The Political Incorrectness of the Media Fascist

(Yip Yatchee at Diuman Park)  The Political Incorrectness of the Media Fascist.  April 10, 2007.

[in translation]

In recent months, the "Fruit Daily" newspaper has a column known as "politically incorrect" and the author is always the politically incorrect blogger known as "Yellow Cow."  Earlier, he had assumed the role of "media fascist" to combat the "environmental protection Red Guards" to comic effect.  Later, "Fruit Daily" set up this new column for this incorrect blogger to express his/her views.

After reading the most recent editions of "politically incorrectness," I am bored to death.  The so-called "political incorrectness" is the same old fart.  This is supposed to be "incorrect" because:

Environment protection = excuse for government to interfere with business = violation of free economy = stopping people from getting wealthy = incorrect

Free economy = everything and anything is correct under any circumstances

Simply put, any environmental protection is against a free economy and therefore incorrect.  It is just that we are deadly stupid and have been brain-washed by the environmental protection groups.  Therefore, even "encouraging frugal living" and "reducing consumption" are utterly incorrect.

Yesterday, the politically incorrect blogger was again trotting his stuff at "Fruit Daily" and talking about how "political correctness is striking the Hong Kong Economic Journal."  He wrote as follows:

The forces of "political correctness" has become more and more fierce among Hong Kong media in recent years.  Do you believe that?  Let us look the recent case of the Hong Kong Economic Journal.  This newspaper is considered to be a stalwart supporter of the market economy but it has become politically correct recently.  It thinks that the recent "deceptive Hong Kong shopping practice" exposed by CCTV reflects "insufficient supervision" by the Hong Kong SAR government and that the situation is "worrisome":

(Hong Kong) seemed to have done quite a lot of work.  But in less than half a year, there is now another scandal about shops 'ripping off' their customers.  The government considered the development of tourism as an important mainstay of the economy, but it has been providing inadequate supervision.  It is at a loss about how to deal with poor service and deceptive practices.  The future of the Hong Kong tourism industry is worrisome (HKEJ editorial April 4, 2007).

The following "cool" words do not come from me, but they appeared in Hong Kong Economic Journal itself six months ago.

Zero tourist group fee is not an illegal operation.  It is a marketing method that is used in various industries.  What reason does the government have to demand supervision?

Superficially, the tourists are the "victims" of the zero fee affair.  But there is no free lunch under the sun, and do the tourist who join the zero fee groups not know that they should not be taken by these small benefits? (HKEJ editorial October 25, 2006)

The blog of the politically incorrect blogger is known as "Hong Kong Media Buster" but he/she has managed to bust himself/herself into the ranks of Hong Kong media (unless the Fruit Daily is about to become an international media in which case the politically incorrect blogger can issue a denial).  When someone pays you, you don't bust them.  It seems that the blog should be re-named "Hong Kong Media (except Apple Daily) Busters."  It happens that this Diuman Park blogger has just learned the art of busting from the politically incorrect blogger, so he is going to bust Hong Kong media (Apple Daily):

Concerning the two suspected "shady shops," the Tourism Industry Council has previously received 67 and 5 complaints already.  But they did nothing and continued to let travel agencies to bring entire groups of mainland tourists over there to make purchases.  They only began to worry when CCTV broadcast the exposť.  Therefore, what really needs to be done is for the Tourist Industry Council to have strict regulations of the shopping points arranged by travel agencies (Apple Daily editorial April 7, 2007)

When there is proof that a "shady place" is selling fake merchandise, the government ought to pursue the case in accordance with the law.  But if it is just a matter of "travel agencies arranging shopping spots" and no law is being broken, then does it require "rigorous regulations"?  If the Fruit Daily knows that the root of the problem is that the tourists have insufficient information and complaint channels, then all it takes is to improve those two aspects.  This is a much quicker and more effective way to rectify the situation than any government legislation or regulatory enhancement, right?

Actually, I did not say that.  It was what an Apple Daily editorial said six months ago:

This type of business operation and method is not ideal.  But we cannot rely on government regulation or legislation to reverse the situation.  It should go through the provision of more information and enhancing the mechanism for making complaints.

When a tourist enters Hong Kong border, the Tourist Industry Council and the Tourism Board should provide certain information or booklets about consumer rights so that the tourist can understand their own rights and decrease their chances of being "intimidated" by their guides or shop sales people to make purchases ... But providing information alone may not be able to stop these wayward travel industry shops.  Therefore, it is necessary to enhance the complaint system and increase the penalties.

When the mainland travel agencies and tourists not longer patronize these improper travel agencies, those travel agencies will fold up.  Isn't this much quicker and more effective than any government legislation or regulation? (Apple Daily editorial October 24, 2006).

Six months ago, they were talking about not increasing regulation of travel agencies.  Six months later, they are demanding strict regulation of shopping points used by travel agencies, the more detailed the better.  This is completely against the principle of a free economy.  It seems that political correctness has invaded the Fruit Daily.

Concerning the issue of whether "poor service" breaks any law, I recall that this what the Fruit Daily said when it criticized ParknShop for selling oily fish at the beginning of the year.

Apart from increasing testing and adding legislation, the government needs to take more action against poor-quality food, problematic food or certain shady shops or enterprises that sell poisoned food.  They must prosecute once they have sufficient evidence.  Only this way will the greed-obsessed enterprises step back; only this way will the conscienceless shops be deterred from selling counterfeit merchandise (Apple Daily editorial January 26, 2007).

According to the thinking of the politically incorrect blogger: If it can be proven that an "unscrupulous merchant" is selling fake merchandise, the government ought to pursue the case in accordance with the law.  But if it is only a case of "low-quality food" that does not break any law, then is the government "not doing its best"?  When travel agencies offer zero fee groups that rip tourists off, they do not need to be supervised.  Instead, it is necessary to "enhance the effort against poor-quality food" in ParknShop?  Why?  Poor quality food does not violate any law.  At worst, it tastes worse than cow dung.  Why is any effort being required?  As for substituting cod fish by oily fish, then this is hilarious.  The oil fish is being sold cheaply and shouldn't the customers know "not to be greedy about taking small benefits"?

Of course, attacking Li Ka-shing is politically correct.  Even though "regulating legal but poor-quality food" is against the principle of a free economy, it is nevertheless politically correct.

After reading these busts, you should know to ask: If environmental protection is not politically correct because there are many incorrect information and arguments, then is a free economy politically correct, flawless and not subject to challenge?  Certain extreme environmentalists treat environmental protection as a religion, but many more who believe in a free economy also treat the free economy as a religion?  Religion is not a product of scientific rationality.  It is one's choice to believe or not, and there is no right or wrong in that choice itself.  But to attempt to use a rational explanation to regard one's choice as the truth and treat all other choices as false will ultimately change this into religious suppression and war.

The battle between the environmental protection Red Guards and the media fascist has only just begun.  Based upon my observation, the media fascist looks more like the Red Guards, because he is both ultra-rightist and ultra-leftist.  Since he has a base at the Fruit Daily, he has the upper hand.  But as to who wins and who loses, it will depend on whether you can avoid the brainwashing (or counter-brainwashing) of the major media and learn to become an intelligent reader who uses your reasoning to make a choice that is not influenced by the specious arguments from the lunatics on both sides.