Occupy Central
Occupy Central is a civil disobedience movement which began in Hong Kong on September 28, 2014. It calls on thousands of protesters to block roads and paralyse Hong Kong's financial district if the Beijing and Hong Kong governments do not agree to implement universal suffrage for the chief executive election in 2017 and the Legislative Council elections in 2020 according to "international standards." The movement was initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting (戴耀廷), an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, in January 2013.
Umbrella Movement
The Umbrella Movement (Chinese: 雨傘運動; pinyin: yǔsǎn yùndòng) is a loose political movement that was created spontaneously during the Hong Kong protests of 2014. Its name derives from the recognition of the umbrella as a symbol of defiance and resistance against the Hong Kong government, and the united grass-roots objection to the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of 31 August.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 175:
Full coverage of the day’s events on 09-06
Split in ranks of Civic Party laid bare in articles released online
Deep rifts within the Civic Party have been revealed in a series of blog postings.
A blogger named "Annie" quoted an article written by a "Ku Tsai" who claimed party members are discontented with the leadership of Audrey Eu Yuet- mee and Alan Leong Kah-kit.
"The Civic Party is facing many internal and external problems. Alan Leong and Audrey Eu should be responsible for this," Ku Tsai wrote.
The party held its executive committee meeting last Tuesday and only a few members attended, including Claudia Mo Man-ching and Tanya Chan Suk-chong, with no quorum, Ku Tsai said.
Ronny Tong Ka-wah and Dennis Kwok Wing-hang did not attend and have not been at meetings "for a long time," said the writer, who claims to be a party member.
"On that day everyone assumed they would not attend," Ku Tsai wrote. "Kenneth Chan Ka- lok and Kwok Ka-ki also did not attend."
The writer added: "I'm not qualified to ask why many members did not attend ... but all attendees were `in a bad mood' and discontented, with Leong and Eu dominating party affairs."
On the subject of political reform, Leong, Tong, Kwok and Eu all spoke freely to the media, even though the party had not discussed any concrete details in the reform proposal.
"At a meeting on May 26, Eu lashed out at Dennis Kwok [in his absence] and a week later at the June 2 meeting, it was Leong's turn to lash out at Tong [who was also absent]." During the meeting, Leong told party members that Basic Law Committee chairman Li Fei had said that "pocketing" the government's political reform meant accepting it forever.
Leong accused Tong of defending Li, that there was still room for changes to the reform after it is passed at Legco.
The party is now facing many problems internally and externally, Ku Tsai wrote, adding he had begun to hate Leong and Eu.
Ku Tsai alleged that dislike for Leong stemmed from Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun who thought Leong was seeking personal gain in taking part in the 2007 chief executive election.
Ku Tsai claimed Leong and Eu do not see eye to eye because Leong is hung up on veteran democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming favoring Eu, and that he is less popular than Eu.
Why we needn’t worry too much about cracks in democratic camp
While pan-democrats in Hong Kong have voiced their unhappiness at the government’s political reform proposal, it is however generally believed that some lawmakers could break ranks and support the bill when it is tabled in the legislature.
A few names are being bandied around as speculation mounts over possible deals and compromise with the Leung Chun-ying administration.
Looking at the situation, it is quite evident that some lawmakers are ready to accept the “fake” election package when certain conditions are met.
As conventional tactics have not yielded any results, the members may have opted for a new stance.
This has promoted some observers to describe the scene as the “conservativization” of social movements and democrats.
Meanwhile, the divergence and strife over strategy within the pan-democrat camp appears to have spread to the younger generation. One example is the cracks seen in the Hong Kong Federation of Students.
We may feel bewildered by the complexity of the situation and uncertain prospects.
But I see no reason for pessimism in these developments.
We should bear in mind that divergence, cracks and even rifts within the bloc are not uncommon.
Mayer Zald and Roberta Ash, sociologists at Columbia University, agree that conservativization of social movements tends to happen in a stable society. Activists and leaders may grab some political power as well as pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests and advantages for apportion among members within the camp.
Realizing that their ultimate goal — democracy — can’t be achieved overnight, activists may lose some of their zeal and alter their strategy.
But that doesn’t mean the change in stance is irreversible.
Zald and Ash cited the National Urban League and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as examples.
The two leading civil rights groups became relatively conservative before the African-American Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s, but then subsequently adopted a more “militant” approach in order to win back the hearts of supporters and compete with newer, more aggressive parties like Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Similarly, old-line democrats in Hong Kong and their allies were largely marginalized in the Occupy protests when youngsters became the leading light in the movement.
Older democrats failed to attach significance to the widespread localism in recent years, nor did they try to align themselves with the shifting landscape and other changing dynamics. This has led to chasm with young people.
This sort of thing happens along with intensified internal strife and competition but one will be naïve to assume that the activists will lose faith after seeing all the explicit or covert power struggles among different factions.
One should accept that some things may be unavoidable in the real political world. It would be a mistake to look at the democrats with disdain if they choose to make some compromises.
Zald and Ash point out that various factions and schools within the pan-democratic bloc would team up before a showdown with the authorities. But once the crucial moment has passed – just like the post-Occupy era – the bloc would be vulnerable to division and even confrontation within the camp.
Like other forms of dispute and reorganization, internal divisions shouldn’t be a source of grave worry.
As Hong Kong prepares for a crucial vote on political reforms, divisions have surfaced within the pan-democratic camp. Photo: Reuters
While pan-democrats in Hong Kong have voiced their unhappiness at the government’s political reform proposal, it is however generally believed that some lawmakers could break ranks and support the bill when it is tabled in the legislature.
A few names are being bandied around as speculation mounts over possible deals and compromise with the Leung Chun-ying administration.
Looking at the situation, it is quite evident that some lawmakers are ready to accept the “fake” election package when certain conditions are met.
As conventional tactics have not yielded any results, the members may have opted for a new stance.
This has promoted some observers to describe the scene as the “conservativization” of social movements and democrats.
Meanwhile, the divergence and strife over strategy within the pan-democrat camp appears to have spread to the younger generation. One example is the cracks seen in the Hong Kong Federation of Students.
We may feel bewildered by the complexity of the situation and uncertain prospects.
But I see no reason for pessimism in these developments.
We should bear in mind that divergence, cracks and even rifts within the bloc are not uncommon.
Mayer Zald and Roberta Ash, sociologists at Columbia University, agree that conservativization of social movements tends to happen in a stable society. Activists and leaders may grab some political power as well as pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests and advantages for apportion among members within the camp.
Realizing that their ultimate goal — democracy — can’t be achieved overnight, activists may lose some of their zeal and alter their strategy.
But that doesn’t mean the change in stance is irreversible.
Zald and Ash cited the National Urban League and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as examples.
The two leading civil rights groups became relatively conservative before the African-American Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s, but then subsequently adopted a more “militant” approach in order to win back the hearts of supporters and compete with newer, more aggressive parties like Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Similarly, old-line democrats in Hong Kong and their allies were largely marginalized in the Occupy protests when youngsters became the leading light in the movement.
Older democrats failed to attach significance to the widespread localism in recent years, nor did they try to align themselves with the shifting landscape and other changing dynamics. This has led to chasm with young people.
This sort of thing happens along with intensified internal strife and competition but one will be naïve to assume that the activists will lose faith after seeing all the explicit or covert power struggles among different factions.
One should accept that some things may be unavoidable in the real political world. It would be a mistake to look at the democrats with disdain if they choose to make some compromises.
Zald and Ash point out that various factions and schools within the pan-democratic bloc would team up before a showdown with the authorities. But once the crucial moment has passed – just like the post-Occupy era – the bloc would be vulnerable to division and even confrontation within the camp.
Like other forms of dispute and reorganization, internal divisions shouldn’t be a source of grave worry.
沒有留言:
張貼留言