Posted on 11/05/2004 3:45:23 AM PST by NZerFromHK
Disclaimer: this talkshow has no transcripts available and it was broadcasted entirely in Chinese (Cantonese). I'm summarizing the important points here for Freepers to know what this famous HK talkshow host is saying.
Some of the mainpoints in the programme include:
On Michael Moore and Osama bin Laden:
Michael Moore is either incredibly dumb or an undercover campaigner for Bush. He (along with OBL) has unwittingly helped Bush thinking his pseudo-documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. There was a scene when Bush learned the attacks in New York on 9/11 and he was frozen and pondering. Moore remarked in the film that Bush must be thinking about his family's ties with bin Laden family. Hey, you can add whatever comment you want, and it is obvious to all learned middle class Americans how ridiculous this must be. Same with OBL.
If anone watched F9/11 and decides to vote against Bush, he or she must be an incredibly dumb idiot. Are Moore and OBL working to defeat Kerry so Hillary could run in 2008, as the US Democrats have run out of talented politicians?
On Kerry:
Bush was a very weak president - he fails to shape much of the mandate and push forward his policies forcefully. The fact Kerry was beaten shows he is incredibly weak and he mas made many serious mistakes:
a) He shouldn't go unserious on the War of Terror. It was one of few strongest points of Bush. Had he sounded as tough as Bush and promised an even tougher WOT he would have won.
b) He got the wrong impression that most Americans are liberal on social issue and publicly supported all types of abortion and gay marriage. After 9/11 and even from the late 1980s forward there is a sea change and moderation towards social issues in the United States. Homosexuality acts, sure. But formally granting gay marriage as a redognized ceremony scare off all conservative votes and even many votes which are otherwise not so politically conservative.
Sure you see seas of gay scenes in places like San Francisco on the West Coast and New York, but in other areas - the middle parts of the country, the likes of Utah, Missouri, Mississippi, they are conservative on this. If Kerry wants the social liberal votes, he only needs to say he supports granting de-facto homosexual "couples" rights recognition - this would have scared off a lot les votes.
On average liberals, esp the East Coast ones:
One thing that I hate most are those pretentious self-declared intellectuals in their 20s - the types you see on the East Coast and working as scriptwriters, journalists, film directors. They say they just read books by the likes of Noam Chomsky, Susan Sontag, Edward Said - well, all those juvenile stuff are for teething children to read and by the time you reach university (college) you should have known enough to have outgrown it. They say "Oh yeah, how terrible, this Bush! How can someone vote this stupid man?". But do they really believe it? They are just treating what they believe as fashion - put oin there to show how "enlightened" and "fashionable" they are.
On Bush:
Yes, he is weak and fails to shape agendas to his favour. But at least he is an "known evil". He is honest and frank about what he believes - he has convictions. Besides, who says pre-emptive wars are wrong? This comes directly from The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Lots of wars in the past, like China joining the Korean War, the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1978, China's crackdown on Falun Gong, were all initiated by this rationale according to Beijing. And more importantly, if Bush doesn't do so, if you only fight back when something hit you first, the damage could well ahve been immeasurably bad.
On Hong Kong's newspaper editors, journalists, and pundits:
These third rate editors, journalists, and pundits claims that we must stop using American perspectives and develop reports on the United States using the Asian angle. And then? Copy verbatim from the US's New York Times, Britain's Financial Times or the Guardian. All these MSMs have an agenda - they all stand on the left and they all claim Kerry was going to win. Come on, they are trying to shape an agenda, and OK, they could well believe these themselves as they could well be hoping "Let these be self-fulfilling", but use your brain and know that there is another side of America that you don't know! The US is not just New York and San Francisco and what they say does not necesarily depict the full pictures. And now you are claiming "It's shocking that Bush won!"? This is incredibly unthinking.
On the US Democrats
The modern US Democrats has a forefather - FDR. Roosevelt was in fact a leftie - a socialist - he set up social security, spent sums of money on infrastructure to "create jobs". All subsequent US Democrat presidents like Kennedy, Clinton were all influenced by him. The reason Kennedy was shot was because someone deemed he would wreck the nation if they let Kennedy to continue to run things.
As it takes more than a day to build a ruin (original idiom in Chinese was "A three feet deep ice was not formed with a single freezing day"), 9/11 occured 8 months after Bush came in office but much of it was the fault of Clinton's years of presidency. Saomali, First WTC attack, Saudi attack in 1995, the US Embassies bombings in Kenya and Tazania in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000. What did Clinton do? He ignored all these things - playing saxophones, playing with cigars (hint, hint). Yeah, Americans (especially those liberals) thought "He's great, a handsome president, and everything is fine at home", but the outside world was not. It was fine when the world scene is peaceful - the Democrats can and do get elected in these times, but not now and they can't get elected as a result.
The US Democrats are not serious on foreign policy and defence and Americans don't trust them. If they want to have a chance in 2008 they must get serious on these two areas.
Seems the commentator "gets it" much better than 48% of americans do..
A biography of Tao Kit:
Tao Kit, originally named Cho Chit. Born in Hong Kong in 1958 with ancestral home at Guilin in Guangxi province. He graduated from Lingnam Secondary School at 17 and attended the University of Warwick in Britain and obtained the Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature. He subsequently gained a postgraduate diploma in International Relations from the London School of Economics, London University. He subsequently worked for the British Broaccasting Corporation (BBC) and the UK correspondent for the Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK).
He subequently returned to Hong Kong in 1990 and worked as deputy general editor for Overseas Chinese Daily and Ming Pao respectively. Currently he is a full-time newspaper columnist and host of a variety of radio programmes on the Commercial Radio (CR) Hong Kong and the RTHK.
This host is considered far right-wing by today's Hong Kong standards but typical of the centre-right in the late 1980s (co-incidentially he also likes Ronald Reagan).
Many considered him as "crackpot" but nonetheless he dares to speak out what many Hong Kong want to say and can't, and offer insights to many Western and Chinese cultural and political issues. His programme is currently one of the most popular in Hong Kong and definitely the most right-wing.
Where can I get a transcript in Chinese?
Sort of Hong Kong's answer to Rush Limbaugh ?
LOL...
Does he speak english?
Maybe Rush Limbaugh could do a telephone interview with him or something..
That would be a HOOT...
There was originally a shortened summary of each night's programmes on an archive (go to the page that I linked, click on the right hand side withwords "Wen ku ban"), but they have now abandoned doing so since 2 September. So it is unfortunate that you have listen it live (23:00-00:00 Hong Kong Time every Monday to Friday. Since Singapore lies in the same time zone as Hong Kong it should be the same time for you)
Unfortunately to listen to past editions requires paid subscription - HK$75 for 3 months.
Hong Kong is a very interesting society. Up until very recently the government owned "public service" broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) is one of the most right-wing (mocks the PRC, leftism) media in the territory - in fact it is even far more right-wing than the Chinese language programmes of the BBC even if produced by the same producers as RTHK. But it seems China has tightened the grip on it and many programmes are pretty mushy now. But they still maintain one very anti-Communist TV programme.
Tao Kit also hosts an English-language tutorial programme over at the RTHK and I would say he is one of the best English-language users among Hong Kong Chinese. I think he is still to the left of most Freepers here - he is probably somewhere between George W. Bush and his father.
There is also one other talk show host as anti-Communist as him - Wong Yuk-man. My father knows him personally but not a very close friend. He was injured in a politically-motivated attack earlier this year due to his viewpoint, and he quit for a while, but now has come back into the fold and hosts another programme at Commercial Radio once every week.
Interestingly Tao Kit can go freely into China and do his businesses there - and very often he is witty enough to deflect HK's local leftist attacks on him and his ideas by saying "See! Even today's newspaper xxx in Shanghai says what I have said long ago! It is you guys that are so afraid of Beijing and engage in self-castration in reporting views!"
I think what Tao Kit means when he says W. is weak is that he doesn't seem to convince enough people through his oratory. Also he seems to have lots of times in apparent indecision, and Tao Kit could well have mistaken these period as weakness of Bush himself.
Satirical Hong Kong program appears to have taken the US media to task over Zogbyism.
Consider the illegal blockade of judicial nominees (collusion between the NAACP and DNC). Nice guys finish last.
It doesn't mean he had to bully the Congress but we are the party with the upper hand and not restricted by anything other than tradition. There was no legal block to putting the nominations to a vote.
Found this page with biography and photo of Tao Kit. It is mostly in Chinese but it introduces his English tutorial programme over at RTHK so it shoulld have bits of English:
http://www.rthk.org.hk/elearning/betterenglish/speech_mail.htm
There were leftists who voted for Kerry even though they said "he is no better than the devil we already know". Their motive for voting for him was purely to oust Bush. We pushed back harder.
If John Kerry had made more of a play to the center (on restricting abortion or fighting the war on terror) he would have seen the left extreme of his base standing on principle and voting for Nader again. Other young voters would have been disillusioned and stayed home (some did this anyway).
John Kerry's support was a fragile coalition of conflicting voters. He had to be careful in stating his positions because the wrong word here or there would turn off some of his electorate.
George W. Bush was honest in his positions (and we have seen 4 years of his Presidency. He spoke to the voters and said, "Vote for me and I'm give you more of the same." Are there things that we want to see him stand firmer on? Sure. Would Kerry have given us a one of them? No.
John Kerry tried to present himself as the antiBush. Good enough reason to vote for Bush, right there.
maybe his a RUSH should so a show together sometime.
I can sense Tao Kit has nothing but contempt to these leftist base voters (young voters, Deaniacs, etc). He also said in the programme that these are "simple, naive, stupid" that I didn't translate.
Thank you very much for posting this. I love to see some of what is being said in other societies.
My take is China lets one or two go to set an example to deny they are an evil Communist empire.
If things start imploding over there, things will change.
Do you have any more information on the violent outbreaks in the Chinese village between Chinese-Muslims and the other ethnic religous Chinese? I saw one story and hear one blurb on the radio and that is it.
He says China should stop building anti-American ties with France or Russia and instead ally with the US to defend against Islamic jihad. He knows Huntington well enough to see that if the US (and Western Judeo-Christian culture) is destroyed, the next target of the jihadi movement would be Asian Confucian culture and prime target China.
And of course Tao also says China should start democratizing so as to improve relations with the US.
These third rate editors, journalists, and pundits claims that we must stop using American perspectives and develop reports on the United States using the Asian angle. And then? Copy verbatim from the US's New York Times, Britain's Financial Times or the Guardian. All these MSMs have an agenda - they all stand on the left and they all claim Kerry was going to win. Come on, they are trying to shape an agenda, and OK, they could well believe these themselves as they could well be hoping "Let these be self-fulfilling", but use your brain and know that there is another side of America that you don't know! The US is not just New York and San Francisco and what they say does not necessarily depict the full pictures. And now you are claiming "It's shocking that Bush won!"? This is incredibly unthinking.
People in China should realize that BUSH COUNTRY America (pejoratively called "flyover country") is not like the major cities on the coasts. I doubt that rural China is much like Hong Kong or Beijing in either daily life experience or even moral attitudes and political view.
The left over here seems to be other mind that the election HAD to be stolen precisely because the phony exit polls showed Kerry up. They believed the biased media and got what they deserved.
When cooking the books, it is always best to keep a second register with the real numbers so you know just how much you've stolen. The DNC did not want a paper trail and thus got caught up in believing their own lie.
I call this Zogbyism. The left calls political witchhunts McCarthyism so I figured I would create a new word for the biased media's attempt to turn out the President/elect a Democrat.
Zogby's poll results were very far off the mark (+or-4 points in some cases). He is as shamed as Senator McCarthy was for claiming he had an ever shifting number of names of guaranteed communists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.