, political correctness, political colours and narrative control form dialectics of social censorship.
事實是媒體的唯一真理基準：資本的運動扭曲了媒體的理念。結局，主流媒體及獨立媒體（假獨立）都在掩護身為他們金主(廣告主/持股者)的統治階級及其既得利益。這就是所謂資本主義媒體的最神聖的首要任務，因此他們其實不斷找滿足金主們的，給他們既得利益帶來和平安寧的代罪羔羊及其新聞，甚至製造新聞事件。譬如，焦點轉移，模糊焦點，斷章取義，見樹不見林，移花接木，以偏概全，抵制脈絡化，重點炒作，偷換概念，倒果為因，兩極化，玩弄顏色/身分認同政治，各種誇大化了的威脅論，陰謀論等等的敘事控制正是最為顯著的特色和每日常態。這也就是為什麼美國反省和開始更為重視的民間的市民情報工作(civilian intelligence)是多麼的重要。為的是免於受騙。在資本主義之下，所有的媒體都是資本家的公關工具。其唯一的真理標準不是事實，而是以何等程度能夠服務和維護資本的利益。換言之，顏色政治此一政治毒草是透過媒體注入和繼續煽動的。
面對媒體操控，唯一能夠打破種種敘事控制的正是事實。新聞應該是既迅速又忠實地傳達事實給市民。然而，敘事控制（商業操縱）必然將新聞和廣告融為一體。俗稱記事廣告與照片廣告都是這個過程的產品化。每家媒體的營業部都出售這些服務產品給資本家。誠然，最理想的是將新聞從廣告行銷領域（既得利益立場）分離出來，並且只讓新聞忠實地反應和傳達在整體脈絡中的事實。至少，市民最好自覺地徹底嫌棄媒體中的顏色政治，是因為顏色政治完全扭曲和掩蓋掉真正的社會問題及其背後的脈絡。為了什麼什麼議員打敵人的什麼什麼黨的某某人及其支持者是根本不會解決任何社會問題的。既得利益勢力最害怕的則是具體情況的具體研究。為了避免這樣的現實威脅，既得利益勢力付錢給媒體和政客，他們聘用的不同政治顏色的明星叫市民去繼續沈溺於具有毀滅性的顏色政治的惡鬥。這也說明為什麼不同顏色陣營的對立雙方的金主們往往都是一樣的權貴階層。一言以蔽之，本港寡頭壟斷資本（兩面派）的真政治顏色是資本，而藍黃不同顏色都是用以分化和管理總人口一半以上的勞動者階級的政治工具而已。市民應該直接全心全力去從事解決具體的社會/民生問題，而不應該繼續被壟斷資本所矇騙而浪費心力和時間在顏色政治的賽馬上。
See multinational Chambers of Commerce, and their identities are ''local Hong Kong companies'' when their member companies enter into the mainland Chinese market via CEPA. Simultaneously the Chamber of Commerce is the most powerful political force who actually enjoys privileged voting rights in elections of both the Legislative Council and chief executive of Hong Kong in the name of 'pro-establishment'. In fact, external forces are internal forces, internal forces are external forces in Hong Kong; furthermore, external forces still can exclusively select and send their own members / agents to the Legislative Council via the ''pro-establishment'' Chamber of Commerce. It means that the on-going purge of 'opposition' camp is to scapegoat those 'oppositionists' who paid by the same Hong Kong oligarchs from the point of view of the ruling class of this city.
實際上，本港內部勢力也是外部勢力(跨國企業)，所謂外部勢力也是本港內部勢力。香港的商會包含跨國企業。本港政客，非政府組織，智囊們等等的階級性質也就會是跟隨捐款來源的跨國企業的，因此香港並沒有純粹內部勢力，而都是內外部勢力的結合體。而且本港寡頭壟斷資本的權貴，有的甚至持有5個不同國籍身分，不知道他們的祖國到底是哪一國。關於內部勢力和外部勢力的二元論框架，也得在此議題上加以拋開，是因為不合實際。正像所謂建制派媒體那樣，片面地只將反對派描述為唯一的內部勢力是錯亂的，在香港，五眼聯盟也已是內部勢力。故此，內部勢力和外部勢力的二元論絕不適合於跨國集團騎劫的香港的特殊環境。甚至於本港媒體總是刻意漏掉的重點是造成了這一切香港亂象和民生慘狀的壟斷資本，地產霸權寡頭的存在及其責任。
BBC reported the Sunday nationwide ''protests'' in Cuba (July 11, 2021): ''In response to the rare unrest, President Miguel Díaz-Canel addressed the nation in a TV broadcast and blamed the US for the turmoil. He called its tight sanctions on Cuba - which have been in place in various forms since 1962 - a "policy of economic suffocation". Mr Díaz-Canel said the protesters were mercenaries hired by the US to destabilise the country, and called for his supporters to go out and defend the revolution - referring to the 1959 uprising which ushered in Communist rule. "The order to fight has been given - into the street, revolutionaries!" he announced.'' (3) Although it can be seen as a typical regime change attempt by the US and its allies against Cuba, Hong Kong colour revolutions cannot be categorised as the same kind of operations. So called 'colour revolution' already became the cliched narrative control device in Hong Kong. In reality, true masterminds / beneficiaries of Hong Kong colour revolutions are still at large.
Why Hong Kong oligarchs needed those large scale colour revolutions (e.g., 2014 Umbrella Revolution ; 2016 Mong Kok civil unrest and the 2019-2020 Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement) ? Psychologically, it began with the birth of Xi Jinping administration (2012-) whose political orientation still is anti-trust, anti-monopoly and anti-neoliberalism. It triggered fear and caution of Hong Kong tycoons / oligarchs needed to stage large scale ''colour'' political events in Hong Kong in order to maintain their status quo, social hegemony, monopoly and vested interests. For this political goal, paid 'opposition' camp was primally scapegoated gradually. Recent political incidents all indicated and happened in this context (READ Hong Kong Intelligence Report #40 2021 Hong Kong Electoral Reform is A Victory of Oligarchs) . Such as exodus of democratically-elected district councillors (80-250 / 479; 2020-) ; the closure of Apple Daily (7/1/2021); the lone-wolf assault on police (7/1/2021) and subsequent aftermath on the HKU student union (July 8-16). Unfortunately, this process will only continue. One of undeniable proofs of this claim is that this purge does not mean to totally eliminate ''colour politics'' itself because local oligarchs still need it to block any social reform attempts against them.
The Hong Kong oligarchs feel safe as long as citizens are radically engaging in hazardous BLUE-YELLOW colour politics instead of directly tackling social issues caused by social monopolies of the oligarchs themselves. After every large scale colour riot, oligarchs and their agents can appear as prosecutors for the central government due to their official 'pro-establishment' position. For oligarchs, the entire 'pro-establishment' camp itself is immune from any political surgery, and remnants of 'opposition' camp are also preserved for the future use. In other words, the purge is not fully in the hands of the central government. Local oligarchs have a tight grip on it. Some oligarchs themselves are not only members of the Chamber of Commerce (one of major electoral bodies of the legislative council and chief executive of Hong Kong) but also they are members of Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (124+78 HK members; 2018-2023) and National People's Congress (36 HK members; 2018-2023).
為何本港寡頭（壟斷資本）需要那些大規模的顏色政治騷亂？簡言之，激化顏色政治惡鬥，阻礙和極力推遲真改革/真有效措施，以維護既得利益。同時，在他們自己壟斷本港建制之下，中央都不得不以他們為政治協商的夥伴/統戰對象，換言之，為了鞏固政局，不得不鞏固他們建制騎劫者們的既得利益（社會壟斷）。這才是媒體所掩蓋的真正的香港政治實況。其實，他們寡頭壟斷資本最害怕市民直接爭取民生問題的解決，而非繼續陷入顏色政治泥沼。本港所謂民生問題也就是他們寡頭社會壟斷的種種後果，因此之故，顏色政治是本港寡頭最需要的保護既得利益的手段。顏色政治只會阻礙市民直接面對，團結和解決民生問題，換言之，顏色政治乃寡頭壟斷資本所設下的，當市民解決真正的社會問題時的絆腳石，桎梏，政治陷阱。寡頭最害怕，自覺的市民拋開顏色政治，並衝向他們既得利益醞釀和製造出來的種種民生問題，而不去持續沈溺於顏色政治的賽馬比賽。
市民搶救自己的，解決民生問題的道路必定會是剷除各種既得利益，壟斷資本怪物的道路。在此路線上，市民就能夠明白為什麼民生問題不僅是政治問題，也是經濟問題的理由。簡言之，作為經濟勢力的壟斷資本為了保護自身既得利益滲透和操縱政治/經濟/文化體制，媒體，各種政治團體以及反社會勢力來打壓異己，因此壟斷資本也就是最大的反中亂港政治勢力。這已經不可避免地牽涉到了政治，經濟，社會領域的所有存在的真問題。
總之，歸根結底，真社會問題正是民生問題。民生問題就是真社會問題。 這裡只有兩種，一是民生；二是既得利益。對市民而言，哪一個究竟是個問題？哪一個到底是核心議題？那必然是民生。民生才是最大利益。反過來看，被顏色政治徹底上癮的自以為是，當個思想警察，義士，而一昧從事鬼打鬼的顏色政治，這極為愚蠢！完全失焦！毫無任何社會意義！越打越毀損民主自由人權的顏色政治是不需要腦袋的，是因為只要識別不同顏色，並盲撐或盲反政治正確或不正確的特定顏色的陣營，一切就好。統治階級是如此控制勞動者階級的。經歷了黑暴，真理已是顯著的，香港市民需要徹底唾棄禍國殃民的顏色政治，以專心處理切身的民生問題，消滅壟斷資本，消除地產霸權。只要香港果斷地消滅地產霸權（萬惡之母），就肯定能夠實現百業興盛，全民安居樂業，千年幸福城市。
FACTS
Question1: There had been the general crisis of capitalists, especially for oligarchs in Hong Kong during the 2019-2020 Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement?
在大型示威事件當中，本港究竟有過內外資本家的總危機嗎？尤其是壟斷資本寡頭的總危機？
First of all, the US government won't stage any colour revolution if there is no direct demand / strong support from multi-national companies (monopoly capital) operating in a particular country or region. Therefore, so called 'mastermind(s)' is monopoly capital ultimately.For instance, the Guatemalan Coup of 1954, in which The United Fruit Company (UFCO) demanded the Eisenhower administration to stage a CIA coup against the non-communist Jacobo Arbenz government. Thus the ultimate mastermind of the coup was UFCO not the US government.
''In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Latin American governments were characterized by economic policies that allowed for liberal foreign investments from wealthy countries like the United States. Military dictators led a number of these Latin American governments. The United Fruit Company (UFCO), an extremely successful American owned and run company, profited greatly from investments it made in Guatemala.
The business of United Fruit was bananas, and from bananas it had built a business empire in the Central American nations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. The United States government was also interested in bananas, and had sponsored initiatives to promote the fruit in the American diet. Guatemala became known as a “banana republic,” a disdainful term for poor, developing countries that relied on a single cash crop, such as bananas, and were ruled by corrupt governments. Under the Guatemalan dictator Jorge Ubico, the United Fruit Company gained control of 42% of Guatemala’s land, and was exempted from paying taxes and import duties. Seventy-seven percent of all Guatemalan exports went to the United States; and 65% of imports to the country came from the United States.
The United Fruit Company was, essentially, a state within the Guatemalan state. It not only owned all of Guatemala's banana production and monopolized banana exports, it also owned the country's telephone and telegraph system, and almost all of its railroad track.
The United Fruit Company was well connected to the Eisenhower administration. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his New York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, represented the company. Allen Dulles, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and brother of John Foster Dulles, had served on UFCO's Board of Trustees and owned shares of the company. Ed Whitman, the company's top public relations officer, was the husband of Ann Whitman, President Eisenhower's private secretary. Ed Whitman produced a film, Why the Kremlin Hates Bananas, which depicted UFCO fighting on the front line of the Cold War. The company’s efforts paid off. It picked up the expenses of journalists who travelled to Guatemala to learn its side of the crisis, and some of the most respected North American publications, including the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, New York Herald Tribune, and New Leader, ran stories that pleased the company.'' (4)
People can easily find The United Fruit Company (UFCO)-like monopoly capitalists in Hong Kong. This classical case proved that any regime change attempt of US against particular foreign country is urged by multi-national companies operating in that country or region in the first place.
Another classical case is the Chile Coup Attempt of 1970. This time the monopolistic telecommunication company I.T.T. demanded the Nixon administration to stage a coup in Chile. Hence, the ultimate mastermind of the coup was I.T.T. not the US government at all.
''WASHINGTON, March 21—Jack Anderson said tonight that the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation had told the White House in 1970 it would be prepared to “assist financially in sums up to seven figures” to block the impending inauguration of Salvador Allende Gossens as Chile's President. In his syndicated column, distributed for publication in tomorrow's newspapers and dealing, like today's, with I.T.T. and the 1970 election of the Chilean Marxist, Mr. Anderson quoted from what he said was a long memorandum from a ranking company official on his discussions with Nixon Administration officials.
“The company's efforts, and Its fervent hopes for a military coup [in Chile], are spelled out in a remarkable set of secret documents from I.T.T.'s Washington office,” Mr. Anderson wrote. But, he said, “the documents indicate the company got a generally polite but cool reception from the White House and the State Department, although Ambassador to Chile Edward Kerry is reported to have been militantly anti‐Allende and friendly to I.T.T.'s cause.
[...] Mr. Anderson quoted in particular tonight from what he said was a memorandum dated Sept. 14, 1970, from J. D. Neal, the I.T.T.'s director of international relations, to W. R. Merriam, the head of the company's Washington office. Investments in Chile: Mr. Neal, who had joined I.T.T. after a long career in the State Department, was quoted as having said he had telephoned an aide to Henry A Kissinger, the White House adviser on national security of fairs, after having heard from Mr. Merriam certain “suggestions about Chile” that the company president, Harold S. had made. The telephone call was said to have been made to Viron P. Vaky, then Mr. Kissinger's staff adviser on Latin America and Mr. Neal was said to have conveyed to him “Mr. Geneen's deep concern about the Chile situation.” This concern was linked to the company's investments in Chile, including a 70 per cent interest in the Chile Telephone Company, which was taken over by the Allende Government last October, a telephone equipment manufacturing concern and two Sheraton hotels. Mr. Neal was quoted as writing in the memorandum that he “Told Mr. Vaky to tell Mr. Kissinger Mr. Geneen is willing to come to Washington to discuss I.T.T.'s interest and that we are prepared to assist financially in sums up to seven figures.”'' (5)
Again, the another classical case also proved that a regime change operation is primarily demanded by monopolistic multinational companies operating in a specified country or region.
Although Hong Kong colour revolutions followed the similar path, the major difference is that Hong Kong ''regime'' change attempts targeted the local government not the central government like any other case. It is quite impossible to estimate that overthrowing the local government is equal with overthrowing the central government. Thus their true aim was not to overthrow the local government. There are several reasons for this:
a) The top Hong Kong oligarch Ka-shing Li (1928-) himself denied any prospect of successful separatist independence from China.
''對於港獨問題，李嘉誠指港獨說「脫離現實」，港人不會認同，反問「香港有咩資格獨立呀？」被問及本港出現「本土」想法，李嘉誠指，香港是中國一部分。他又指，中央已多次重申本港「一國兩制」不變，認為見到中央的決心。他又以「黃台之瓜 何堪再摘」比喻香港現況，指不論政治派別為何，港人都不應再做傷害香港之事。被問及對2047問題的看法，李嘉誠回應指「2047年一國一制都話唔定」，但相信屆時「國內人嘅心會好好多」，呼籲港人可以樂觀一點。'' (6)
b) Mainland China stably dominates both trade and energy resources of Hong Kong. It cannot be challenged by just staging colour revolutions in this city because of mainland China's fundamental importance for the city's economy. For instance, almost all energy supplies are from mainland. Furthermore, it did not weaken the mainland China's grip on the islands after the numerous colour riots. The economic data tells everything.
''Since the reform and opening-up of the Mainland, its share of Hong Kong's global trade had increased significantly from 9.3% in 1978 to 51.8% (HK$4,248.0 billion or US$547.6 billion) in 2020. It has been Hong Kong's largest trading partner since 1985. The Mainland has been Hong Kong's largest supplier in goods since 1982. The value of Hong Kong's total imports from the Mainland was HK$1,923.5 billion (US$248.0 billion), accounting for 45.1% of Hong Kong's total imports in 2020.
[...] Major imports were electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing apparatus and equipment, office machines and automatic data processing machines, professional, scientific and controlling instruments and apparatus, and articles of apparel and clothing accessories, etc. [...] In 2020, the Mainland was Hong Kong's largest domestic export market, absorbing HK$22.1 billion (US$2.8 billion) worth of goods, or 46.6% of our total domestic exports. Major domestic exports were plastics in primary forms, medicinal and pharmaceutical products, cereals and cereal preparations, metalliferous ores and metal scrap, and non-ferrous metals, etc.
[...] Hong Kong was the Mainland's largest source of realised foreign direct investment, accounting for about 55.0% of the national total as at end-2019, with the cumulative value reaching HK$9,367.9 billion (US$1,195.5 billion). Hong Kong's investments in the Mainland concentrate largely in the Guangdong Province. In 2020, Guangdong Province's realised direct investment from Hong Kong reached RMB$118.9 billion, representing an increase of 13.1%.'' (7)
As the above data clearly indicates, there is no objective reason for Hong Kong oligarchs and US to voluntarily abandon the economic ties with the mainland China in terms of profits. Thus, those limited colour riots were originally not meant to separate Hong Kong and mainland. The strategic goal is not geographical separation at all as they clearly know separation is impossible.
c) Hong Kong's energy supplies (Coal products; oil products; electricity; gas) heavily rely on imports from mainland China and others. According to Hong Kong Energy Statistics 2020:
''Hong Kong derives its energy supplies almost entirely from external sources. Energy is either imported directly (as in the case of oil products and coal products), or produced through some intermediate transformation processes using imported fuel inputs (as in the case of electricity and gas). [...] The mainland of China has been the major supplier of natural gas and LPG in recent years. [Tables 2.4(A) - 2.4(C)]
[...] In 2020, Indonesia accounted for 73.1% of imports of steam coal and other coal as well as 40.0% of imports of wood charcoal in Hong Kong. [Table 3.4(C)] [...] Imports of electricity from mainland of China exhibited a general upward trend in the past decade, with 20.8% increase recorded between 2010 and 2020. [Table 4.3] (8)
Apparently, without the major energy suppliers mainland China and Indonesia, Hong Kong itself is unable to produce energy for its population. This is why any separatist colour revolution is scientifically nonsense and completely inapplicable in Hong Kong. Moreover, the ruling class of this city including US did not have any determined intention, motive to completely isolate the city from the rest of the world. Their true goal was and still is something different from the official narrative.
d) The ruling class of Hong Kong especially in the financial sector prophesied the unexpectedly ''limited or minor influence'' of colour revolutions on HK economy beforehand in terms of investment. Indeed, they had strong confidence on it. Surprisingly, they always proved the prophecies at the end. It means that those colour revolutions were not random events and not managed by complete outsiders who are totally uncontrollable, alienated from the local ruling class. Bank of America (Merrill Lynch) prophesied:
''......中環是香港的主要金融中心，在2013年，金融和保險業佔香港的國內生產總值(GDP)約15%。因此，若對香港金融和保險業影響3個工作天，只等於全年GDP總值的0.18%。此外，中環大部份公司都有業務連續性計劃，即是在突發事件發生時可以迅速作出反應，以確保業務持續運作，員工可以在家裡或其他辦公室工作。因此在基本情況下，「佔領中環」對香港經濟及股市的影響很小。
[...] 銀行和金融業影響有限。 美林估計在基本情況下，「佔領中環」對香港銀行和金融業的盈利影響低於1%，因為大多數銀行已經制定業務連續性計劃，可以轉移員工和客戶至抗議區域外，因此對香港銀行和金融業影響有限。房地產市場影響有限。在基本情況下，「佔領中環」對香港房地產市場影響將會有限；但是若在最壞情況下，由於遊客數目減少，對零售業及房地產市場(尤其是出租股)的盈利將有影響，購買住宅物業的市場氣氛亦有負面反應。'' originally cited by Bank of China. (9)
Then, compare the annual growth rate of GDP between 2013 and 2014. The former was +3.102%; the latter was +2.762% annual growth. Both were positive annual growth rates. There was no such general crisis for oligarchs. (10)
How about 2019? First, the ups and downs of Hong Kong retail sales are tightly linked with the wave of mainland tourist arrivals in direct proportion which have been drastically and systematically plunged after May 2019. In other words, the economic stagnation has started before the first colour riot of June 12, 2019. It inevitably accompanied the decline of retail sales since then until now (2021). This political reaction from mainland China was unpredicted by any financial experts beforehand as a main cause of the downfall of GDP growth of 2019.
One major driver of the economic downturn in Hong Kong is a steep decline in retail sales. Private consumption accounts for around 65% of the city’s GDP.
[...] Visitors from mainland China, who account for close to 80% of tourists in Hong Kong, fell by around 4.45% in January to October this year compared to the same period in 2018.
INTERESTING VIDEO (2019)
Despite the Soros conspiracy theory (his assumed loss for the 'mysterious' systemic error of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong of September 5, 2019 was unconfirmed by the US media SCMP on September 17, 2019; Short sellers assembled for Hong Kong’s market tumble may have paid HK$12.4 billion for show that never was), Hong Kong's stock market was unexpectedly prosperous throughout 2019.
The numerous colour riots of 2019 did not even torment the Hong Kong's vital stock market and 'investors' in contrary to official narrative of 'pro-establishment' media.
Despite the pressure on the economy, Hong Kong’s benchmark stock index — the Hang Seng Index — appears on track to end 2019 higher than where it started the year.
Hong Kong looks set to retain its position as the top market for new stock listings globally. That’s mainly thanks to a mega secondary listing by Chinese technology giant Alibaba and an initial public offering by brewery Budweiser’s Asia Pacific business, which helped the city surpass rival stock exchanges in the U.S. and mainland China. (11)
e) US enjoys high trade surplus with Hong Kong, has a tight grip on its financial system, law system and media culture. This is why the goal of localised colour revolutions are especially different from any other cases in history in Hong Kong. Simply, US has no motive to overthrow this local government at all because US already has what they wanted in this city.
The most important point is that US did not impose ''crippling sanctions'' on Hong Kong as it's imposing on Cuba and Venezuela. It was and still is impossible if their real aim was to overthrow the SAR government. In other words, those local colour revolutions were originally not meant to overthrow the SAR government but those were mainly to protect vested interests and local oligarchs ('real estate hegemony') in this city by scapegoating cannon fodders. In the sense that CCP's anti-monopoly policy triggered fear of local oligarchs, and then, they demanded the US government to stage the political 'exorcism', 'controlled' revolutions against oligarchs' competitors, HK workers and CCP without damaging high trade surplus between HK and US. They even exploited the events to further consolidate their political powers in the SAR 'establishment'. This explains ''custom-made'' colour revolutions people witnessed in 2014 and 2019. In other words, BLUE / YELLOW colour politics itself cannot explain this logically.
High Trade Surplus With Hong Kong in 2019
U.S. goods and services trade with Hong Kong totalled an estimated $61.3 billion in 2019. Exports were $45.0 billion; imports were $16.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Hong Kong was $28.7 billion in 2019.
The U.S. goods trade surplus with Hong Kong was $26.0 billion in 2019, a 16.1% decrease ($5.0 billion) from 2018. The United States had a services trade surplus of an estimated $2.7 billion with Hong Kong in 2019, up 3.1% from 2018.
U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Hong Kong (stock) was $81.9 billion in 2019, a 2.6% increase from 2018. U.S. FDI in Hong Kong is led by non-bank holding companies, manufacturing, and information services.
Hong Kong's FDI in the United States (stock) was $14.1 billion in 2019, up 7.2% from 2018. Hong Kong's FDI in the United States is led by wholesale trade, manufacturing, and real estate. (12)
These numbers clearly indicate that US has no stake in ''destroying Hong Kong''. If Hong Kong really becomes the Libya or Afghanistan, US will simply lose the astronomical trade surplus with Hong Kong. It proved that core masterminds of Hong Kong vastly benefited from FDI in US in 2019, and US itself is at least not the core mastermind of those political events. Therefore, the official narrative to frame US is ridiculously false.
Financial System
As citizens know well that Hong Kong is part of the US Dollar international payment system (Ultimately, all international payments in US dollars have to be settled through the US, as the issuer of the currency. Specifically, international wire transfers are processed via the Federal Reserve's Real Time Gross Settlement System (RTGS), known as the “Fedwire Funds Service” or just “Fedwire”). Moreover, there is no de-dollarisation tendency in Hong Kong.
The US dollar RTGS system (also known as US dollar CHATS) was launched in August 2000 with The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation as its settlement institution. The US dollar RTGS system not only processes US dollar interbank payments on an RTGS basis, but also handles US dollar bulk clearing and settlement of cheques and stock market-related payments. Banks in Hong Kong are entitled to access the system and can apply for direct membership through the settlement institution or indirect membership by settling their payments through direct members. Participation of other financial institutions has to be approved by the HKMA and the settlement institution on a case-by-case basis. (13)
The exchange rate of HKD with USD is fixed. HKMA called it Linked Exchange Rate System.
The Monetary Base is fully backed by US dollar assets, and all changes in the Monetary Base are fully matched by corresponding changes in US dollar assets held in the Exchange Fund at a fixed exchange rate. The HKMA provides Convertibility Undertakings (CUs), under which the HKMA commits to sell Hong Kong dollars upon request by banks at the strong-side CU of HK$7.75 per US dollar, and to buy Hong Kong dollars upon request by banks at the weak-side CU of HK$7.85 per US dollar. (14)
The fixed exchange rate system with US is firmly defended by the HKSAR government. Therefore, this is no scientific reason to cause the downfall of the business partner for US.
In comparison to investing in Chinese companies listed in Shanghai or Shenzhen – the home of Mainland China’s two stock exchanges – it is more attractive for foreign investors to invest in Chinese companies listed in Hong Kong. Shanghai and Shenzhen are subject to Mainland China’s capital controls whereas Hong Kong is not. Even where Chinese companies are only listed in Shanghai or Shenzhen, Hong Kong has the added advantage of stock exchange connection schemes with both cities. These schemes mean foreign investors can invest in eligible Chinese companies only listed in Shanghai or Shenzhen through the more investor-friendly Hong Kong stock exchange.
[...] More recently, the capital raising role of Hong Kong has become even more important to China as an ever-growing number of Chinese companies are choosing to complete listings on Hong Kong’s stock exchange. Many of these companies are already listed on the New York stock exchange and are completing secondary listings on the Hong Kong stock exchange in anticipation of the delisting of Chinese companies by more hawkish US financial regulators.
These secondary listings in Hong Kong have even been dubbed the ‘homecoming’ of Chinese companies and include tech giants, such as NetEase and JD.com. According to Refinitiv, between 2019 and 2020 the value of China offshore listings in Hong Kong doubled to over US$18 billion. In comparison, the same listing in the US grew by only a quarter to over US$3 billion. (15)
From the points of view of ''multinational'' investors, there was no general crisis of Hong Kong economy during the colour revolution of 2019. It did not even exist in their eyes. Completely no significant impacts on investments in Hong Kong at all.
For the ruling class of Hong Kong, those political events were isolated, limited, 'well-organised' incidents which totally under their control thus those were surprisingly ignorable factors in practice. On the contrary, if those colour revolutions were genuinely random events organised by completely independent outsiders, there could have been a real economic crisis for multinational investors (MNCs; including both internal and external forces).
Law System
US is one of English common law countries yet there is no US judge in Hong Kong at present (July 16, 2021). Those Overseas Non-Permanent Judges don't include any US judge as citizens can check on their official HKCFA website (they are mainly from UK, Australia and Canada).
However, US and other MNCs' real political ground in this field is the Legislative Council of Hong Kong under the membership of lawfully designated 'pro-establishment' trade unions according to Cap. 542 Legislative Council Ordinance:
20P. Composition of the commercial (first) functional constituency (See Special Remarks)
The commercial (first) functional constituency is composed of corporate members of The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce entitled to vote at general meetings of the Chamber.
(Added 48 of 1999 s. 13. Amended 14 of 2021 s. 284) (16)
Then, citizens only need to check corporate members of those 'pro-establishment' Chambers of Commerce if they include 'pro-democracy' US companies.
The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce - 'Pro-establishment' camp
From the member directory of the official site (of course, it is not a full list), people can check US companies easily, for instance,
The New York Times (HKN0347).
NYT is US democrat media and one of prominent supporters of 'pro-democracy' camp. NYT reported on June 29, 2021:
HONG KONG — With each passing day, the boundary between Hong Kong and the rest of China fades faster.
The Chinese Communist Party is remaking this city, permeating its once vibrant, irreverent character with ever more overt signs of its authoritarian will. The very texture of daily life is under assault as Beijing moulds Hong Kong into something more familiar, more docile.
Residents now swarm police hotlines with reports about disloyal neighbours or colleagues. Teachers have been told to imbue students with patriotic fervour through 48-volume book sets called “My Home Is in China.” Public libraries have removed dozens of books from circulation, including one about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. (17)
Reading the article titled, 'A Form of Brainwashing’: China Remakes Hong Kong'. Yes, the ''freedom-fighter'' NYT is apparently anti-Beijing, anti-China, anti-CCP but they are like any other 'pro-democracy' MNCs enjoying membership of the largest 'pro-establishment' Chamber of Commerce. This kind of political inconsistency perfectly embodies true nature of political events happening in Hong Kong. For the ruling class of Hong Kong, external forces are internal forces; internal forces are external forces. External forces under membership of warring (?) 'pro-establishment' Chambers of Commerce enjoy electoral privilege and political protection that they can select their own favourable lawmaker(s) at the Legislative Council.
Another interesting thing is that PCCW's cross-organisational membership between YELLOW 'pro-democracy' 'opposition' camp AmCham (B. G. Srinivas; registered in 1981) and BLUE 'pro-Beijing' 'pro-establishment' camp HKGCC (HKP0360).
PCCW Limited is a Hong Kong-based company which holds interests in telecommunications, media, IT solutions, property development and investment, and other businesses.
Employing approximately 23,500* staff, PCCW maintains a presence in Hong Kong, mainland China as well as other parts of the world.
PCCW shares are listed on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK: 0008) and traded in the form of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on the OTC Markets Group Inc. in the U.S. (Ticker: PCCWY).
*As at December 31, 2014. (18)
PCCW is the largest telecommunication company in Hong Kong which run by the top oligarchs Ka-shing Li (1928-) and his son, Canadian Richard Li (HKGCC, 1966-) as a multinational company. Its cross-membership between 'pro-establishment' and 'opposition' camps points out that for oligarchs of Hong Kong, YELLOW-BLUE colour politics is just a political device to divide and conquer the working class people. At least political correctness of colour politics is not any limitation for them. Furthermore, local oligarchs are not only internal forces but also are external forces as US MNCs.
In addition, the top #1 oligarch of Hong Kong, Ka-shing Li's CK Hutchison Holdings Limited is a member of both BLUE 'pro-establishment' HKGCC and YELLOW 'anti-CCP' AmCham simultaneously as a US-HK MNC. It is same for another monopoly capital, New World Development that New World Development enjoys cross-membership among BLUE 'pro-establishment' HKGCC (investment; No. HKN0210), Our Hong Kong Foundation (Dr. Henry CHENG as Vice Chairman) and YELLOW 'anti-CCP' AmCham at the same time. Thus, for monopoly capital, colour politics is just a political tool to manage society. With help from the US government, Hong Kong's specifically localised colour revolutions happened in this context. The main aim was and still is to protect vested interests at any cost. Here, one thing must be mentioned that NEXT DIGITAL was neither monopoly capital nor a US MNC. (Apple Daily was the El Mercurio of Hong Kong not the UFCO or I.T.T. in HK politics)
Hong Kong oligarchs (monopoly capital; conglomerates) would say: 'Colour politics for you not for us!'
This shows that US has a grip on the establishment of Hong Kong. Meanwhile, BLUE / YELLOW colour politics is for the working class people not for the ruling class people themselves. There is no colour politics among the upper layer of the ruling class MNCs as masterminds of political campaigns, investors or patrons, the most powerful political and economic forces of society.
Question2: Real Estate Oligarchs are suddenly trustworthy now? They really want to save their victims of social monopolies?
地產霸權近日突發慈悲心真心想搶救他們壟斷資本所禍害的香港市民了嗎？
In short, the answer is NO. It seems that TIME FOR PR. There are three news must know below:
a. LegCo's motion on "Increasing land supply on all fronts" on June 9, 2021:
立法會大會今日(9日)進行辯論，工聯會立法會議員黃國健提出「全方位增加土地供應」議案，冀望政府在全方位增加短中長期的土地供應，加快土地開發及規劃的程序，增加住屋供應及加快產業發展。[...] 黃國健在會上表示，在數月前，國務院副總理韓正在會議上提及香港需要解決住房問題，香港的房屋問題已經成為國家領導人亦關注的社會議題，可是香港的土地供應長期短缺，香港人的居住質素下降，市民越住越細，可是越住越貴，不但未能滿足市民對住屋的龐大需求，窒礙不同產業的發展，土地不足的限制對香港最大的發展造成障礙。
多個黨派代表就議案在會議上進行1小時的辯論，最終在19票贊成，7票反對，15票棄權的情況下，因未獲在席議員過半數支持修正而被否決。(19)
On June 9, 2021, one of the democratically elected lawmakers of HKFTU, Wong Kwok-kin (1952-) submitted the non-binding personal proposal (this itself is a kind of PR) at the Legislative Council of Hong Kong which called ''Increasing land supply on all fronts''. By this move, HKFTU accurately criticised both real-estate oligarchs and crony capitalism of this city. However it was denied by functional constituency representatives' votes, especially by Abraham SHEK Lai-him (1945-) who is the most senior 'automatically elected' functional constituency representative (real-estate; 2000-).
b. At the DAB's forum, one of Hong Kong real estate oligarchs Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd., Adam KWOK (1983-) who is an executive member of The Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong one-sidedly blamed SAR government for alleged postponement of construction procedures that resulted in short of 78,000 units within 6 years.
本港房屋單位供應不足，屢次被批程序繁複、新市鎮發展進度緩慢。有政黨舉辦「重燃安居希望」論壇，出席人士指出過去6年社會缺少約7.8萬個房屋單位，促政府要追落後，加快規劃進度，利用包括綠化地、祖堂地、濕地及棕地等推動房屋供應。地產建設商會副會長郭基煇發言時指政府發展房屋土地時程序因循守舊，又稱因過往6年本港欠缺7.8萬個單位，故10年內的房屋單位供應要從每年4.3萬個提升至5.5萬個單位。他指出新市鎮發展到入伙需時約17年，當中近10年屬於規劃階段，促政府壓縮程序、加快進度。
他又稱，本港的住宅土地面積佔比僅為7%，而倫敦、紐約及新加坡的住宅土地面積佔比分別為34%、34%及14%，可見本港遠遠落後於其他城市。對於香港有約1.6萬公頃的綠化地，他形容「抽10%等於一個明日大嶼」，絕大部分是政府用地，沒有私人糾紛，較為容易發展。本港新界北的農地、漁場、棕地等合共逾8300公頃，郭又認為濕地與發展可以共存。對於祖堂地作發展用途方面，他斥相關機制僵化，不少村民就算有共識，但個別人士反對就難以買賣，情況猶如「拉布但冇得剪布」，強調民政事務總署必須檢視。(20)
民建聯昨舉辦「變革 重燃安居希望」圓桌會議，就如何增加香港房屋供應互動交流。團結香港基金副總幹事兼政策研究院主管黃元山強調，要增加短期的房屋供應，建議加快新發展區的發展，如在洪水橋新發展區和古洞北新發展區，提前開始收回和清理土地。地產建設商會副會長郭基煇則認為，只要回收的土地是業權分散或沒有規劃，並用作興建公屋的公共用途，會樂意配合政府引用《收回土地條例》收回新界私人土地，但收地前應有合理的時間，讓土地業權人先自己發展。
郭基煇強調地產商沒有囤地，指出地產商擁有一千公頃，即一般農地的百分之十二，或全港土地的百分之一。他重申，對於政府早前引用《收回土地條例》收回新界私人土地的做法，認為只要回收的土地是業權分散或沒有規劃，並用作興建公屋的公共用途，會樂意配合，惟政府亦要「雙軌並行」。他續說，政府應提升整體房屋供應的目標，並多方面加快開拓土地，包括研究發展濕地及佔地一萬六千多公頃的綠化地帶、釋放祖堂地、改革收地補償制度、妥善安置棕地經營者、便利發展商在已規劃地區提早開展建屋項目，以及設立專責部門以專屬撥款加快土地開發的工作。(21)
"The devil is in the details." There are key points in his remarks. One is clear denial of the existence of 'real estate hegemony'. In other words, this oligarch saying major developers are not 'hoarding land for profit' is totally false. Besides this, the major 4 real estate monopoly capitalists only own 1,000 hectares of land?
發展商囤積大量土地，不少為位於新界的農地。在本港近4,400公頃的農地中，有過千公頃屬於香港四大發展商，包括恆基、新鴻基、新世界及長實。地產商自八十年代開始以低價收購新界農地，惟不少一直維持閒置、甚或荒廢狀態。然而發展商卻對其行為毫不忌諱，諸如恆基甚至以其「 本港擁有最多新界土地之發展商」的身份為傲。(22)
Even at the time of the worst social unrest in 2019, the big 4 Hong Kong real estate oligarchs' land hoarding recorded more than 1,000 hectares.
Hong Kong real estate oligarchs' propaganda, its PR goal is to deny notorious 'land hoarding' practice, deny existence of so called 'real estate hegemony' (social monopolies by real estate tycoons), and the most important thing is to scapegoat the HK SAR government. Thus they are true and real antagonistic forces in this city.
Moreover, Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd. owns 5,750 hectares (57, 500, 000 m2) of land in Hong Kong alone in 2020 according to their 2019-20 annual financial report. Only 1,000 hectares? That is a lie.
Another point is that he mentioned 'only if it is separated ownership or development unplanned', they could willingly and cooperatively support land resumption for SAR government. It simply means that Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd. itself is not willing to directly provide their vastly hoarded lands for the city. Instead, let the SAR government to take others.
c. When LegCo was proceeding to vote on the non-binding proposal 'House Policy Reform, Resolution of Housing Question / 改革房屋政策，解決住屋問題' of Tony Tse (1954-) who is a lawmaker for Functional Constituency (Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape) on July 15, 2021, Abraham SHEK Lai-him (1945-) hypocritically demanded Frank Chan (1958-) who is the Secretary for Transport and Housing, the chairman of Hong Kong Housing Authority of Hong Kong SAR government separation of his Transport and Housing into different departments in order to accelerate the process of constructing public housing units.
本港房屋土地供不應求。立法會今日(15日)通過「改革房屋政策解決住屋問題」的議員議案，有議員直指運輸及房屋局牽涉的範疇太繁重，以致分身不暇，建議將運輸及房屋「分家」。地產及建造界議員石禮謙表示，運輸及房屋局局長陳帆一日只得24小時，卻要分身處理房屋及運輸政策，故政府有必要考慮將運輸及房屋分家。他批評政府看見房屋問題卻不做，才一直沒有改善。他認為政府部門不應各自為政，而政府建屋是幫助沒有樓的市民有居所，而不是只為賺錢，又指未來10年政府應該興建60萬個單位，令市民安居樂業。(23)
In fact, the biggest beneficiaries of inactiveness of the SAR government on the land and housing questions are real estate oligarchs themselves. Furthermore, Abraham SHEK Lai-him's allegation is nothing new while it is a pure PR stunt to hijack momentum of 'reformists' in order to defend vested interests of his employers behind his show. The main point is that like any other PR stunts of the real estate oligarchs of Hong Kong, it is to scapegoat the SAR government for everything. In other words, they do not want to deal with the aftermath of their own greedy social monopolies in this city.
Unfortunately, the KMT media Oriental Daily News even supported their PR campaign by their op-ed on July 16, 2021:
立法會昨日通過「改革房屋政策解決住屋問題」議員議案，地產及建造界議員石禮謙表示，運房局局長陳帆一日只得24小時，卻要分身處理房屋及運輸政策，故政府有必要考慮將運輸及房屋分家。他批評政府看見房屋問題卻甚麼都不做，才會令問題一直無改善，政府部門不應各自為政。他又認為，政府建屋是幫助無殼蝸牛有安居之所，不是只為賺錢，未來10年政府應興建60萬個公營房屋單位，讓市民安居樂業。
誠然，本港房屋問題千頭萬緒，居者無其屋成為民怨之源，政府理應覓地廣建公屋大庇天下寒士，而不是與發展商爭利，一味向錢看，動輒以欠缺經濟效益為藉口不作為。至於私人發展商，針對的是有一定經濟能力的私人市場，港府的角色是提供協助，盡量簡化審批程序，別浪費時間精力搞繁文縟節，增加經營成本。惟覓地、規劃及收地的速度不及發展，導致建屋速度落後，供不應求，港府應在改劃、批地等程序上盡量精簡。無奈現時連拆一幅私人工廈非主力牆，竟然也要花３個月時間向有關部門申請，香港愈來愈欠缺競爭力，豈是無因！
[...] 香港之所以民怨四起，皆因港府施政不到位、欠效率、堅離地。將政策局分拆重組，將力有不逮的庸官撤換或減薪，政令能出門常開，便能理順民情，提升發展速度，對香港有百利而無一害。(24)
This op-ed proved that the largest media of Hong Kong, Oriental Daily News is just one of propaganda-PR tools for real estate oligarchs. The media itself proved themselves politically unreliable for the working class people of this city.
There are two points cannot be ignored in this article: one is opposition against competition between SAR government and the real estate oligarchs. On the contrary, the competition between them can improve housing issues as the major question still is the lack of competitions. Oriental Daily News distorted it.
Another point is that Oriental Daily News exactly followed real estate oligarchs' scapegoating scheme on the SAR government, as a result, the SAR government is unfairly criticised for all social issues in this city.
Therefore, citizens should more carefully monitor Oriental Daily News while broadly receive news from various media resources. Oriental Daily News is politically unreliable and highly opportunistic to domestic issues. In fact, their true colour is the ruling real estate oligarchy in the present Hong Kong situation.
READ MORE:
COMMENT
The Hong Kong oligarchs (two-faced tycoons) feel safe as long as citizens are radically engaging in hazardous BLUE-YELLOW-color politics instead of tackling social issues caused by the social monopolies of the oligarchs themselves. Furthermore, after every large scale color riot, oligarchs and their 'agents' can always appear as local 'prosecutors' for the central government due to their official 'pro-establishment' position and cross-organisational titles in the establishment. As a result, poorly brainwashed students and wrongly radicalized workers are totally scapegoated for nothing. In conclusion, color politics itself must be completely eradicated once and for all.
最近看來地產霸權與石禮謙的經民聯，民建聯，東方日報（台灣的泛藍媒體中時合伙；台灣在野黨國民黨；扮演建制派角色的在港最大''泛藍''媒體）開始了政宣活動(lobbying?)，即將寡頭壟斷資本所造成的罪孽全都歸結於特區政府身上(這是地產霸權的一貫主張；地產霸權不存在論)。這是絕不合公義的，對港府，陳帆也極不公平的，這算是地產霸權惡用媒體的公關，是因為港府本身對港經濟幾乎沒有經濟桿槓(槓桿; economic lever)。地產霸權寡頭明知，在他們壟斷市場和建制權威的現狀機制下，港府增加的土地供應都會自動落入壟斷資本的手裏。看似突然為他們自己受害者的貧民爭取改革（多麼偽善！），實際上只是偷換改革的概念（偽裝改革）並從中牟取暴利而已。這最簡單地可以反駁，為什麼地產霸權之一的新鴻基兆業先不拿出自己十分深厚的土地儲備為全民施捨呢？當然不。
在所謂建制派(被外媒不當翻譯成親中派/親北京派，其實他們最主要代表的是本港寡頭的既得利益)的，''最資深''自動當選地產界議員石禮謙(1945-; 他反對了「全方位增加土地供應」議案)身上看得見，本港地產霸權最善於政治詐術，即地產霸權寡頭明知最大能夠阻礙反壟斷改革（香港土地房屋改革）的手段是騎劫改革的立場，以讓他們寡頭手裡加以架空，甚至藉由改革的氣勢和包裝最終得逞反改革的圖謀。這真正叫做兩面派。藍黃顏色政治的框架不能夠用於地產霸權身上，是因為藍黃顏色政治是保衛既得利益的政治工具，聘用和飼養藍黃兩大陣營的地產霸權，壟斷資本寡頭本身本來就是操控和超越顏色政治框架的存在。資本運動才是其真正的，也是唯一的政治顏色。
首先，市民該做的是徹底脫離和唾棄禍國殃民的顏色政治（政治毒草），以全心全力直接衝向本港壟斷資本所造成的種種民生問題的解決。這就是地產霸權最不希望看到的政治景象。為此需要真正獨立於地產霸權的新政黨，以最廣泛地團結反壟斷的優秀資產階級與一再受寡頭殘忍剝削的勞動者階級。新移民，不管是由大陸人的香港市民組成的或美國，英國裔的香港市民所組成的新政黨，都有可能是打破藍黃顏色政治框架及其寡頭壟斷資本的新愛港愛國力量。
NOTES
1. Frederick Engels, https://www.marxists.org, 'Engels To Eduard Bernstein', Marx Engels On Britain, Progress Publishers 1953; Additional text from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence, Progress Publishers (1975). https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/letters/79_06_17.htm
2. 陶文昭, http://theory.people.com.cn, '民生是最大的政治', July 6, 2020. http://theory.people.com.cn/n1/2020/0706/c40531-31771725.html
3. BBC, 'Cuba protests: Thousands rally against government as economy struggles', July 13, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-57799852
4. The UMBC Center for History Education, https://www.umbc.edu, 'RS#01: Background on the Guatemalan Coup of 1954', Adapted from: La Feber, Walter. America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1996. 8th ed. America in Crisis. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997. 152, 157-159. https://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Guatemalan_Coup_student:RS01.pdf
5. https://www.nytimes.com, 'I.T.T. SAID TO SEEK CHILE COUP IN '70', March 22, 1972. https://www.nytimes.com/1972/03/22/archives/itt-said-to-seek-chile-coup-in-70-anderson-says-white-house-was.html
6. https://invest.hket.com, '李嘉誠談政局 指港獨脫離現實（記者答問會足本）', March 17, 2016. https://invest.hket.com/article/1391614/李嘉誠談政局%E3%80%80指港獨脫離現實（記者答問會足本）
7. https://www.tid.gov.hk, 'HONG KONG AND MAINLAND OF CHINA: SOME IMPORTANT FACTS', June 16, 2021. https://www.tid.gov.hk/english/aboutus/publications/factsheet/china.html
8. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk, '香港能源統計年刊2020年版', April 29, 2021. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/tc/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=B1100002&scode=90
9. https://www.bankofchina.com, '佔中對經濟及股市影響', September 1, 2014. https://www.bankofchina.com/mo/fimarkets/fm2/fm22/201409/t20140901_3822308.html
10. https://data.worldbank.org, 'GDP growth (annual %) - Hong Kong SAR, China', accessed on July 15, 2021. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2020&locations=HK&start=1962&view=chart
11.Yen Nee Lee, https://www.cnbc.com, ‘5 charts show how protests in Hong Kong have affected the city’s economy and stock market’, December 25, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/26/hong-kong-protests-impact-on-economy-stock-market-in-five-charts.html
12. https://ustr.gov, ‘U.S.-Hong Kong Trade Facts’, accessed on July 16, 2021. https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/hong-kong
13. https://www.hkma.gov.hk, 'Payment Systems', June 11, 2021. https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/international-financial-centre/financial-market-infrastructure/payment-systems/
14. https://www.hkma.gov.hk, 'How Does the LERS Work?', April 19, 2021. https://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/key-functions/money/linked-exchange-rate-system/how-does-the-lers-work/
15. Mark Preen, https://www.china-briefing.com, 'The Changing Status of Hong Kong as a Global Financial Center', December 18, 2020. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/the-changing-status-of-hong-kong-as-a-global-financial-center-op-ed/
16. https://www.elegislation.gov.hk, 'Cap. 542 Legislative Council Ordinance', June 24, 2021. https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap542!en?xpid=ID_1438403408969_002&INDEX_CS=N
17. Vivian Wang and Alexandra Stevenson, https://www.nytimes.com, 'A Form of Brainwashing’: China Remakes Hong Kong',
18. https://www.chamber.org.hk, 'MEMBERSHIP', accessed on July 16, 2021. https://www.chamber.org.hk/en/membership/directory_detail.aspx?member_cate=HKM&id=HKP0360
19. 蔡洋子, https://www.wenweipo.com, '全方位增加土地供應議案 黃國健冀加快開發', June 9, 2021. https://www.wenweipo.com/s/202106/09/AP60c09b41e4b08d3407c53e48.html
20. https://hk.on.cc, '郭基煇指6年缺7.8萬房屋單位 促政府多途徑發展土地追落後', July 15, 2021. https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20210715/bkn-20210715184324755-0715_00822_001.html
21. https://std.stheadline.com, '郭基煇：樂意配合加快新發展區發展', July 16, 2021. https://std.stheadline.com/daily/article/2376237/日報-港聞-郭基煇-樂意配合加快新發展區發展
22. https://www.hk01.com, '發展商囤積農地過千公頃 土地空置稅是解決良方嗎？', March 21, 2019. https://www.hk01.com/01觀點/308785/發展商囤積農地過千公頃-土地空置稅是解決良方嗎
23. https://hk.on.cc, '石禮謙斥部門各自為政 令房屋問題沒改善 倡運房局分家', July 15, 2021. https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20210715/bkn-20210715100152096-0715_00822_001.html
24. https://hk.on.cc, '權責太多礙效率 分拆重組施政通', July 16, 2021. https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/commentary/20210716/bkn-20210716000419748-0716_00832_001.html
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
Comments