Sharing with you some of the emails amongst the CPKY of these few days

“Dear Fred,
There are meetings and meetings. One meeting changed the world in the aftermath of the WWII. That meeting marked the end of China’s isolation and came out of a 22 year-old cocoon. It enabled China to take its rightful place among other nations and move closer and closer to the top.
In his Memoir (1978) and his book “Leaders” (1982), Richard Nixon recounted his first meetings with Zhou Enlai and Mao Tse Tung on his historic visit to China in February 1972.
The meeting had been prepared in utmost secrecy with the core players, Henry Kissinger and Zhou Enlai making the arrangements. Like everything that’s important, the diplomatic breakthrough was considered right by the leaders of both nations having regard to external circumstances.
Nixon recalled that when he was half way down the steps from Air Force One, Zhou Enlai started to clap. Nixon paused f
or a moment and then returned the gesture according to the Chinese custom. Remembering that Zhou had been humiliated by Foster Dulles who refused to shake hands at the Geneva Conference in 1954, Nixon made a point of extending his hand as he walked towards Zhou.
Nixon wrote: When our hands met, one era ended and another began.
He was to be most impressed by Zhou in their first meeting. He said Zhou was “quite simply one of the most extraordinary gifted people I have ever known” after 15 hours of one-to-one solid negotiations, apart from the many hours they spent together at lunches, dinners, and other public events. He singled out four things which Zhou made an indeliable impression on him: stamina, preparation, negotiating skill and poise under pressure. (my comment: Good qualities for a top lawyer too.)
Henry Kissinger had fore-warned him of Zhou’s negotiating skill. Nixon himself found that “Zhou was tough and tenacious, but was flexible in working out our differences..He was also firm but courteous and that he spoke most softly when he ‘had the cards’…It reflected his mature self-confidence. He never felt it necessary, as the Russian leaders so obviously did, to prove his manhood before his aides.”
Nixon remembered that Zhou “conveyed immense charm and poise through his graceful movements…Our conversation ranged from politics to history to philosophy, in all of which Zhou was completely at home. Zhou was a scholar-turned-insurrectionist who never lost the scholar’s keenness of mind and depth of thought.”
Nixon was aged 59 at the time, and he was amazed at Zhou’s stamina. He said, “The seventy-three year old Zhou was quick, tough, and alert throughout” even when some of the younger men on both sides became drowsy. “He never wandered from the subject at hand, never filibustered, and never asked for a break.” In working out the Shanghai Communique, when some disagreement about the wording could not be resolved in the scheduled meetings, Zhou did not leave the problem to his aides, but met personally with Kissinger for the rest of the day and night to iron it out. “The next morning he would look as if he had just returned from a restful weekend in the country.” remarked an astonished Nixon.
In his 1982 book Nixon was to admit that “The one man who deserves the primary credit (for achieving the diplomatic breakthrough) was Zhou Enlai.” This compliment, coming from the egocentric ex-President, writing at a time when he knew his politic life was over, commands belief.
At the outset of the historic meeting with Nixon, Mao said, with reference to specific international issues, “Those questions are not questions to be discussed in my place. They should be discussed with the Premier. I discuss the philosophical questions.”,
Nixon complimented Mao’s writings, “The Chairman’s writings moved a nation and have changed the world.”
Mao replied “I haven’t been able to change it. I ‘ve only been able to change a few places in the vicinity of Peking.”
As they changed topics, Nixon asked, “Chiang Kai Shek calls the Chairman a bandit. What does the Chairman call him?”
Mao chuckled when the question was translated but Chou intervened, “In the newspapers sometimes we call him a bandit; he calls us bandits in turn. Anyway, we abuse each other.” “Actually,” Mao said, “the history of our friendship with him is much longer than the history of your friendship with him.”
More talks followed and then Mao said to Nixon with a broad smile, “I voted for you during your last election.”
Nixon responded, “When the Chairman says he voted for me, he voted for the lesser of two evils.”
As the meeting neared its end, Nixon said, “We know that you and the Prime Minister have taken great risks in inviting us here. For us also it was a difficult decision. But having read some of your statements, I know that you are one who sees when an opportunity comes, and then knows that you must seize the hour and seize the day.” This last phrase was a quote from Mao’s poems.
Mao modestly said, “Seize the hour and seize the day, I think that, generally speaking, people like me sound like a lot of big cannons!” <I suppose in modern parlance what Mao said was that it was a lot of bull shit!>
Talking about poetry, Nixon said, “Zhou’s poetic turn of mind, as well as Mao’s, is not unusual among great leaders. Politics, at its best, is most poetry than prose.”
Comparing the two Chinese leaders, Nixon had this to say, “Zhou looked, talked, and acted like a highly civilized, debonair diplomat. Mao was robust, earthy, exuding an animal magnetism.”
In Nizon’s opinion, the Chinese Revolution would never have caught fire without Mao. And without Zhou it would have burned out and only the ashes would remain. Nixon predicted in his 1982 book that “China- with one billion of the world’s ablest people with enormous natural resources- can become not only the most populous but also the most powerful nation in the world.” His prediction has largely become true!
Before he died, Nixon siad that apart from Watergate, history would remember him for his 1972 China Visit.
My comments : Good leaders know how to end strife and make peace. Maybe our CE could learn from this historical event.
Regards,
Roderick

My reply:

“As if I have read the book myself, thank you Roderick for the precise.

By the way, I am now reading the book of Lee Kuan Yew. I like his reply at P4 when he was asked how Singapore would face China as it grows more eminence. He said ” They expect Singaporeans to be more respectful of China as it grows more influential. They tell us that countries big or small are equal: we are not a hegemon. But when we do something they don’t like, they say you have made 1.3 billion people unhappy…So please know your place!”

I think I can borrow that phrase in future whenever anything or anyone upsets me. “

His further reply:-

” Dear Junius,
I am glad you found some of the short articles I sent worth reading.
Richard Nixon remembered Lee Kuan Yew to be compact and muscular, like a champion prize-fighter who had a hard-edged glint in his eyes that never softened. Nixon said Lee was one of the ablest leaders he had met. He was impressed that Lee considered nothing was more important than ensuring the security and prosperity of his people.
He described Lee as shrewd, opportunistic, calculating and devious.
When Lee’s party was campaigning in 1959, he played the role of the anti-colonial, anti-western firebrand and railed against the evils of the white man. But soon as he was elected, he jailed over one hundred of his former Communist colleagues and immediately set to work to appease Singapore’s wealthy Chinese elite and assure foreigners that any investments they might make in Singapore, and any business executives and workers they might send, would be safe.
Nixon recalled that early in his presidency he sent his Secretary of the Treasury, John Connally, on a global fact-finding trip.
Nixon recalled Connally’s report on Singapore opened with the remark, “Singapore is the best run country in the world”
I hope that Hong Kong would one day produce someone of Lee’s calibre.
Roderick”

My follow-up comment on 16-8-13:-

“I am afraid unlike Singapore, HK political situation doesn’t permit any shrewd, opportunistic, calculating and devious character to last long as a leader. Obviously, Leung is trying to be so but he is stepping on the thin ice!”

Fred then rejoined the conversation:-

“The problem with CY and his predecessors is not that they are not shrew, opportunistic, etc. The problem is they do not have a good popular base and the backing of an effective political party.
The current political system in Hong Kong is structurally flawed.
A Chief Executive cannot be a member of a political party. Correct me if I am wrong, there is nothing to this effect in the Basic Law but this is a condition stipulated under section 31 of the Chief Executive Election Ordinance. How can it be if the CE is to be elected by universal suffrage which will require a massive political organization?
If we want a stable democratic government for Hong Kong, three things must be done: (1) Implement a parliamentary system as in the UK; (2) do away with proportional representation; and (3) allow and encourage political parties to be developed and to be partly public-funded. With power to be garnered through elections, a two-party system will eventually emerge, one left of centre and one right of centre.
Unfortunately, under the current political system, I cannot see how any fundamental change can be made.
Fred Kan”

Roderick replied on 16-8-13:-

“Dear Fred,
It is trite to say all man-made systems, including political ones, have flaws. No one since Adam has been able to work or play without restrictions or limitations.
When Nixon described Lee as devious, he also observed that Lee was opportunistic which meant he was able to make the most of the changing circumstances that confronted him. Like Mao on the Long March, he went to work with whatever tools he had and improved them as he went along. He did not moan and groan (unless it suited his purpose) that the working conditions were not ideal. He shaped events and not the other way round.
One thing Nixon did not mention was that Lee had enormous charisma. He could charm people when he needed to. I have yet to recognise the kind of personal charm he exhibited in any one politician in Hong Kong.
As to the present requirement of the CE, I dare say being a one-person political party has its advantages. Admittedly it takes a person of exceptional dexterity to be successful under this system, but then to lead seven million people takes more than just cleverness and hard work. It takes much more. Has CY got what it takes? Well, it is far more important to ask whether CY can make people feel that he has got it and place their trust on him. Without trust, little can be achieved.
I believe that a great leader knows how to end strife and make peace. He brings out the best in people. He is inspired and in turn inspires. He should be a force for unity amongst the people he leads. People are persuaded by reason, but moved by emotion. If CY can both persuade and move most of us, then Hong Kong can have a great future.
Roderick”