POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 33 (21-07-2015)

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 218

POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 33

Full coverage of the day’s events on 21-07

Nathan Law (left) rejects the assertion of Chris Wat that only a few students supported the Occupy Movement. Photos: HKEJ, Post 852

Chris Wat criticized for blaming Occupy protesters

Former Ming Pao columnist Chris Wat Wing-yin, who has changed her views from pro-democracy to pro-Beijing in recent years, said last year’s Umbrella Movement lured many Hong Kong people into committing crimes and attracted “mentally unsound people“ to join its cause, Metro Daily reported Monday.

Speaking in a seminar at the Hong Kong Book Fair, Wat said Hong Kong people’s law-abiding spirit was weakened by the pro-democracy protests.

She also said the police force was wrong in adopting a “service delivery” approach in handling the protesters, instead of sticking to its “law enforcement” duties.

For instance, the consequences would be “unimaginable” if the police even had to politely ask triad gangsters to check their Hong Kong identity cards, she said.

Wat said that during the Occupy protests, many students were afraid to express their real sentiments and chose to be a part of the silent majority.

Nathan Law Kwun-chung, secretary general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, told Metro Daily that the most problematic person should be Wat herself as her views were contradicted by facts.

Law said students who did not support the Occupy Movement belonged to the minority.

In the same seminar, Carmen Poon Lai-king, a member of Leung Chun-ying’s campaign team in 2012, said last year’s protests hurt the students most because many of them were used as political pawns.

She said the Occupy Movement turned schools into battlefields and candidates for university vice-chancellor were judged according to their stand on the pro-democracy movement.

Commentator Yuen Kei-wan said the youth were near-sighted, thinking that democracy could solve everything.

Yau Lop-poon, editor-in-chief of Yazhou Zhoukan, disagreed with the Hong Kong Journalists Association that press freedom in the territory is at its worst.

He said Hong Kong is enjoying the peak of press freedom because all news can be reported in the city.

Beijing has over the years introduced several additional provisions into Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which did nothing but compromise its original design. Photo: Bloomberg

What is missing from the Basic Law?

In my article last week, I used the term “executive-oriented” to point out the first problem with the Basic Law. 

Essentially, the problem is that some of the systems and principles originally intended in the Basic Law are unable to be implemented because the law itself simply can’t keep up with the changes of the political environment.

The second problem with the Basic Law lies in the fact that it doesn’t have any clause that deals with political parties, nor did it take into serious account the role of political parties when laying down the framework for the relationship between the executive and legislative branches.

I believe anybody who roughly understands the democratic system knows that political parties play a pivotal role in integrating the different forces that come to power through elections, and ensuring the smooth operation of the democratic system. 

As long as there are elections, there will be political parties.

However, the reason why the Basic Law makes no reference to political parties whatsoever is because back in the days when the law was drafted, any mention of other political parties remained a taboo subject under the one-party dictatorship on the mainland.

At that time, members of the drafting committee for the Basic Law probably believed naively that the chief executive would be able to achieve executive dominance even without support from political parties. This has proven to be unrealistic given what has happened after the handover.

The Basic Law made no reference to political parties because it is a taboo, and it didn’t mention the role of ruling parties either because it is an even bigger taboo subject.

Under the system of the one-party dictatorship on the mainland, there can only be one ruling party, which is the Chinese Communist Party, and as part of China there cannot be any ruling party in Hong Kong either.

However, without a ruling party, the chief executive can hardly secure any vote in the legislature.

Tung Chee-wah and Donald Tsang Yam-kuen both made numerous efforts to try to consolidate support from the various pro-establishment parties in the Legislative Council, through moves such as forming alliances with them or appointing their key members to the Executive Council. However, none of the efforts succeeded in securing enough votes on key issues at critical moments.

One can imagine that if our chief executive was the leader of a majority party in the Legislative Council, then he would very likely be able to secure enough votes for his policy initiatives on a regular basis.

Therefore, in order to improve the relationship between the executive and legislative branches and facilitate a sustainable partnership between them, the Basic Law must take into account the roles of political parties and the ruling party. There might not necessarily be clauses directly related to political parties, but their role must be given thorough consideration when it comes to the overall design of our political structure.

That may require changes in at least three aspects.

Firstly, the existing laws that prohibit the chief executive from joining any political party must be abolished. Second, the administration must acknowledge the importance of political parties, legislate on their founding and running and facilitate their development. And lastly, the government must reform the existing electoral system of “List Proportional Representation”, which only gives rise to a large number of small political parties and hinders the development of large ruling parties.

The third problem with the Basic Law is that Beijing has over the years introduced several additional provisions into it, which did nothing but compromise its original design. An example of this is the chief executive’s power to request the NPC standing committee to interpret the Basic Law.

The power to seek interpretation of the Basic law would have rested with the Court of Final Appeal had it not been for former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, who violated the mechanism because he didn’t want to obey a decision made by the Court of Final Appeal in the late 90s over the right of abode enjoyed by mainland children born to Hong Kong parents.

To make matters worse, Beijing granted Tung this right without setting any prerequisite for it. As a result, our chief executive can basically ask the NPC standing committee to overthrow any ruling made by the Court of Final Appeal which he doesn’t like.

Tung’s disruption to the original system laid down in the Basic Law with regard to its interpretation has seriously undermined the rule of law and judicial independence of Hong Kong. The repercussions of his action continue to this day.

Coconuts

HongKong

HKFrontline