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 |
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.