After last night's televised debate between the HKFS and HK Government representatives, I do not feel any differently about any of the issues. I feel that the students acquitted themselves well. Their was a strong emotional content in their well-reasoned messages. Government representatives acted professionally if in a "stiff" way, regurgitating the party line. The government officials cited the Basic Law frequently, and gave reasons why the people's demands cannot be met. Most of the arguments put up were purely procedural. The Chief Secretary concluded on four points (which means the NPCSC decision will not budge):
1. There is still ample room under the August 31 decision to work out a nomination procedure and election method for 2017. This will be the goal for the second round of public consultation.
2. The framework for 2017 is not final.
3. Students should help set up a platform to gauge views on the long-term constitutional development beyond 2017.
4. The government is considering how to make a report to central government to reflect people’s views.
*Carrie Lam said: “The 2017 [election] is not the destination. We can still improve the system for 2022. If all the pubic opinion being expressed can be recorded and reflected to the central government, it will be good for the democratic development.”
My take:
I'm obviously pleased to hear that 2017 is not the final destination, but no electoral roadmap has ever been forthcoming despite persistent demands from our legislators and others. Anyway, the people want bread today and not jam tomorrow.
If by "public opinion" Lam means yet another bogus "consultation" that may give rise to insincere conclusions or summaries that misrepresent, nothing will have changed. Had CY issued a report that properly summarised the widespread feeling that the people wanted more of the trappings of true democracy, it's possible that the NPCSC decision would have been different, and thus there wouldn't be so many protesters on the streets today.
*Raymond Tam said: "under the reform for 'one person, one vote', there won’t be government-business collusion because the chief executive will have to be accountable to all."
My take:
I cannot believe I heard such ignorant rubbish from a government secretary. A candidate who doesn't have the support of big business will never get into the starting gate, so it won't take a seasoned politician to guess whose interests to pander to. The individual votes of three and a half million electorate in the second round are unidentifiable and will defy analysis, so accountability will be weak at best. And there's nothing to say any candidate needs to gather 1.8 million votes, for he only needs one vote more in the run-off than the second/other candidate, both championed by big business.
Unless the system is specifically designed to yield 2 to 3 valid candidates, it's quite possible for only one candidate to emerge with the threshold set at such a high level (50%). If that situation arises, universal suffrage would be meaningless and the leader remains without public mandate.
Another time bomb ticking away in the background:
Picture one possible scenario: Audrey Eu were to be eliminated by the NC, leaving Regina Ip and/or "Lexus" Leung as the remaining candidate(s). I think all hell would break loose.
*Rimsky Yuen said: “If people had said no legislation unless they got HK$50 an hour, would we still have the minimum wage now?"
My take:
It's a classic negotiations tactic to ask for more and expect to get a counter-offer. Some people demanded a $50 minimum wage, but it was an obvious bargaining stance. $28 was probably about right but a little on the low side, but reflected the consensus of the wage according to economic situation at that time. What made it workable was the promise that it would be reviewed by an independent panel. CY Leung yesterday made the most frank statement of his entire time in office (see previous post), saying that the government intends to favour the very small business elite over half the city's population, which earns less than $14,000 a month. If this is his and future governments' vision for democracy without creating a welfare state, that roadmap violates natural justice and will never be sustainable. Although Hong Kong is positioned as a global financial centre and hopes to have economic stability, it can never be stable for long without social stability.
*Raymond Tam says: “We should not mix up the design of the electoral system with the political power of candidates.”
My take:
I don't think the people are at all confused about this. The students are talking fundamentally about the inherent flaws in the design of the system. "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung is fighting for the democratic principle, without saying or implying he would stand or want to be elected. Albert Ho stood in 2012 only to make a point. The people are not fools. As it turned out, Ho was not the most popular candidate (according to a mock election run by HKU), but that is no reason to screen someone out because of their perceived political power. If we have 10 CE candidates, I think the people will be the winners even though the administration will be heavier.
*Carrie Lam cited the anti-Occupy signature campaign which drew about one million signatures in support of the NPCSC decision.
My take:
petitions only have limited value, and their potential for being abused is also well known, and all the tricks seem to have been employed for the one cited. The HK government repeatedly stated in its report to the NPCSC that there was no consensus for the democratic model although noting there was demand for civic nomination, yet the report envisaged amendment of the Basic Law but not to include civic nomination. Constitutional issues are most frequently dealt with in the free world by referenda. For a government that refuses to hold a popular referendum on the constitutional issue of electoral reform, and then to cite a flawed and biased petition as an indication of the lack of support for the students' position really makes me highly suspicious of its motives. What's more, the petition emphasised the desire for non-violent and opposed [illegal] occupation but still claimed to want democracy. Quite what would be included in the report to be send to the Liaison Office remains to be seen.
*Carrie Lam denies that the government report on the previous round of consultation sidelined the views of a large section of society. The report mentions the avenues through which views were sought, and these seem to be fairly exhaustive. Lam said that all the submissions were annexed to the report. But there is no mention in the report to the NPCSC that there were a large number of submissions using a template supplied by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong. That is a fundamental failure. CY Leung already admitted to playing the numbers game. Plus ça change...
* "OCCUPY CENTRAL - THE DEBATE: Full coverage of student-government talks". South China Morning Post