POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 9 (27-06-2015)

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.

Occupy Central site in Causeway Bay was cleared as police moved in  ...

Occupy Central site in an area surrounding the Legislative Council and Central Government Offices at Tamar were cleared 22-06-2015.

Hong Kong reform vote

The Hong Kong government’s political reform proposal for how the city elects its leader by universal suffrage for the first time in 2017 is based on a strict framework set by Beijing. The plan limits the number of candidates to two or three and requires them to win majority support from a 1,200 strong nominating committee. Arguing that this does not constitute genuine universal suffrage, pan-democratic lawmakers have vowed to reject the package, while pro-democracy groups have protested. The government’s resolution was to be put to a vote by the 70-member Legislative Council in June 2015, requiring a two-thirds majority to be passed.

POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 193

POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 9

Full coverage of the day’s events on 27-06

Redrawing the political landscape


WITH the constitutional reform package voted down by the Legislative Council, the post-constitutional reform era has begun. Over the past two-odd years, society has been torn by bitter conflicts over the constitutional reform issue. In the days to come, can we re-imbue our political ecology and culture with sense and reason? How will the political landscape be redefined and redrawn? These are questions of concern to every sector of society. Ronny Tong Ka-wah's resignation from the Civic Party and the Legislative Council is probably a prelude to the restructuring of Hong Kong's political map in the post-constitutional reform era.

While they appeared united, Tong had for a long time been at variance with other members of the Civic Party. Five years ago, when the Civic Party joined forces with the League of Social Democrats to stage a de facto referendum by means of a five-constituency resignation, Tong took a stand different from his party's. And the recent constitutional reform issue saw the Civic Party choosing to take a confrontational approach, and Tong choosing to carry out a dialogue. Their policies and strategies were so different that, in their public statements, Tong and the leaders of the Civic Party did not even try to conceal their differences. As their political convictions are different, it is only natural for them to part company.

In recent years, in his political speeches, Tong has often expressed his desire to change Hong Kong's political culture. The political arena over the past few years has been dominated by extremism, leaving no room for rational discussion. When the constitutional reform controversy was at its height, some opposition members in their public statements went so far as to deny the constitutional roles, powers, and functions that the state, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and the central government possess in relation to the Hong Kong SAR. What are their plans for Hong Kong? The opposition owes the public an answer to this question.
After the Legislative Council's rejection of the constitutional reform package, there are political parties in the pan-democratic camp that call for a dialogue with the central government. However, there are also those who do not seek to engage the central government in constructive talks. If in the days to come the opposition continues to pursue the policy of confrontation, while those in favour of a sensible dialogue fail to get sufficiently strong, not only will there be no progress in the democratisation process, but economic development and matters related to people's livelihood will suffer severely.

Tong established, before his resignation from the Civic Party, the Path of Democracy think tank, whose mission is to find a middle way between the two polarised political camps. As he said he is not retiring from politics, he is clearly trying to pursue his middle-of-the-road political principles. His resignation from the Civic Party may therefore be seen as a change in the line-up of the pan-democratic camp in the post-constitutional reform era.

In the district council election to be held in a few months and the Legislative Council election to be held next year, the emergence of new political groups running for office may change the political landscape. As Hong Kong is a highly developed economy, there should be a majority of rational moderates in society, and they should hold sway. Unfortunately, in the constitutional reform controversy just past, the moderates were almost completely marginalised. Should this be ascribed to some fixed factors, or to a society just temporarily thrown off its balance? No one can answer the question at present. We will have to wait and see.



政治版圖開始重組 期望理性生態重臨


隨着立法會否決政改方案，「後政改」時期於焉開始。過去兩年多，各方環繞政改激烈爭鬥、社會撕裂，未來一段日子，政治生態和文化能否回復文明理性，政治版圖將出現怎樣的切割和組合，都備受關注。湯家驊退出公民黨並辭去立法會議席，相信只是政局重組的其中一幕。

湯家驊與公民黨貌合神離，並非始於今日；5年前，公民黨與社民連聯手發動所謂「五區總辭，變相公投」，湯家驊的取態已經有別於公民黨。今次政改，公民黨選擇對抗，湯家驊選擇對話，路線與策略截然不同，其間公民黨領導層與湯家驊在公開發言時，言語間已經不掩飾分歧。政治理念不同，以分手收場，其實十分正常。

近年，湯家驊議政，常常提到希望改變香港的政治文化。事實上，近年政治氛圍激化，理性討論空間完全被堵塞。在政改爭拗最熱熾之時，反對陣營一些人的公開發言，連國家、人大常委會、中央政府在香港特區的憲制角色、地位與職能，都予否定，究竟要把香港推向一個怎樣的狀態，至今反對陣營中人仍未向市民解釋和交代。

否決政改之後，個別泛民黨派提出要與中央交流溝通的說法，但是反對陣營其他力量則仍然沒有尋求良性互動之意。未來一段日子，若反對陣營繼續奉行對抗路線，理性對話力量無法凝聚成一股夠分量的力量，則不僅民主進程無法寸進，其他經濟民生事務的推展也會困難重重。

湯家驊退黨之前已經另組智庫「民主思路」，要在目前政局兩極之間尋找第三條出路。湯家驊表示不會退出政壇，有理由相信他要實踐中間路線的政治理念，因此湯家驊退出公民黨，可解讀為民主黨派在「後政改」的政治板塊移動。


數月後舉行的區議會選舉和明年的立法會選舉，若有新興政治勢力加入競逐，政治版圖或許會出現不一樣局面。香港是經濟高度發展的社會，溫和理性中間力量理應是大多數，並成為主導力量。不過，今次政改的中間力量幾無立錐之地，這是特定條件的狀况，抑或社會短暫失衡的結果，目前無人可以給予答案，未來一段日子將見到苗頭。



Defeat of constitutional reform proposal has plunged HK into uncertainty


A walkout staged by pro-establishment lawmakers brought much drama to the vote on the constitutional reform proposal. Then the pan-democrats banded together, and, in alliance with Leung Ka-lau, the medical sector representative, threw out the proposal with their 28 votes. As a result, the political system will remain as it is. Hong Kong citizens will not be able to elect the Chief Executive in 2017 in a "one person, one vote" fashion.

The result of the vote is nothing short of black humour. Though they had been in firm support of the proposal, the majority of pro-establishment lawmakers staged a walkout right before the showdown, missing the chance to cast their votes. "What on earth were they doing?" This must be the question being asked by the majority of citizens, especially those who support the proposal. Several lawmakers explain that they left the legislative chamber to wait for Lau Wong-fat, so that he could cast his vote when he came back. The mess, they say, resulted from miscommunication. Even if this was the real reason and all this was a mistake, one question remains unanswered: Why did these lawmakers think that Lau's presence and his vote were of greater importance than those of the other 40 pro-establishment lawmakers? Those involved in the incident must answer this question, otherwise they will let down the citizens who support the constitutional reform proposal.

Now that the constitutional reform issue has come to an end, it is time for the SAR government to devote itself to the real business. For the Beijing authorities and pan-democrats, it is time for a full review of the situation and a new strategy. First, though the central government honestly believes that the 31 August framework is in the best interests of both China and Hong Kong, the fact remains that the opposition in Hong Kong is still capable of defying the central government. Those who understand the situation in Hong Kong are well aware that the so-called "mainland-Hong Kong" conflicts are in fact conflicts between the central government and the pan-democrats, and that they will cease to exist if the central government improves its relationship with the pan-democrats.

Second, the pan-democrats have to understand that, if they do not acknowledge the central government's constitutional status in the Hong Kong SAR, it will be impossible for them to have constructive interactions with the Beijing authorities. Nor will anything be achieved in the constitutional reform issue. In her closing remarks to the debate yesterday, Carrie Lam, the Chief Secretary for Administration, said that the pan-democratic lawmakers had been paying no regard for the role the central government plays in the SAR's constitutional development as stipulated by the Basic Law ever since discussion of constitutional reform began. She added, "To advance the cause of democracy in the SAR, it is important not to deviate from the principles and policies of 'one country, two systems' or ignore the constitutional requirements. Otherwise, any discussions of the issue will not have any solid bases. Neither will these discussions lead to any good results."

For over two years, society has been in bitter disagreement. This, together with the 79-day Occupy movement, has fundamentally changed Hong Kong's political environment in a way that makes many feel worried. The ideas of Hong Kong seceding from China and even gaining independence are making their way in society. What is more, some pan-democratic lawmakers are trying to avail themselves of the opportunities opened up by these evil ideologies, as can be seen from what they have said and done recently. In no way can such ideologies be advantageous to Hong Kong; they will only lead Hong Kong down a blind alley. It is our sincere hope that pan-democratic lawmakers will think twice and not take the risk, as that is a political gamble that will plunge Hong Kong into a dangerous situation, for which they will also pay a price.


香港陷不明朗景况 各方須反思謀出路

政改方案表決，因為建制派議員臨陣退席而倍添戲劇性。可是，泛民議員緊抱一致，連同醫學界別議員梁家騮共28票而否決了方案，結果是政制未能推展，市民在2017年無法以一人一票選出行政長官。

政改方案表決結果，充滿黑色笑話效果，堅定支持方案的大部分建制派議員，竟然臨場退席沒投票，他們到底在搞什麼東西？相信這是大多數、特別是支持通過方案的市民的疑問。有些議員解釋退席原因是為了等候劉皇發議員返回投票，託詞乃溝通不足所致。即使此乃真實原因，事態純屬「蝦碌」的結果，但是這些議員還有一個問題未交代，那就是難道劉皇發議員在席投票，重要性超過其餘40名建制派議員投票支持通過政改方案？涉事議員必須回答這個問題，否則對不起支持政改方案的市民。

在後政改時期，特區政府理應全力辦實事，北京和泛民也該全面檢討和反思時局，尋求出路。首先，即使中央堅信8‧31架框符合國家與香港利益，但現實是香港的反對力量仍有足夠勢力與中央抗衡。熟悉港情者都知道，所謂內地與本港的矛盾，其實是中央與泛民陣營的矛盾，只要中央處理好與泛民的關係，所謂內地與香港的矛盾就會消弭。

其次，泛民也要反思，若不認同中央在特區憲政上的地位，則不可能與北京良性互動，政改發展也不可能有出路。政務司長林鄭月娥昨日在決議案總結發言時，指出泛民議員由政改討論開始一直到昨天，「都漠視《基本法》下中央在特區的政制發展中的角色」；她還說「在特區推動民主發展，如果偏離了『一國兩制』的方針政策，無視憲制的要求，任何討論將欠缺最根本的基礎，結果就是難有寸進，一事無成」。

歷經兩年多爭拗和79日的佔領行動，本港政治生態確實發生變化，丕變的實質使人忐忑不安，甚至把香港推向分裂以至獨立的思潮已經泛起；近期有部分泛民議員的言行，還突顯他們意圖收割如此惡果。這些思潮，無論從任何角度審視都絕無好處，只會把香港推向死胡同！我們懇請這些議員三思而行，火中取栗會把香港陷於險惡境地，他們個人也須承擔責任和代價，切勿作這場政治豪賭。

Coconuts

HongKong