Breaking: China cancels Kissin
NewsEvgeny Kissin’s recital in Hong Kong on November 16 has been cancelled. The presenter – the Leisure and Cultural Service Department – has given no reason.
Our sources say China may have banned Kissin over his hostile attitudes to its Russian ally, Putin. Others say the Chinese are offended that he has sandwiched Hong Kong between recitals in Tapiei and South Korea.
Either way, HK fans are upset.
The Russians called Kissin a “foreign agent” back in July over his vocal support of Ukraine, and his composing a piece celebrating Ukraine. This cancellation just happened, and is at odds with Hong Kong cultural policy; it seems unlikely HK had anything to do with the cancellation, which probably originated at the Foreign Ministry in Beijing. But it is possible Kissin withdrew.
Back in the 80s, the Thatcher government negotiated a deal with China about the return of HK to Chinese rule. It created the Special Administrative Region (SAR) with the terms being “one country, two systems” for 50 years after 1997. It was supposed to guarantee the continuing freedom from repression of the Hong Kongers, who had been free, even if their government had not been entirely democratic. That has been chipped away at since the handover, and in the last decade or more has not even been paid lip service. There is probably more freedom on the mainland.
Who would doubt that the CCP finds it an entirely unbearable idea that a bit of China, be it as small as HK, can have more freedom than the mainland? It is already excruciatingly hard for them to know there is a whole island that enjoys more freedom, quality of life, openness to the world, at the other side. The frustrations of dictatorships…. they could not care less about the populations concerned, like the Kremlin.
You are most likely unaware that the high quality of life in prosperous Asian countries except Japan was built by dictatorships (Hong Kong, S Korea, Taiwan), or quazi-democracy (Singapore), not by true democracies. In Taiwan, the martial law lasted for 38 years and the 1st presidential elections took place only in 1996. In S Korea, the 1st post-war elections were held in 1987, and Singapore is ranked only as “partly free” by Freedom House since the government is essentially a family business there.
I visited Seoul many times during the martial law years and a couple of times before the end of the same sort of regime in Taipei. During much of the 1980s in Seoul there was a nightime curfew from midnight to 6:00 am and if you were on the streets during that time you could get shot. Both countries soon became democratic and emerged as two of the Asian economic tigers. They also quickly became hubs for a wide range of artistic activity and built concert venues with superb acoustics – unlike British-run Hong Kong where its 1989 Concert Hall is a semi-disaster.
Referring to Yuri K’s comments, I would also place Japan as a quasi-democracy. For centuries the country was cut off from the world and ruled by the shoguns whose word was law. That tradition is still partly ingrained in many Japanese of the older generations. Yet of all the Asian countries mentioned, it has the most thriving classical music scene with eight full symphony orchestras, a series of excellent new concert halls and a plethora of regular visiting overseas artists.
Better get used to it; all these horrendous dictatorships are now joining forces against the democracies of the western world. You’d better believe it; they mean business. Cancelling Kissin will prove to be the very least of all our worries.
In response to V. Lind, some of her historical facts are not wholly accurate. It is not true to say that prior to 1997 the Hong Kong government was even remotely democratic. There was not even a democratic party in Hong Kong until 1990. Until Christopher Patten unilaterally – and let’s also recall, secretly – attempted to overturn the provisions contained in the 1984 Sino-British Agreement on Hong Kong’s future and later in the 1990 Basic Law a mere 4 years prior to 1997, Britain had resolutely opposed any form of democracy throughout its previous 151 year history in running Hong Kong. As a former HK Director of Home Affairs John Walden wrote in the Huffington Post, “If I personally find it difficult to believe in the sincerity of this sudden and unexpected official enthusiasm for democratic politics, it is because in the 30 years I was an official myself from 1951 to 1981 ‘democracy’ was a dirty word . . .(it would be) the quickest and surest way to ruin Hong Kong’s economy and create social and political instability.” That was the official Hong Kong government and British government position.
I agree, though, that the concept of ‘one country two systems’ has certainly been chipped away. My own view is that had Patten stuck to the detail of the two Agreements made voluntarily by both Britain and China and not attempted seriously to undermine them at the very last minute as the clock ticked down to 1997, Hong Kong would be in a much better position today.
No real argument, though there was a partial democratic participation in voting. But you are quite right that Britain did not let that get carried away, and most legislators were elected by factions.
Yes, V.Lind is correct. After the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, Hong Kong people were nervous and some activists for democracy emerged. Some seats on the Legislative Council were then opened to a form of democracy with, as V.Lind correctly points out, very limited electorates based on specific groups or factions. What is noteworthy is that the terms of the 1990 Basic Law allowed for an incresing number of elected seats and a much wider public participation in elections after 1997. This was termed by some as the “through train”. In other words, both Britain and China wanted Hong Kong to continue more or less as before 1997.
The two Agreements on Hong Kong’s future made it clear that there could be no change in the terms of the Agreements without prior consultation and agreement by both parties. In total secrecy even from his own officials (other than a handful sworn to secrecy), Patten spent a year unpicking what Britain and China had agreed. Yet to boost is own standing back in the UK and in total ignorance of the people of Hong Kong whose rights he was supposed to protect, during that year he had a BBC film crew secretly come to Hong Kong several times to record his breaking of the Basic Law Agreement. The end result was inevitable. He broke the Agreements, China was furious and retaliated by cancelling the “through train”.
In appointing governors of Hong Kong, the British government had always taken the advice of senior mandarins in the UK Foreign Office – until Patten. His immediate predecessors – the hugely admired Sir Murray MacLehose, Sir Edward Youde and Sir David Wilson – had all spent years serving in China, all knew the Chinese leadership and all spoke Mandarin Chinese. Patten had no experience of China or its leadership and spoke no Chinese. He was a British politician through and through, not a diplomat like his preecessors. As he himself wrote in a 2022 article in the New Statesman, of his unilateral changing of the Agreements he said “it was a hope” that China would agree. A hope? He played with the lives of Hong Kong people on the basis of a “hope”? It was a betrayal.
Yes, V.Lind is correct. After the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, Hong Kong people were nervous and some activists for democracy emerged. Some seats on the Legislative Council were then opened to a form of democracy with, as V.Lind correctly points out, very limited electorates based on specific groups or factions. What is noteworthy is that the terms of the 1990 Basic Law allowed for more elected seats and a much wider public participation in elections after 1997. This was termed by some as the “through train”. In other words, both Britain and China wanted Hong Kong to continue more or less as before 1997.
The two Agreements on Hong Kong’s future made it clear that there could be no change in the terms of the Agreements without prior consultation and agreement by both parties. In total secrecy even from his own officials (other than a handful sworn to secrecy), Patten spent a year unpicking what Britain and China had agreed. Yet to boost his own standing back in the UK and in total ignorance of the people of Hong Kong whose rights he was supposed to protect, during that year he had a BBC film crew secretly come to Hong Kong several times to record his breaking of the Basic Law Agreement. The end result was inevitable. He broke the Agreements, China was furious and retaliated by cancelling the “through train”.
In appointing governors of Hong Kong, the British government had always taken the advice of senior mandarins in the UK Foreign Office – until Patten. His immediate predecessors – the hugely admired Sir Murray MacLehose, followed by Sir Edward Youde and Sir David Wilson – had all spent years serving in China, all knew the Chinese leadership and all spoke Mandarin Chinese. Patten had no experience of China or its leadership. He was a British politician through and through, not a diplomat like his predecessors. As he himself wrote in a 2022 article in the New Statesman, of his unilateral changing of the Agreements he said “it was a hope” that China would agree. A hope? He played with the lives of Hong Kong people on the basis of a “hope”? It was a betrayal.
Sincere apologies to all for the double reply
The only reason China wanted total control of HK and now wants Taiwan is because they’re economic powerhouses. Like all greedy bullies they covet what they don’t have and are incapable of imagining a world without their absolute control.
That, of course, will ultimately be their undoing. But not in my lifetime.
That may be the case, but the facts are much simpler. History is on the side of Beijing in both cases.
Yes, the Republic of China (on Taiwan) is the official government of China if you want to invoke history, “China” should be called “West Taiwan.”
That is absolutely not true. On what basis does anyone consider that statement the truth? Plenty of countries undergo revolutions and change their form of government. Did not the American Revolution change the governance of the USA? That did not change the fact that country remained intact.
The only achievement of Chiang Kai Shek was to be beaten by a better and more organised army. He and some of his supporters fled to Taiwan rather than be captured and probably shot. They never intended to do anything there other than regroup, thanks to massive amounts of American cash, mount a huge PR campaign in the USA during the Cold War and then return to Beijing to once again take over the reigns of power. That campaign worked until 1971 when Nixon cosied up to Mao and Chiang was finally out in the cold.
When the USA held its Conference in San Francisco in 1951, it did all in its power to get other nations to agree the rubbish about the Republic of China. Many countries did not agree, Britain being one of them.
I do not know what the reason is, but the suggestion that it is due to the Hong Kong recital being sandwiched between others in Taipei and South Korea is surely nonsense. Artists and orchestras routinely appear in both these countries on tours that also include China. One Beijing based promoter regularly presents artists and events in both mainland China and Taiwan.
From my discussions with colleagues in Hong Kong, it is also unlikely Beijing was involved. The recital has been advertised for months. Any displeasure would have been made known much earlier than merely a month in advance.
Quite right. Krystian Zimerman is booked to play in HK soon then in Taiwan shortly after and as far as I can tell there’s been no change to that plan.
Maybe Kissin himself has decided that he can’t play in China and be true to his own values. If so, I wish more people would follow his example!
Curious comment! Why would Kissin sign a contract well over a year in advance, arrange an Asian tour of which Hong Kong is an integral part, and then just weeks before that Hong Kong recital decide he didn’t want to play it. That makes no sense. Had he had a specific recent reason for not performing, i feel sure he or his agent would have made a statement re why he unilaterally elected not to play this one concert.
Long live Evgeny Kissin. I think of him as one of the three greatest living pianists. He’s a treasure to the world. As a musician, he just seems to get better and better as time passes.
Entirely agreed, in spite of his toucher can be a bit on the hard side often. He is a superb master.
and the other 2 are…?
There have been plenty artists touring in far east among Korea, China, Taiwan, Hongkong etc. so it simply doesn’t stand that his itinerary results so.
Cancelled by China: Badge of Honor!
Given the tickets were on sale for many months after Kissin was branded “foreign agent’ in July, I don’t see why the sudden cancellation has any relationship with Russia.
To give more context, Vienna Phil, Berliner Phil, London Phil, London Symphony and many other western orchestra, as well as many soloists has been touring in Mainland China this year, and many of the key artists(Kirill petrenko, Vasily Petrenko, Pappano, Olafsson, Grimaud, Yuja, Kremer, to name a few). have been consistently condemn Putin Regime or support Ukraine. I don’t see how a single cancellation of Kissin in HK indicates Russia influence when many others perform in mainland china with no problem
Maybe he is just tired. It happens. Not everything is political.
That’s as bad as having your concert canceled in 1934 Germany.
The local Chinese press in HK said ‘travel issues’ for the cancellation. Kissin has two recitals in Taipei before HK and Korea and Japan afterwards so travel issues cannot be the cause. Bear in mind Russian-born British conductor Vasily Petrenko had a concert in HK recently. I read that Kissin had also become an Israeli citizen.
Until the mid-2020s when the National Security Law came to HK China has largely left the city alone for 23 years after the handover. It’s the violent anti-China street protests, petrol bomb throwing, street blockade, setting fire, storming the Legislature building in June 2019 and continued street violence which extended to MTR stations, HK Polytechnic Uni and the Chinese University in late 2019 that finally led to drastic public order clampdown in 2020, one year after initial street violence. Chris Patten said himself he is opposed to any violence. No governments would allow street violence or riots, let alone riots in parliament and universities. There were also calls for HK independence. The law may be too heavy handed to many but the extradition law amendment in 2019 which started the whole protest movement was formally withdrawn in September, but violent protests continued and escalated. If you read the Sino-British Joint Declaration it’s about HK remaining a capitalist economic system and China socialist, and HK would be run by its own Basic Law, not China’s. The basic lifestyle would not change.
While I abhor China’s recent crackdowns on Hong Kong freedoms and in particular the horrendous act of putting a bounty on the heads of some Hong Kong citizens who fled when the crackdwon was introduced, the facts are basically simple. Yes, I agree that the continuing protests in Hong Kong since 2014 including the desecration of the Legislative Council Building went way too far. Equally, though, the actions of how the police handled these protests need to be investigated – and probably never will. The question we can answer is why did these protests erupt. They did not suddenly appear from nowehere, as it were. They were a direct result of Patten unilaterally breaking the joint Sino-British Agreement and the Basic Law for Hogn Kong – documents ratified by the United Nations and incorporated into Chinese law, opening a Pandora’s box which he had no right even to look at other to abide by its provisions, and after 151 years of British rule when democracy had forever been a “dirty word” persuading Hong Kong people that they had a right to democracy – immediately.
The Basic Law actually allows for increasing democracy before and after 1997. Re the Chinese government’s obligations “The Basic Law states that the government’s ‘ultimate aim’ is to have Hong Kong’s leader elected by popular vote.” The world would have carefully monitored that progress. As it turned out, Patten played a political card with people in Beijing of whom he knew lilttle and for whom he made it clear he had zero regard. He lost. He knowingly broke a legally negotated Agreement. It is the people of Hong Kong who continue to be the losers.
WTF how can a so-called “foreign agent”, an outspoken Ukraine’s supporter in that war, be a Putin’s ally? Are you now calling all the Russians Putin’s supporters by the fact of birth? Jesus
Mainland fans are also upset; and bored and disgusted by Gergiev’s troop everywhere in the country.
Gergiev seems to have visited China several times – as have other conductors like Charles Dutoit, Michel Plasson and Zubin Mehta. Next month Riccardo Muti takes his Italian Opera Academy for performances in Suzhou (east of Shanghai). I believe Gergiev is a pal of Long Yu, the conductor with major political influence who until recently controlled all three of the country’s main orchestras and is Chairman of the the high profile Beijing Music Festival. Last year Gergiev and the Mariinsky company presented a full Ring cycle in Shanghai. All tickets quickly sold out.
A blessing! Being labled a”foreign agent” by Putin’s regime, would make him vulnerable and a target for collection and potential imprisonment.
Whoever wrote “sandwiched Hong Kong between recitals in Tapiei and South Korea” clearly knew nothing about international music tours.
It seems rather unlikely that China cancelled the concert because Kissin supports Russia. Putin really does not have that kind of influence on China; the Chinese view him as an embarrassment.
I doubt the Chinese see Putin as “an embarassment” because they know that if Putin fails they are next. You guys in the West have been demonizing Putin for 25 years and convinced yourself he is so evil he will do every evil thing possible. However, Putin could not really care less for small fish like Kissin. He probably not even heard of Kissin.
It may be not a good idea to mix classical music with political activism.