Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Hong Kong B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Hong Kong To-do: Attention needed (60) ...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (29) Collaboration needed Improvement needed GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (308) Cleanup needed C-Class articles (1,099) Image needed (348) Destub needed Start-Class articles (5,605) • Stub-Class articles (6,680) Deorphan needed ...orphans Page creation needed Requested articles Miscellaneous tasks ...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (365) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,374)

Christianity: China B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Christianity in China work group.

I removed the quotations around the word "interpretation" under the section "Acting Chief Executive." An interpretation by the Standing Committee of the NPC is an interpretation, and by putting it in quotation the editor is passing value judgment on it, indicating that it really isn't an interpretation but something else. That violates wikipedia's policy of neutrality, so unless someone could provide citation to it, no quotation mark should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hker1997 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"On 25 March 2007, Tsang was re-elected as Chief Executive in a contested small-circle election arranged by Communist Party of China for the post for a second and final term, from 2007 to 2012."

I don't understand why some of these things get written in. It's not even factually correct to begin with. The 3rd CE isn't Tsang's second term, but it's actually his first, because the previous term (2002-07) belonged to Tung and Tsang was simply finishing that term. So constitutionally speaking, Tsang can have another term from 2012-17.

I don't dispute the fact that all CE elections are "small-circle" election, but is it encyclopedic to say it as such in this setting? This is often a problem I have with some of the articles about HK.

I'm simply going to start a "Criticism" section at the CE article to deal with some of these issues.Bourquie (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well spotted! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he entitled to the title of 'sir'? I remember the media in 1997 did have that label under his name. Did he lose it after the handover? --Jiang

Some press from the UK are still using the prenominal title. — Instantnood 10:47 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

When he got it, HK was still part of Britain, so it wasnt honorary. But now he's no longer a british citizen. does he lose the title? i think so... --Jiang 22:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. But the UK press are calling him in this way. — Instantnood 10:46 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

BBC does not, at least--Jiang 10:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 Mr Tsang served under several British governors and was made a
Knight of the British Empire just before the handover, although
he does not use the title.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4335331.stm

Ming Pao News (2005-03-13) quotes Donald Tsang as saying that he himself only uses the GBM title on his name cards:

   至於代表前朝港英身分的英國爵士勳銜，曾蔭權昨日在傳媒簡報會上說，
 英國政府頒勳銜給他，是肯定他在1997年前30多年從事公職，當中不涉及
 效忠的問題，同樣的勳銜亦曾頒發給其他國家的政要，例如李光耀，也沒
 有效忠的問題。
   他表示，爵士勳銜他已接受了，也說了多謝，會保留，但名片上不會用，
 正如他有3個名譽博士銜頭，名片上也沒有，只印上了大紫荊勳章，因為
 這較為切合他政務司長的身分。

At the very least, this means he doesn't put Sir in front of his name himself. -- KittySaturn 02:43, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Actually can non-British citizens use Sir as a title? — Instantnood 08:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sort of. "Sir" title can only be used for persons in countries which recognizes the Queen as the head of state. (i.e. thus, Canada, New Zealand and I think Australia citizens can use Sir as titie too) SYSS Mouse 18:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct, however by convention Canadian citizens are no longer bestowed such honours (at the request of the Canadian government).BaseTurnComplete 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A substantive knighthood is not lost if the holder subsequently ceases to be a British national. JAJ 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article on declined British honours says that he is still a knight eligible to use the title Sir, he just opts not to use it. That would be consistent with the above.BaseTurnComplete 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following comment by 71.0.234.71 [1] was removed from the article:

He is also known as the Asian Neville Chamberlain. Why? Here is his 
quote regarding Tiannenmen Square.

"I had shared Hong Kong people's passion and impetus when the June 
4 incident happened. But after 16 years, I've seen our country's 
impressive economic and social development," Tsang said. "My feelings 
have become calmer."

Tsang is truly the most co-opted, dishonorable politician on the Asian 
continent. We wish he had a backbone. 

Some rewriting would be necessary. — Instantnood 09:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Basically he is a good bloke but don't expect him to perform magic. After all he was just a high school graduate and worked his way to the top by hard-working.

Besides Pinyin, someone should input the Jyutping since this is an article about a Hong Kong politician. --WongFeiHung 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the comment "renounced British citizenship" to "lost British nationality". People in Hong Kong automatically lost British nationality (British Dependent Territories citizenship) on 1 July 1997. There was the option to register as a British National (Overseas) but this was voluntary. See British nationality law and Hong Kong The only way Mr Tsang would hhave had British citizenship is through specific links to the UK itself, or if he acquired it through the British Nationality Selection Scheme. JAJ 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already out of date Donald Tsang has been reelected as Chief Executive in 2007. 218.191.232.236 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is a clutter of boxes on the right side. Is there any way the content of thr cv infobox can be merged with the {{Infobox Officeholder}}? As most of the cv info is already in prose, I am sorely tempted to just delete it. Ohconfucius 15:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a reliable source on whether or not he is actually allowed the title of "Sir"? The source we have right now ([2]) says that the UK government has no policy on him using the title, which would seem to imply that he can still use it. But that source is also not very informative. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The knighthood is not honorary [and this is the correct British spelling]. What source do we need? See [3] [4] [5] [6] for media usage.

If we take out the "Sir" we also take out KBE - those go together and neither appears on his website. The opening should reflect proper usage (usually we put the full and complete name here), and the should reflect official usage ("the honourable" does not belong in the opening per policy)--Jiang (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohconfucius believes that he can't use the title because he is no longer a British subject.[7] Actually I don't much care if the opening contains "Sir". But I thought since he himself does not use it as a title, maybe we should not have it in the opening. I would prefer we keep it in the infobox though.

Another thing that I want to bring up is the use of the <English name> <Romanised Chinese name> format for his name ("Donald Tsang Yam-Kuen"). Even his official English biography with the HK government refers to him only as "Donald Tsang" or "Mr. Donald Tsang".[8] I propose we do the same in the article, maybe with the exception of the infobox. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The convention seems to be to list the full and complete name (regardless of common usage) in the lead section while leaving styles and more common usage in the infobox. see Tony Blair

I'm sure Yam-Kuen is part of his legal name.--Jiang (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Not a big deal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Only the two highest ranks entail admission into knighthood, an honour allowing the recipient to use the title 'Sir' (male) or 'Dame' (female) before their name, so long as that person is a national of a realm where the Queen is Head of State. If not, the recipient may use the honour as post-nominals but not the title before their name" This comes from Order of the British Empire and I believe is correct. Some could point to the ambiguity, as it is done in the article, that he was beknighted whilst still a British subject, but the fact is HM the Queen is no longer Head of State for Hong Kong. Furthermore, it has been pointed out in Parliamentary questions there may not be an impediment for him to use it, Donald himself does not use the title "Sir". So we should take out the "Sir", but the KBE can stay. The ambiguity in the article (ie that he is entitled to use it for life) is unsourced, and for the moment I am removing it as original research, pending references. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the media links above. There is no ambiguity here. What he uses on a daily basis is not relevant - Jimmy Carter does not go by James Earl Carter.--Jiang (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some links to the article that clearly demonstrate this. It cannot be implied otherwise.--Jiang (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE!! Show me the guideline which says that, and I'll leave it alone. Ohconfucius (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the text you deleted original research and why are you deleting it? Please justify all deletions.

We have templates to tag such things, if you want to make a claim and justify it: Template:Original research, Template:Or#Logic_for_usage. But given the articles I've linked from reputable sources and my deletion of the claim that the media has stopped using the title since 2000, I don't see how any OR remains.--Jiang (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a major issue with your assertion. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What assertion? Please be more specific on what exactly is incongruent with the sources.--Jiang (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion which is used as the subheading here, which you wrote as an edit summary. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant as there is no original research in the article, as no justification has been made that original research exists. So what specifically is not supported by the sources?--Jiang (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion "it should not be deleted even if it is OR" is bullshit. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and nominate Template:Original research and Template:Or for deletion then since if any OR should be deleted on sight, then there is absolutely no use for those templates. And do you have evidence of original research or are we blowing hot air?--Jiang (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be rational. I am not suggesting anything of that sort. You are the one who made that assertion in the first place. Instead you could jolly well have said "this is not original research" in the edit summary, and there would be no stupid argument. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can we at least agree that he is entitled to use "Sir" if he so choose to use it? Let's be clear on that first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe there is even an entitlement to it since Chinese citizens does not have such titles. We could call each other 'Sir' if we want to but it carry no official weight. so there should not be a 'Sir' there, as we don't see any reference to non UK knighting being addressed in such way, why should he be? it would be totally inconsistance and illogical. Akinkhoo (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Tsang was knighted when he was still a British subject. This alone already allows him to use "Sir" for life. Although he later lost his British nationality, this absolutely does not affect or change the title conferred on him.

Other notable examples include Sir Sze-yuen Chung[9], Sir David Li[10], Sir TL Yang and etc. Both Sir Sze-yuen and Sir David were knighted when they still hold British nationality, but what they lost when they became members of the HKSAR Executive Council are their British nationalities, and not the right to use "Sir".

Sir TL Yang gave up his British citizenship in 1996 when he wanted to contest in the CE election. He even wrote a personal letter to HM the Queen at that time, declaring that he decided to give up his knighthood. Sir TL later lost to Tung Chee-Hwa in the election and was appointed a memeber of the HKSAR Executive Council. He eventually stepped down from the Council and wrote a letter to the Queen wanting to restore his knighthood. The tale ends here but actually, all these that he had done was totally unnecessary. That's because the title conferred is for life, his knighthood cannot cease to be existed by writing to the Queen.

And so far, the only way to lost the entitlement is to commit a criminal offence (e.g. fraud, murder, high treason and etc.). By committing a criminal offence, knighthood and any kinds of titles can be stripped off.

Actually, not only Hong Kong, in many former British colonies like Fiji and etc., people still retain both their titles and knighthoods after independence. It is entirely normal and we should not be confused by personal preference. --Clithering (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved some content from the Daniel Heung article which I believe is relevant to Tsang's biography. However, I do have some misgivings about the positioning of the material, because Heung is not exactly a white sheep, and could taint Tsang's biography. Having said that, in reality, Tsang was tainted by association in HK, and his role in the scandal was indeed questioned. I would welcome any suggestions how we would deal with it. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsang has made several obviously pro-Beijing comments that received widespread controversy in Hong Kong. The most recent one deals with Tinanamen Square in 1989 - where he said it was insignificant compared to China's economic power. I was wondering if maybe these controversial comments deserve a place in the article?Colipon+(T) 04:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just yesterday looking for that quote, but could not find it in the Standard (although there was an article about the walkout). AFAIR, there was an almost identical statement from Beijing, which if juxtaposed would indicate he was regurgitating the party line. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters BBC Chinese Best I could find so far. Colipon+(T) 18:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think time is nearly ripe to spin off part of this article into Donald Tsang as Chief Executive of Hong Kong. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why not include the little 2007 controversy regarding his comments characterising the Cultural Revolution as an extreme form of democracy? the Chinese Wikipedia has information on the controversy. Mathpianist93 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (the Basic Law of the HKSAR) stated clearly that the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) must be a citizen of the People's Republic of China without the right of abode outside the territory of the People's Republic of China.

Tsang could call himself 'Sir Donald Tsang' before Hong Kong's transfer of sovereignty because he was definitely a British national.

After the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong, Tsang served the HKSAR government as the Financial Secretary and Chief Secretary for Administration before becoming the Chief Executive; he must have renounced his non-People's Republic of China naionalitiy (nationalities) (if any) because the Basic Law of the HKSAR forbids top officials and the Chief Executive of the HKSAR to have the right of abode in any non-People's Republic of China territory. So, theoratically speaking, he would no longer be entitled to the title of 'Sir' because he would no longer be a Commonwealth Citizen in this case. However, it is still possible for Tsang to remain entitled to use the title 'Sir' while serving the HKSAR government.

If Tsang is a British National (Overseas) which is a British national status not recognised by the People's Republic of China, he could become the Chief Executive of Hong Kong without renouncing such status, since he is solely a citizen of the People's Republic of China to to the People's Republic of China and, technically speaking, having this nationality does not violate the regulations for HKSAR Chief Executve candidate stated in the Basic Law of the HKSAR. As the status of British National (Overseas) is just unilaterally unrecognised by the People's Republic of China, this status remains a British national status as it always does and Tsang will be entitled to the title 'Sir' because of this British nationality.

As Tsang has never told the public what nationality (nationalities) he has, we can hardly decide whether he can be 'Sir Donald Tsang'.

Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Douglas the Comeback Kid[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]