As a Hong Konger with a western passport, I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
But as a native HKer, it’s my duty to support the HK youngsters’ fight for a better government and a brighter future.
What does Occupy Central want? Authentic democracy?
Perhaps, but CY is right (a broken clock being right twice a day?). There is no way 比精 can yield an inch on its original constraints.
The best solution, according to some pundits, is to adjust the make-up of the Election Committee, which worries me a lot.
Any adjustment to that committee acceptable to 比精 would have to be a sham because in my humble opinion, the CCP has neither the self-confidence to accept, nor the political sophistication to oversee, an authentic democracy. If Occupy agreed to it, all the hard work of this powerful movement would be in vain. And we'll have sham reforms, and a phony democracy. And the next CE could claim a mandate and do much more damage to HK than the last three.
What do I want?
From the beginning, I've felt that the purpose of this Occupy movement should be to hold firm the pan-dem coalition of 27 votes. 24 votes are needed to veto the reform package.
比精 has been pushing hard on (read “bribing”) four possible turncoats: Ronny Tong, Frederick Fung, Joseph Lee, and Charles Mok. The first two are elected by the people and the last two are functionals from Health Services and IT, respectively. 比精 needs all four votes to pass the sham reforms.
Tong and Fung, hopefully, should know that if they betray the people, they’ll be voted out in the next election. The other two are functionals so who knows how much influence 比精 has on such constituencies.
If Occupy could strike enough fear into the hearts of these four, to deny the gov’t the votes, it will have to withdraw the reforms. We’re back to the status quo. 原地踏步.
Yes, that’s my wish.
For the only thing worse than an authoritarian government is an authoritarian government which could claim a mandate from the people.