Now it’s Miffy-Gate…

An eruption of Peeved Panty-wetting Panda Petulance, as Beijing insists the US is the main threat to global trade and is forcing it to militarize the South China Sea. This is the same regime that has picked Teresa Cheng as Hong Kong’s new Justice Secretary, only to find she has embarrassing illegal-structure and other problems. If their cantankerousness on the international front is any guide, Chinese officials will dig in and keep her.

Cheng’s credibility is falling away in clumps on a daily basis. The latest blows to her image are: her official declaration of interests showing ownership of multiple properties as far afield as Yunnan; an illicitly enlarged window at her HK$62 million Repulse Bay apartment; and use of a loophole, supposedly to benefit struggling first-time home-buyers, to reduce stamp duty on her purchase of the latter. (This just in: Miffy and Pooh in the wine basement. The banality is so predictable it’s almost sad.)

Her use of the stamp-duty loophole is presumably legal, and indeed common-sense – who would pay millions in tax unnecessarily? But in the context of Hong Kong’s unaffordable housing, rising inequality and a growing sense that the rich feel above the law, it’s a killer.

Beijing has two reasons to stick with Cheng.

The first, as with denying mercantilism and military expansionism, is pure bloody-minded refusal to admit it might be wrong. We must show Hong Kong who’s boss and not defer to public opinion or a free press. Keeping her is a Leninist version of ‘the medium is the message’.

The second is that we can’t find anyone else who can be trusted to publicly manage and justify the continuing clampdown on political dissent and rule of law in Hong Kong.

The main reason to dump her is that she might become a liability to the ongoing ideological rectification of the city. For example, one of the job’s duties will be to help pass national security (‘Article 23’) laws. Among other things, Beijing will probably demand anti-subversion measures that criminalize opinions – opening the way to censorship of the press and the Internet. Will the presence of Teresa Cheng the Stamp Duty Dodger tip the balance and bring enough protestors onto the street to derail the new laws?

If Beijing’s Liaison Office is thinking ahead, it must also consider the pitiful reputation of Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s administration. Carrie has no role in any of this, except to look helpless. But a Hong Kong government that looks and acts powerless-bordering-on-joke weakens Beijing’s control. Letting Carrie appear to take charge and get rid of the new Justice Secretary would bolster the puppet’s authority, such as it is.

On balance, the pan-dems should quietly hope the Communists keep Teresa Cheng in office.

 

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Now it’s Miffy-Gate…

  1. GCHQ says:

    “Peeved Panty-wetting Panda Petulance”

    In your case it’s “Prejudiced Pims-guzzling Postcolonial Prolapse”

    The brain is in prolapse for sure. Probably other organs too to judge by what you write.

    Get off it Buster.

    Po, pip!

  2. Chinese Netizen says:

    Yep. The commie toads are doubling down.

  3. Chris Maden says:

    How the hell did Teresa Cheng become so rich in the first place?

  4. Gatts says:

    Was asking myself the same thing how she got that rich, haven’t seen this addressed in any article.

  5. Big Al says:

    I tell you, if I had as much money as Ms Cheng I wouldn’t be fucking working. I’d be in a hammock on a beach somewhere nice a warm, with cold beer and hot babes. Stay in Hong Kong and put up with all this shite? No way! Choose life!

  6. Joe Blow says:

    Big Al ?? Big Al, the “Warren Beatty” of Angeles City ? Dude, Rosie Ann says ‘hi’ and she wants to remind you that you are way behind with the child support payments. And the same goes for Fat Bennie, Tattoo Frank, Dirty Don and Ginger George. So spread the word at the OCH and if you hit da Peens over the Lunar holiday, let’s meet up at the New Fiesta Lounge. ‘Send-me-a-girl ‘ and cheers.

  7. Stephen says:

    @Chris Maden and Gatts

    For the source of her riches look no further than Husband Otto. Now how did he win all those juicy, lucrative contracts year after year … ?

  8. HillnotPeak says:

    This woman will stay. Remember the controversy around Paul Chan? He is now the Financial Secretary. Teresa is on fast track for CE. Otto can be Housing Secretary, so much experience.

  9. Colonial Dinosaur says:

    How long before the pan-dem’s make a complaint to ICAC concerning this lady and her alleged nefarious business dealings I wonder? It would appear at first sight that she has amassed a great deal of wealth and as a new appointee should I believe have had to declare the source of this… I am sure the POB Ordinance applies to her as it did with a previous holder of high office… or as the “Penguin” may have put it “quack,quack…”

  10. Des Espoir says:

    There seems to be some comment around that it was OK for her to call herself a first time buyer, since she held the other properties through a company. This is not what I have been advised – if you are the beneficial owner of a property, be it through a company or a trust, then this disqualifies you as a first time buyer. The solicitor would have made her sign a declaration that she was not the beneficial owner of properties already. if she signed that, then it is FRAUD.

  11. WolfLikeMe says:

    That’s a really nice looking flat for 62 million.

  12. Gromit says:

    Does anyone know of any links between Cheng or Otto and the beneficial owners of Rich Port, the previous owners of the Tuen Mun property? To pay double the price only 10 months after the previous sale seems to smell a bit.

  13. Old Newcomer says:

    Has Adams never heard the saying “If you have nothing to say, don’t say anything”? Today’s contribution is particularly vacuous.

  14. Chinese Netizen says:

    @Old Newcomer: You mean the great insights of Leon Twatsky HQ?

  15. Din Gao says:

    Emailed to IRD (taking the lead from Des Espoir):

    Am I regarded as “the owner of a residential property” for the purposes of calculating AVD on a property I intend to purchase as an individual if a company I own has already purchased/owns a property in HK?

Comments are closed.