Juggernaut

I read this interesting article that carefully analyses the chances of a "successful" vote on the electoral reform proposal based on the decision of the NPCSC of 31 August ("831 decision") in Legislative Council (LegCo). It studies the 6 potential waverers (pictured L to R, top to bottom: Kenneth Leung, Charles Mok, Joseph Lee, Ip Kin-yuen, Fred Funf, Ronny Tong) amongst the pan-democratic camp, and what their declared reservations are and how these have evolved over time. It also studies other factors that may influence the vote behind the scenes. There has already been a lot of talk on the street that our own Rimsky Yuen has become more optimistic in being able to secure a majority in LegCo to pass than he was several months ago. The merits or otherwise of the reform framework have been hotly and thoroughly debated ad nauseum, so the fact that his confidence level has increased is telling.

The article highlights why constitutional safeguards in Hong Kong are doomed. Changes to Hong Kong's constitution are supposedly subject to a minority veto – it has meant, up to now, that the pan-democratic bloc can veto any undemocratic changes to it – not that the veto has ever been exercised.  In 2010, the regime managed to fool the Democratic Party to change their vote with a "concession" that resulted in no meaningful increase in representativeness.

In this case study, it is obvious that stakes are so high for the regime. What's more, failure is not an option because an enormous amount of face is at stake. Representative democracy fails in an extreme case like ours, as autocratic regimes are powerful and determined to get their way; they have unlimited resources and they take no prisoners. Words like"goodwill" and "compromise" are words that never apply to them but only to those sat opposite them. The juggernaut up north has already made it clear that the 831 decision is immutable. It has deliberately left no room for itself to back out, and put considerable means and manpower to achieving a "positive" outcome, and will specifically target our representatives with those considerable resources. After all, dictatorships always get what they want by demanding submission (in the Game of Thrones, this is called "paying the iron price"), viz: Will you give me all your lands or I will take them all and then kill you? Will you and your daughters voluntarily have sex with me or will I have to rape then whip them to death while making you watch?

Unfortunately we do not have a mechanism for referenda, for if it was up to the 5 million eligible voters of Hong Kong, no juggernaut would be able to pressure us all; the Regime would have to employ slower and subtler means. Absolute power is only ever obtained over the barrel of a gun, as no amount of pressure can induce several million people to renounce their freedoms and protections. Britain has washed their hands of us back when they passed the Nationality Act in 1981; moral responsibility is worth exactly zilch. But right now the freedoms of seven million+ people of Hong Kong rest with a small number of delegates. Our fates depend not on the 27 pan-democrats inside LegCo but on the six potential waverers.

There is no margin for error and so the Regime needs the votes of all of them. The ultimate decision to accept or reject the reform proposal rests on a swing vote of 4 individuals, so the personal pressure on them cannot be imagined. In physics, it's like the pressure transmitted through a pipe whose bore is narrowed from several hundred metres to only a few millimetres. Even if you can bear being waterboarded, you will never cope having to watch your son or daughter being tortured. Capitulation is natural and instant.

I do not envy the moral and political dilemma, and the pressure these people are being exposed to. The pressures brought to bear on these six Pan-democratic Legco representatives are considerable, if only on the level of personal risks and rewards. Carrots and sticks are being used; there is talk of a "reward" of HK$100 million to anyone who switches. In the end, your responsibility to your constituents only counts for so much. If you continue to oppose, your personal safety and the well-being of your family remain threatened by an callous and brutal regime; if you fold, you can go abroad and retire. It's not so difficult to choose between upholding your moral responsibility and not being metaphorically and literally "crushed". No single human being should have to shoulder such a huge burden.

How will it all pan out?
I see this being the final scenario:
At the 11th hour, the HK government will announce that the PRC has promised a roadmap for the election of Legislative Council in 2020 along the lines suggested by Ronny Tong – that is to say by universal suffrage. Of course, the devil being in the detail, the promise will neglect to specify the exact democratic mechanism, allowing the regime plenty of room to wriggle. Let's also not forget that "universal suffrage" has been recently defined for our benefit by Comrade Wolf, so the promise has no real meaning. The 6 moderates, and possibly more, would be off the hook to vote with the pro-establishment camp, because their moral objection will have been assuaged. They will be able to claim that they, through being conciliatory, managed to obtain concessions for the future democratisation. But the free people of Hong Kong will have collectively jumped into the fox's mouth, like the Gingerbread Man. With people's memories being short, and good faith never having been the forte of the regime, these promises will be conveniently forgotten or simply ignored three years down the line. And before long, we will have a rubber stamp legislature just like they do in the rest of the country.

Joffrey dies of poisoning

The regime wins, like it or not, because it makes the rules, and everyone is afraid of it. As a George Martin fan, the Regime is like King Joffrey in the Game of Thrones. Remember how he promised Ned Stark (and Sansa) that he would be merciful if Ned confessed his "treason". After Joffrey ordered Ned's execution, Joffrey said he had not broken his promise, and implied Ned would have suffered a much nastier death if he had not confessed. In the series, Joffrey dies of poisoning at the hands of his mother-in-law. What destiny awaits the Regime?

Conclusion
The bottom line is, if the legislative vote fails, the regime's authority will be in tatters, and it will be open season for rebels across the country. The Regime has already lived through the most humiliating rebellion on its own turf since 1989, and the act of rebellion will not go unpunished. It has put its authority (and credibility) on the line that there is "no other option", it will not allow upstarts to set the agenda.

Of course, I hope that I have been too pessimistic, and that those who we have elected will fight for our interests. However, I fear that there was never ever any hope of democracy for Hong Kong except "Democracy with Chinese characteristics" – the variety adopted by DPRK.

Open letter to the Taskforce for Constitutional Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Bearing in mind the goal for electoral reform to ultimately achieve universal suffrage as smoothly as possible whilst reconciling the needs of Hong Kong society, the government should avoid controversy by concentrating on delivering breadth of representation in the EC/NC as given in Article 45 of the Basic Law in the first instance. We should seek piecemeal adoption of the NPCSC decision. Once the foundation is laid, then introduce universal suffrage for the next CE election in 2022. Until then, the nomination threshold to become a candidate should remain at 150 votes.

INTRODUCTION

The current round of reform is long overdue, as universal suffrage has been promised to the Hong Kong people since before the transfer of sovereignty from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China. For many, the wait has been frustrating because its achievement seems to be like a moving goalpost. There was much brouhaha and intense lobbying during previous bouts of reform, but the end result in terms of the impact on improving governance has been decidedly underwhelming.

Hong Kong faces an uncertain road ahead politically due to increased polarisation in society, an escalation of economic and social ills. The decision-making processes of local government and of the Chief Executive (CE) in many areas of policy appear to have ground to a halt in the face of an irreconcilable set of constraints. The happiness quotient in the grass roots of society have dropped as the government's priorities appear to neglect certain stakeholder groups in Hong Kong. Citizens feel extreme discontent because they feel that the government is unaccountable and unresponsive.

The root cause of problem is said by observers to be the government's lack of legitimacy, and the apparatus has a deficit in democratic accountability – only half of the Legislative Council can claim to have been democratically elected according to international norms. There may be some scrutiny of government within Legco, but it is limited and buttressed by the in-built over-ride. While parties including the central government (via their numerous proxies), the business lobbies, and other vested interests have a say in the CE's appointment, many other stakeholders in Hong Kong society are not enfranchised. Recent events have shown that the Hong Kong government not only cannot cope with the symptoms of its ills, and is unwilling to address the declining confidence in and credibility of the HK governance system. Now, the stability of Hong Kong is severely impacted. Although Hong Kong supposedly enjoys the "high degree of autonomy" under One Country, Two Systems, it appears that Hong Kong's political leaders have no strategic vision. They are perpetually looking over their shoulders. We still stumbling down the road that Lu Ping promised in 1993: 

"How Hong Kong develops democracy in the future is a matter entirely within the sphere of Hong Kong's autonomy, and the central government cannot intervene."

I do not doubt the sincerity in Lu's words, but many would argue that Hong Kong in reality enjoys little autonomy, or this may be due to the fact that the city's leaders are incompetently afraid to make good on Lu's promise to Hong Kong and the international community.

In terms of political ambiance, there is a crisis of legitimacy of governance that is exacerbated by increasingly high-handed or heavy-handed executive actions. At the time of the handover, there was at least the semblance of consensual politics, but the government approach to Legco since 2102 is markedly more confrontational. The government's legislative priorities are becoming more controversial, and it apparently feels less and less need to cooperate and cohabit with legislators of all parties. This in turn creates the distinction between "the rulers" (the Executive) and "the ruled" (all the others, including the democratic opposition) and fuels a downward spiral of distrust. Pan-democrats thus marginalised by the government, are feeling increasingly frustrated at not being able to do the job they were elected to do. Legislative work is increasingly bogged down. I feel that public theatrics and procedural wrangling serve nobody's interests, least of all a group who depend on public vote for their political legitimacy – one must question why they feel they have to resort to these means.

At the grass roots level, daily life is a huge struggle as incomes fail to keep up with the cost of living. Harmony is strained, and hostility towards mainlanders and mainland integration is mounting. Distrust of the motherland is rising due to badly-handled integration policies or a conflict between Hong Kong's "high level of autonomy" and the need to cooperate with our brethren on the mainland. Discontent is rising. The government becomes more and more desperate to quell protests and other manifestations of this discontent in an increasingly authoritarian fashion. The government does not appear to have either the will or the means to tackle the underlying political issues, and this is compounded by policy errors because they are out of line with the thinking and needs of the citizenry. Law and order and the rule of law appear to be breaking down; State-sanctioned violence against ordinary citizens is increasing: political impasse on one hand generates extreme frustration, and increasingly brutal police actions complete the vicious circle.The citizenry is feeling increasingly oppressed.

Context:
On the most fundamental level, the problems in Hong Kong today are caused by a political structure that does not and cannot respond to local needs and aspirations, and those problems can only be solved by changing that structure. The necessary elements to achieving that goal are already written into the Basic Law. Article 45 of the Basic Law states:

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.  

Furthermore, Paragraph 4 of Annex 1 (amended) states:

Candidates for the office of Chief Executive may be nominated jointly by not less (sic) than 150 members of the Election Committee. Each member may nominate only one candidate.

COMPOSITION OF THE NC
We must tackle two fundamental failures of the composition of the EC now rather than later. Notwithstanding, the government is seeking to transform it unchanged into the NC. The fundamental issues are the breadth of representation and the coherence and transparency of the election process before it becomes the NC.

Principle of broad representation:
I believe that the principle of broad representation is the paramount consideration in forming the Nominating Committee (NC) and will bestow legitimacy of governance. However, I feel that the consultation document (including the decision of the NPCSC of 31 August 2014) fails to address this issue in any meaningful way. Although it is important to achieve within the NC a balance within society stakeholder groups (through the relative number of NC seats of each sub-sector within the sector, and amongst the four sectors), the number of seats is not the absolute determinant of broad representation. The Selection Committee which started off with 400 seats has now become the Election Committee with 1200 seats, but I would argue that there has been no meaningful increase in the breadth of representation during each increase.

I would agree with CY Leung that Broad Representation ought not to be a pure "numbers game". It is not simply about the number of seats in the EC/NC nor how many seats in each sector or sub-sector per se. As the current structure stands, there would be no meaningful increase in representativeness however big the electorate of the NC is. This is unless that electorate is enlarged to encompass a large fraction of the Hong Kong adult population. In other words, representativeness is not determined by whether there are 100 or 800 seats in each sector, but about the underlying equity and transparency in filling these seats (the election process). It is necessary for the system that elects the Chief Executive to be fair and transparent. Only in that way will it secure the buy-in or endorsement of the general public, and any leader elected from such a system can be confident that he/she enjoys a strong mandate to govern. In the above vein, I would assert that the electoral reforms voted through by Legco in 2010 did not contribute to any meaningful increase in representativeness nor legitimacy in governance.

According to my calculations, for the 2011 EC elections, the number of electors (physical and corporate) per seat were as follows:

• Sector I : 89.4
• Sector II : 681.3
• Sector III : 58.4
• Sector IV : 2.3

The overall figures raise questions about whether the four sectors within the EC/NC are "broadly representative". I will confine most of my comments to the structure of the first three sectors for now.

Important gains can be had by widening the franchise within in the first two sectors. The composition of the first and second sectors appears to need updating to reflect the actual structure of our economy since the EC concept was introduced in the draft Basic Law. I would dispute whether the first EC sector was ever correctly represented the weighting in our economy, but that is now moot. It is clear that since the 1980s, the Services sector (Financial Services, Tourism, etc.) have increased their share at the expense of industrial production, rendering that original EC structure completely obsolete. The third sector is governmental and NGO, and may also be overweight in proportion to its share of the population served. Whilst one could argue that the weight of each sub-sector in EC should be done on the basis of its share in GDP, to do so would ignore the contributions of other important sectors such as medical, social welfare and the arts that have a more "support" role for the economy. Of course, other than weighting the sectors by GDP, weighting by population engaged in each sector of activity may be more relevant and help the economy develop. I am not philosophically opposed to the four sectors not having an equal number of seats.

To achieve reasonable political weighting of sub-sectors, it is only proper to reflect the economic weight or each, whether by percentage of GDP or percentage of the population engaged in the various sub-sectors.

The election process for NC sub-sectors
A second problem arises due to the current design of the EC sub-sectors. There is no uniformity in their make-up or methods of filling EC seats – some sectors have corporate voting and others not; some have electorates of thousands, but many have only a handful of electors. Thus although the government claims a broad base, there is a huge variability of eligibility and transparency of the "elected" members from sub-sectors.

As a result of these deficiencies, there is a genuine legitimacy deficit, and it is regrettable that the 2017 consultation document offers no substantive improvements in uniformity for the EC/NC. In my view, election methods all sectors should be made uniform: corporate voting should be abolished, and any adult citizen ought to be given the right to vote in the sector in which they are economically engaged in so that, for example, all estate agents would be allowed to vote in the Land and Construction EC/NC sub-sector elections or similar.

Compliance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Universally accepted political rights includes reasonable rights to stand for elections. The consultation document  regrettably negates this important aspect, but such commentary was made in "On the Right to Vote", the editorial on the front page of the Xinhua Ribao on 2 February 1944:

In a genuine universal suffrage system, not only must the right to vote be 'universal' and 'equal', but the right to be elected must also be 'universal' and 'equal'... Not only must people enjoy the equal right to vote, they must also all enjoy the equal right to be elected ... Broadly speaking, the right to vote already includes the right to be elected ... If the right to be elected is restricted, the right to vote is also being restricted

So if there is a precondition as to who can be elected, or the authorities put forward specific candidates, then even though the right to vote has not been limited, voters have been turned into tools of the election.

Although functional constituencies is not a universal concept in democratic elections, I feel that the notion of it as determined for the EC/NC sub-sectors may still be incompatible with the concept of universal suffrage. The key here is that each citizen has equal right to participation. Hong Kong is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which makes this stipulation, the method of forming the Nominating Committee must comply. In light of the above arguments, it is my view that the threshold for nomination should remain at 150 EC/NC votes.
Article 25 of the covenant states:

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions...

Furthermore, Article 26 states:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 

The lack of unreasonable restrictions to stand for election, as stated in the Covenant, is fundamental aspect that ought not to be ignored when considering Hong Kong's democratic development. I strongly believe that individual citizens can and do have valid interests as stakeholders of Hong Kong, and are capable of reconciling dual allegiances in separate elections for separate objectives. With properly defined and weighted EC/NC as well as functional constituencies, and a one-man one-vote electorate. The EC/NC will in essence be an election every five years on a single issue. Each EC/NC seat will then objectively represent the views of its constituents to give mandate to a candidate (or party).

In my view, it is right that business owners should be represented in EC sub-sectors and Functional Constituencies, but "broad representation" means that electorate pools must be representative of all stakeholders. Although I am philosophically a free-market capitalist, I strongly disagree with disenfranchising certain citizens from merely on the grounds of their income levels. Many will have worked in their respective sectors all their working lives, and I feel it is extremely unfair not to recognise their interests in and commitment to those sectors.

Using the last EC sub-sector elections that took place in 2011 as a benchmark for the Nominating Committee (NC) to be created, very significant imbalances in composition are apparent:

For example, within the first sub-sector, the banking and financial services sectors are main employers in the city and contribute significantly to our GDP. However, Finance and Financial Services have 125 and 539 registered voters at the EC respectively, and both have 18 EC seats. Similarly, we have a huge Insurance sector, with AIA, AXA, Manulife employing tens of thousands, yet only have 121 registered electors at EC and 18 seats. Real Estate and Construction, another important sector for both employment and investment, with 754 registered electors, has been allocated 18 seats. On the other hand, Hong Kong's industrial base has been in terminal decline since the 1970s, and is minuscule compared with any of the abovementioned sections; manufacturing now represents 1.4% by GDP and 3.4% of the local workforce, yet has 1305 registered electors and 36 EC seats. Agriculture and Fisheries sub-sector, which is another sunset sector and contributes only 0.1% to the GDP of Hong Kong, is grossly overweighted yet has been allocated 60 EC seats. (sources:2011 Election Results and Table 035 : Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by economic activity at current prices Table E024: Employed persons by industry (1) of main employment (2) , age and sex)

As further examples, Import-Export, Industrial, Real Estate, Textiles, Agriculture and Religious all had exclusive electorates and all their EC seats went uncontested. On the other hand, Accountancy, Education, Health Services have thousands of electors and the elections are highly competitive. To increase representativeness and competition of election platforms, there should be a minimum threshold size for sub-sector electorates. A sensible quota would be of the order of 3,000 electors per EC/NC seat, based on an electorate of 5 million.

There are also representational oddities in the EC/NC, and it is unclear to this contributor what role in our economy Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association, with only 321 electors, plays to justify 16 EC seats, and the Employers' Federation which has access to 16 seats. I would also question whether or not there is double-counting because the member companies of these employer organisations would almost certainly belong to business sectors which already have EC seats.

Proposed mechanism:
The government has not proposed any major revamping of the EC in the consultation document despite acknowledging its imbalance, citing the complexities that it does not wish to tackle. However, the government suggests that the number of sub-sectors may be increased in the future. It is clear that the complexities MUST be tacked of there is to be any meaningful increase in representativeness of the EC/NC by which our Chief Executive is elected. The sub-sectors within each sector ought to be completely re-weighted. All voters should be physical persons who are HK permanent residents; corporate voting must be eliminated. I feel that recalibrating the EC/NC mechanism to achieve broad representation is primordial for the legitimacy of the process, and should be given priority over one-person-one-vote of the CE election.

I believe that the four EC/NC sectors overall should be re-weighted so that the first and second sectors make up two-thirds of the total. For the first three EC/NC sectors, I would suggest the number of seats that each sub-sector gets should be proportional to the number of eligible voters in that sub-sector.

How to create the electoral roll for NC sub-sectors (see appendix)
All Hong Kong citizens over the age of 18 should be entitled to vote in EC/NC elections in one of the first three sectors. They will each have only one vote in the economic sub-sector or functional/occupational sub-sector which most closely fits their activity. All employers in Hong Kong will be mandated to submit corporate returns one year prior to the EC/NC sub-sector election to the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC), giving information about their employees' names and HKID numbers to build up the electoral database.

Gradual and orderly progress
In light of the provision in the Basic Law for the electoral reforms to be introduced in a "gradual and orderly" manner, the current round ought not to be viewed as the end game. Furthermore, in view of the considerable controversy of introducing one-person-one-vote whilst undertaking little or no effort elsewhere to increasing breadth of representation, I would strongly urge suspending the "universal suffrage" part of the process until there has been more concrete and substantive reform of the structure of the EC/NC.

Having said that, provided the EC/NC is adequately reformed along the principles outlined in this document, the EC/NC can itself be the basis of indirect elections of the chief executive without taking the additional step of validation by the entire electorate.

Therefore, although there is the ultimate aim in the Basic Law to see a Chief Executive elected by universal suffrage, we should also remember the much-argued provision for "gradual and orderly progress" in democratic development. I have argued above, and would continue to summarise, that the ideas proposed in this document are an important foundation to our democracy and constitute a mid-way stage to reaching the declared goal. Without laying proper foundations, the concept of one-person-one-vote election for Chief Executive is "putting the cart before the horse" in common parlance, and the democratic nature is in itself meaningless if there is a . can be delayed until the next round (i.e. for the election in 2022) will be elected by the reformed Election Committee.

Appendix 1: Creating the electoral roll for NC sub-sectors

Principles:

1. All Hong Kong permanent residents over the age of 18 would be entitled to vote for EC/NC representatives
2. They will each have only one vote in the economic sub-sector or functional/occupational sub-sector to which they most closely identify.
3. The number of seats in each sub-sector of any given sector within the EC will be proportionate to the total number of registered voters in that sector.
4. A quota for the size of constituencies should be imposed, and maxima and minima determined. Given that there are anything from 3.5 million to 5 million individuals of voting age in HK, each EC/NC seat should each have between 3,000 and 4,000 potential electors
5. the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC) to build up the electoral database for EC/NC entitlement

Procedures:

• All employers in Hong Kong to submit corporate EC/NC returns to the EAC
• EC/NC returns are submitted every five years, one year prior to the EC/NC sub-sector elections
• EC/NC returns will include details of each full-time or part-time employee (names and HKID numbers) 
• Employer companies will identify on their returns the business sector in which they operate. 
• Upon receipt, EAC merges the data into the electoral register, so that each voter would be tagged with a "default" sub-sector in the relevant field for NC elections. 
• The EAC will then send an update to the voter at his/her last known contact address, say nine months prior to the sub-sector election, to confirm registration and the EC/NC sub-sector affection. 
• The voter would then be enrolled into the employer's sub-sector default 
• The voter whose employer sub-sector is in the first sector may request to exercise their vote in a sub-sector of their choice within the second or third EC/NC sectors if they feel it fits most closely with their activity.
• Once validated, voters will be notified of EC sub-sector elections in exactly the same way as for District Council and Legislative Council elections.

我最尊敬的人/The person I respect the most

Reports about essay assignments set by a grade 6 teacher in a Hong Kong primary school based in Tai Po got social media buzzing yesterday. The assignment, to write an essay about a person they most respected, is a innocent enough one on the surface and not all that unusual, is premised on the concept of role models that we all need, children most of all. Readers with children will have seen such assignment titles from school teachers.

However, despite the title being "The person I respect the most", what is highly unusual is that it leaves no free choice of subject as pupils were actually asked to "choose" our Dear Leader,  CY Leung, as the subject. Even without looking at Leung's biographical details, one will probably think of many other suitable role models to write admiring essays about. To me, such an assignment smacks of thought police, and has echoes of the Cultural Revolution in China, when school children were brainwashed by having to deify Mao Zedong, sing his praises and glorify his acts as achievements. I have seen comments on the internet questioning why it wasn't made explicit, and I suspect that the name wasn't written into the assignment to create plausible deniability of the intended subject.

According to Passion Times – journal of the radical political group Civic Passion, Tai Po Old Market Public School is the establishment in question, and the sad thing is that there are also reports that teachers in other establishments may also have been setting this assignment. Similarly in the named Tai Po school, students' were apparently asked to write an essay in English about their future profession or vocation; they were offered two "choices" – working for the police or for the ICAC. Again, such limitation of choice to law enforcement over other common or worthy professions – let's face it, most HK parents brainwash their own children to want to become medical doctors; mentions of the police in Hong Kong these days are often met with profanity – is curious and can only be explained by political motives.

Let's just remind ourselves about the furore and the protests over national and moral education in 2012. Since the Umbrella revolution, the Communist Party has become more and more paranoid about liberalism in Hong Kong. There are pro-Beijing scholars and political leaders in the PRC who have called for more efforts to make Hong Kong youth more "patriotic". We have recently seen the launch of PLA-style cadets, and I'm confident we shall be seeing more, not fewer, instances of "education" and propagandisation targeted at our youth in the months and years to come.

In any event, inspired by the assignment, I have put pen to paper about the merits of Dear Leader. Please take the contents in the ironic context in which they were intended.

我最尊敬的人

我最尊敬的人係我的師兄梁振英。原因其實有太多：

首先，佢從我的母校拿到了碩士畢業已經唔簡單。政治舞台上一個無名小卒，2012年只憑住689人投票給佢，一鳴驚人。全香港都認識佢名，甚至五六歲的孩 子都知道689不只是簡單一個數字。佢宜家可以強權管治超過700萬人，為所欲為。佢導致數十萬人上街呼喚佢名;佢使全市售罄黃色雨傘，一把都買唔到。

甚至可以自己加自己已經豐厚的薪水幾開放心！邊個唔想？

另外，佢公司其他股東全部都衰衰晒，佢果然仲可以赚翻五千萬蚊，一毫子税都唔使比又唔使交代市民。

梁振英有此多非凡的成就，當然值得尊敬，值得崇拜！
（230字）

I will now recap in English:

The person I respect the most people is my "school brother" CY Leung. There are just too many reasons:

Firstly, it is no simple achievement to obtain a masters degree from my alma mater. Then, from being a nobody in the political arena, but by obtaining the support of just 689 people in 2012, he became an overnight sensation. Now the whole of Hong Kong knows his name, and even a five-year-old child knows that 689 is not an ordinary number. Now he can lord over more than 700 million people, doing whatever he wants. He brought hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets, calling out his name; yellow umbrella sales went through the roof because of him, now they are completely unavailable in shops in Hong Kong.

He even increased his own already lucrative salary. Pure joy! Wouldn't you like to be able to do that too?

In addition, all other shareholders of the company he once owned are left with zilch, he still managed to extract a cool 4 million pounds sterling (about HK$ fifty million), and doesn't have to pay a cent in tax and doesn't need to be publicly accountable for it.

Through his extraordinary achievements, CY Leung is certainly worthy of respect, worthy of admiration!

Critique of a "fair article" by Prof. CK Wong

A friend sent me an article published in the HK Economic Journal (and commented on by Phoenix Television) by CK Wong, Professor of social work at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, stating he thought it was a "fair article". I read through it upon receiving it, but soon became incensed at the blind rhetoric used that I dropped it half way through. Yesterday I decided to take another look at the piece and write a critique accordingly. In doing so,  I am not making any comment on the Umbrella movement protests, but am merely offering my critique of the contents and arguments expressed therein. The critique has been edited and I have attempted to remove ambiguities and elaborate where I feel this is beneficial:

I’m not familiar with Finnish history, so I’ll take the author’s word for what happened there. Whilst on one hand, it’s the right of a sovereign nation to pursue policies that are of interest to its nationhood, I think it was a bit foolish (and against the national interest by definition) to adopt policies that are completely at loggerheads with your strong neighbour when there is no one else capable of supporting you. Having said that, there is no question in my mind that, based on what the author stated, Finland was bullied into submission and its sovereignty was undermined by a dictatorship. Up to now, China has not dared to apply that level of bullying because that will certainly undermine the economic stability of HK, because it still needs HK more than it is prepared to admit, and because the whole world is watching. Nevertheless, there is considerable pressure (both obvious and covert, both clean but mostly dirty) being felt by all the political players in Hong Kong to bend to its might.

Mr. and Ms. HK People (by Maxwell Ip)

I noted in my initial response that the author is obviously very sore and shocked by the public criticism of his views, but I think he is behaving in a pathetic way to justify stepping up his dissing of the students, who he opposed already. That made me so angry that I had to stop reading the text. The author, a member of the government central policy unit, employed heavy rhetoric in his piece, including the use of the Moscow/Beijing claim of “colour revolution” that even CY Leung or Jasper Tsang have not seen fit to utter up to now. I know that CY's hands are tied by Beijing, and he repudiates that the students may have legitimate grievances. The author denigrates the occupation activities as “creating havoc”, so I also find his piece highly objectionable. I think that his attitude is rather symptomatic of the local and national governments, neither of which have even acknowledged that there are serious political issues that they need to deal with.

I would also take issue with the author's further attempts to “tenderise” Hong Kong by denigrating its status and strength – it’s simply another ploy of the PRC to batter our self-confidence and attenuate our resistance to their anti-democratic/fascist agenda. Capitalist Hong Kong and Communist China have long been mutually reliant. While it is true that China’s economic power is on the rise, the decline in our GDP is to a large degree affected by the elimination of the double-counting of transshipments or re-exports (that are now happening directly) due to HK’s historical role as a trade entrepôt in the past, and the shift of manufacturing to the mainland. Over the decades, China benefited considerably from our policies as well as our society’s transparency, free market, rule of law (including low level of political corruption), but the foundations are now coming under increasing threat.

I strongly defend the author's right to have views of his own and right to make those views public, but I ask if he is not merely parroting the party line. Having the right to express his opinions doesn’t mean others have to agree with his views or refrain from commenting on them. As a member of the public, to whom the piece is addressed, of course I am entitled to agree with him if I choose. But I also have the right to disagree with what he says, and the right to stop listening to it or even criticise. When you make public you views, you invite praise as well as criticism. It’s part and parcel of free speech. How he took that criticism is similar to how China demonstrates its disdain for criticism, whether negative or constructive.

WTF? foreign powers?

China is notoriously sensitive to criticism, external as well as internal, and has sought to silence critics at every turn. Its doing so now, throughout this campaign, and the ugly warts are fully exposed. The accusations of "foreign interference" are unproven and part of the regime's Stalinist rhetoric that they might as well accuse Ronald MacDonald or Colonel Sanders. People are expected to take sides, and those who do not declare themselves to be supportive of the regime are deemed to be against – we saw this when Xinhua criticised tycoons who preferred to keep their support low key, although everyone knows already where they stand. China's binary world view does nothing to lower tensions. Indeed, it is guaranteed to create further tensions and polarisation of society. 

An "anti-occupy" group closely allied to the pro-communist DAB, poisoned the atmosphere with Cultural Revolution style denunciations and smear campaigns. Peaceful demonstrators are attacked by thugs and other state-sponsored mobs, mass media are under unprecedented pressure, and self-censorship exercised in a blatant manner; the thought police telling us black is white, love is hate, and peace is war. The occupation stems from serious and unaddressed political issues that have reached boiling point. It was deliberately and erroneously defined by CY Leung as a law and order issue, which he then apparently justified sending in the police to disperse the protests. The concepts of lawbreaking in civil disobedience and rule of law are routinely conflated (is this deliberate, I ask?) The police force has, without question, been used as a political tool of repression, and that use of force backfired. It's a crying shame for society as a whole. The credibility of the police force, which has worked hard to build relationships with the community and earn the trust of the community after the corruption scandals of the 1970s, has suffered a serious blow with the assault of a protester that was (unfortunately for the police officers in question) caught on film and broadcast to the world at large. Now officers have the tough job of building up that trust destroyed overnight by having to perform the dirty work of their political masters.

I would not believe it a few years ago, or even last year, but now I see there is a high level of self-censorship in the media. There is all manner of retribution being meted out to those who appear to have gone against China’s (read CPC’s) agenda or wishes. Journalists have been victimised for exposing the truth; entertainers such as Denise Ho, Anthony Wong, and Chow Yun-fat have been targeted with retribution, yet they continue to support the movement; starkly contrasted by Kenny G (passim), who kowtowed. It is plain to see where the “white terror” is coming from. The cancellation of the students’ home return permits is yet another obvious expression of this paranoia. It seems that permits of quite a few others' permits have been cancelled, not just the three who wanted to go to petition in Beijing, and it all shows political interests and the party are above the law.

China has a constitution and a body of laws, but the powers that be constantly live above them. This may change in future, but the road ahead is long and pitted with vested interests, many within the CPC itself; and we still don't know if XJP is sincere. Future HK governments without democratic accountability will become more whimsical and will jump to the interests of family members of high-ranking officials. Business people will lose the certainty that our legal framework provides, and business, the police and courts will be guided principally by political concerns. That world is no longer very far away, as the erosions of our systems have been laid bare by this political struggle that is taking place.

HK people may now take for granted the right to have political views and express them freely, or that your right to follow your chosen religion without someone pre-vetting your church for political correctness or fill it with atheist commie dogma. However, PRC politics and the overriding concern for the dominance of the CPC will ensure that the rights to say what you think and to worship who you worship will decline very quickly once the checks and balances in place in Hong Kong against those abuses are brought down if nobody stops that from happening. The proverbial animal (in the boil a frog metaphor) has been in water heated to a certain temperature since 1997. Since most HK people cannot jump from the water, they ought to oppose any further rise in that temperature.At least more HK people have been made politically aware of the undercurrents and the risks that lie ahead.

My friends are appreciative of our exchanges even though I find a number of them may disagree with my views, but I am absolutely confident that in 20 years’ time, without the guarantees that only democratic governance can provide, our children (and their children) will need to look around before they say what they think, and they will suppress their political views when using the telephone or internet, whether it is email or chat. Even those who are doing well financially now may not be able to help their children weather the whim of our political leaders. Although some Hongkongers (including many of my schoolmates and their families) may have foreign passports, none of their children will have the influence of a senior-level provincial party official to help them weather the storm if they were to stay in Hong Kong.

The author also understates the students as “a small minority”, but 100k+ people on the streets suggests to me that the ideas they represent are not to be marginalised. There will always be those who claim to represent the silent majority, but the safest assumption is that the silent ones ought to be split according to the proportion of "fors" and "antis". The protests have opened a new era and style of peaceful protest, and HK will never be the same again even if the occupation ceases today. Even if proper representative democracy is not what everyone desires (and I would fundamentally dispute that as an assertion), it is considered a fundamental human right by the United Nations. 

Why is it wrong to challenge China for something they are not likely to get? Democracy is never handed out on a plate by dictators, ever. Everywhere democracy exists has been marked by a struggle of bigger or smaller proportions. The Chinese people deserve the right to self-determination, and I feel Hong Kongers should lead the way.

Further reading:

* Howitt, Natasha (28 October 2014). "Why Hong Kong Still Matters". NewsHub
* "The Party v the people". The Economist, 4 October 2014