Why Hong Kong needs democracy
What has happened to Hong Kong as a result of Article 23 points to this fact: an undemocratic government will destabilise a society.
The administration of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, a political halfway house between autocracy and true democracy, has unwisely exercised the prerogative of the former.
With the central government hand-picking the chief executive and mandating his power, Mr Tung felt that there is no need to heed the wishes of the people. This impression is given not just by him, but also - in a most blatant way - by some of his chief ministers.
It creates the kind of crisis that could easily have led Hong Kong into repeating the Tiananmen Square tragedy and to a showdown that will eventually leave any government holding the short end of the stick.
We saw it in China: the damage done is long-lasting, even when a victory is won at the time with guns.
The potential instability ticks away like a time bomb in society. It exists where there is a single, autocratic-style political party claiming legitimacy. Such a party excludes true representation and proclaims the right to annihilate any form of opposition.
But opposition and change are what keep a nation or a government healthy and stable. The separation of state from any ruling party shields its institutions from ineptitude and wrong-mindedness.
The decision as to whether the candidates for the top jobs are right should rest in the hands of the people.
Not only is it time now for Hong Kong to go forward with universal suffrage, those in the central government who have political reform in mind should think hard about the cost of procrastination.
When he was faced with a seemingly insurmountable problem, President Ronald Reagan once said to Secretary of State George Shultz: 'If not now, when? If not us, who?'
ANTHONY LEE, Causeway Bay
