I have always felt that comments on Hong Kong matters should be offered rather carefully by those of us who can escape the consequences of our advice by moving to another country. This is clearly not a widely held view, but there it is. There is a role for outsiders: our view may allow us to spot lies and misdescriptions; pointing such things out is useful. But I am regularly irritated by citizens of free countries who feel moved to write to the South China Morning Post editor offering advice to Hongkongers, usually of a rather timid kind. It is not for us to urge Hongkongers to fight for what they believe in. But it is also not for us to urge them to surrender without a struggle. Still, there we are. At least foreigners in Hong Kong can be expected to have some idea of what they are talking about.
I was, however, moved to incandescent rage by a piece authored by one Tom Plate. Mr Plate – Professor Plate, actually – does not live in Hong Kong. He has never lived in Hong Kong. He lives in Los Angeles, where he enjoys such rights as the right to vote in elections, and indeed the right to run in them. Prof Plate feels, however, that these may be essential for Americans, but for lesser breeds without the law something more authoritarian may be perfectly acceptable. He has written admiring biographies of Lee Kwan Yew, Thaksin Shinawatra, and Mahathir Mohamad. Condescension or racism? Perhaps a bit of both.
Prof Plate’s take on Hong Kong matters is wasted on the South China Morning Post. It would fit Xinhua. The economy “soared” after 1997 (I could have sworn there was an Asian financial crisis about that time) and we were all apparently deliriously happy until an argument blew up over the voting arrangements for the CE. Not having been here, Prof Plate has apparently not heard of previous arguments about national security, national education, milk powder, locusts and what have you. He presents the choice as between elections with a nominating system which produces candidates who “love China” (which he optimistically interprets as meaning “more or less supported Beijing”) and “opponents in Hong Kong wanted a wide-open, free-swinging nomination process.” This was, Prof Plate believes, far more democracy than Beijing could stomach. At this point in his musings democracy suddenly appears in quotes, it being apparently a local delusion here that free elections are a part of democracy.
Prof Plate then outlines the decision of the National People’s Congress, which he characterises as an “unsurprising and not so awful compromise.” Which is, if you’ll pardon the expression, pure unadulterated horse shit. The arrangement is not a compromise at all. It is in fact the most extreme of the proposals put forward for consideration in Hong Kong, having been raised months ago by the FTU, a Beijing mouthpiece. Prof Plate thinks the democrats at this point “went bonkers” (what does this man teach?), despite the fact that Beijing was trying to meet the democrats at “some halfway point”. From where to where, one wonders?
Prof Plate has a serious claim to be the most ill-informed person to grace the SCMP’s letters page for some time. He supposes there were no elections in Hong Kong before 1997, which is not true. He supposes that Chinese officials never comment on the internal affairs of other states, which is nonsense. He thinks the Xi Jinping administration is moderate, which is a bit premature. And he has a nice line in political platitudes like “it’s rare that one side or the other gets everything it wants”, as if Hong Kong people were insisting on a whole loaf instead of half of one, when they haven’t actually been offered anything yet except a big fraud.
Please people, if you live in the home of the brave and land of the free, refrain from writing op ed pieces for overseas newspapers urging the merits of cowardice and slavery.
tim's experiment 
There’s a pithy American phrase that springs to mind – which characterizes the [hard] soap being peddled by pro-Beijingists – don’t piss on my shoes and tell me its raining.
It’s clear that politics is HK is regressing – with business interests being given a free pass on so many flagrant breaches – that when there’s a rare ICAC prosecution, one has to wonder if it isn’t part of some greater mainland power play (from Bo Xilai/Zhou Yongkang mess?)
Unfortunately the once venerated SCMP has self censored articles in subjugation of its owners mainland holdings – which, in any self respecting freebie newssheet, would merit an “advertising feature” strapline or ‘a declaration of ownership’ – to the detriment of the paying reader.
Tom Plate has always been urging cowardice and slavery throughout his career. Kowtowing to Beijing is his only path to survival.
This is my posted comment to Tom Plate’s article:
“Is Tom Plate’s recommendation for Tung Chee-Hwa for real? Does he not know that Tung had to resign in disgrace? I guess Plate gets his information from the Peoples’ Daily and the Global Times. Really, Mr. Plate, don’t embarrass yourself. Study Hong Kong’s history first before commenting or at least hire someone to do the research for you.”