Advertisement
Advertisement
Anson Chan
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more

Anson Chan: first among 'equals'

Anson Chan

So, former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang has decided to run in the Legislative Council by-election, most likely against former secretary for security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee. Right now, most citizens are ready to see a big fight between the two. Any outcome is fine by me, as this is just another by-election. But many dissidents in the pro-democratic camp don't feel that way about it.

When she dropped out of the race last week, democrat Cyd Ho Sau-lan called the by-election 'a battle that Hong Kong people cannot afford to lose. Its victory or defeat will serve as an important index to show the public's determination to fight for the 2012 double universal suffrage elections.'

A similar view has also been put forward by Mrs Chan. She said it was crucial that people see this contest as a 'battle between democracy and non-democracy'; and that the whole pan-democratic camp must vote to support democratic development.

If this is so, does it seem odd that 'non-democratic' elements would agree to a democratic duel to determine a winner? If they do agree to play the direct-election game, does it mean that they are also democratic - rendering the battle meaningless?

Taking the argument one step further, should Mrs Ip - the supposedly non-democratic candidate - win the by-election fair and square, would that mean a victory for the forces of 'non-democracy', whatever that means? If the forces of 'non-democracy' win through a democratic process, is this democratic, undemocratic or non-democratic?

Would it prove the success of universal suffrage if a 'non-democracy' candidate were chosen over a democratic one? Or would it mark a failure to have a 'non-democracy' candidate win?

Deep inside, it is the self-appointed democrats who seem to have serious doubts about the people's ability to make a political choice. They reckon that, without their guidance, voters simply cannot pick the correct candidate. Our self-appointed democrats are apparently the most anti-democratic lot around.

If you are not convinced, then take a look at how they decided on their candidate. First, Ms Ho was proposed by just one person. Only later, after strong objections from within their own camp, did the pan-democrats reluctantly agree to a somewhat transparent - if not very democratic - mechanism to choose a candidate.

When it suits their interests, they do exactly what they have objected to others doing all along: screening out candidates and limiting voters' choices.

To add an even more absurd element to the absurdity, Democrat Martin Lee Chu-ming suggested that it would not be necessary for the selection mechanism to apply to Mrs Chan. Why? Because she is the 'goddess of democracy'.

On our dissidents' farm, some animals are indeed more equal than others. And yet that's democracy - because they say so.

Lau Nai-keung is a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate

Post