Tung Chee-hwa: Inextricable Implications

Tung Chee Hwa, In his private capacity

Tung Chee Hwa, in his private capacity

Former Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa (董建華) has been staying in Taiwan as an ordinary traveller since March 27, and is scheduled to leave on April 1. CNA quotes him as saying that he will see relatives and friends – former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) being one of the latter category. Tung stepped down in 2005 as Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, but remains active as vice chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council (台湾陆委会) also emphasizes that Tung’s visit is no official call, but Chen Yi-hsin (陳一新), member of the Friends of Hong Kong and Macau Association in Taiwan‘s (中华港澳之友协会顾问委员会) advisory board and Tamkang University’s (淡江大学) professor at the Institute of American Studies, believes that given Tung’s function as a vice chairman of the Political Consultative Conference, political implications (政治意涵) are inextricable (摆脱不了). But Chen also points out that Tung’s task in Taiwan still didn’t need to amount to a political one, because the main aspects of development between Hong Kong and Taiwan were about trade and tourism.

Tung’s younger sister Tung Xiaoping (董小萍) is married with a Taiwanese, Peng Yin Gang (彭荫刚), who took charge of running the Tung family’s Orient Overseas Shipping Line (OOCL, 东方海外航运公司) after Tung had become Hong Kong’s Chief Executive.

Update: most info based on this story »


Red Flag Review Car, Wo Buy Ni, Oct 24, 2009
Charter 08 and Greater China, Dec 13, 2008
Double-Ten, HK Delegation, October 9, 2008

5 Responses to “Tung Chee-hwa: Inextricable Implications”

  1. Frankly, I think Mr. Tung is a tragic political figure. What he could do to democratize HK when he was in power was probably quite limited.


  2. I agree. The Hong Kong CE post was probably a call to duty, rather than an offer, and nothing he accepted enthusiastically. Above all, he isn’t a politician, and politics is a trade that demands very specific personal skills.
    As for democratization demands, he was between a rock and a hard place. Donald Tsang was much better prepared for the job, but it’s hard to be in that position and to sell its agenda successfully, no matter who is trying.


  3. The real tragedy is that people still give a lot of credit to the One Country, Two Systems concept. What did Beijing lose in acceding to One Country, Two Systems? Nothing. They knew they would be in a position to exert ever-greater influence in HK. It doesn’t matter that HK is still much more free than other places in China. The trend is still in a direction that the authoritarians in BJ prefer.

    One Country, Two Systems is a sell-out system that was foisted upon the HK people and that still is billed as wonderful because it makes the real power-brokers — tycoons and their masters in BJ — happy and costs them little.


  4. This is the way “One Country, Two Systems” seems to work – or the view of it I’d most likely share: “How to corrupt an open society”.
    In this context, too, I’d still refer to Beijing’s political system as a totalitarian rather than authoritarian one – it can’t live with two systems.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: