bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Stephen Vines

It is hard to imagine the unctuous constitutional affairs secretary, Stephen Lam Sui-lung,  being even more unctuous or pleased with himself but, frankly, he has got a lot to be pleased about. 
From his perch in a department dedicated to slowing down the pace of constitutional change, things appear to be going very well.
The democratic camp is badly fractured, the referendum on constitutional change was distinctly underwhelming and the government may even have persuaded a majority of the people that the democrats will be to blame if the barely lukewarm constitutional reform proposals fail to pass into law.
 Such is the mood of triumph in the government camp that Lam's boss, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, feels he can now say anything he likes, such as describing the referendum as a 'violent action'.
Lam, however, has long been one of the best weapons in the democrat's armoury.
 Ahead of demonstrations, government opponents pray for him to intervene - to provoke a backlash and swell the numbers coming out on the streets. 
But one man cannot be relied on to save the democrats' bacon. There are a number of things they can and should do themselves. However, some seem determined not only to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory but to ensure that the jaws remain clamped shut.
So what could be done? First up, why not stop acting like politicians and admit the obvious fact that the referendum tactic was well intentioned but a failure, and move on? Hongkongers are not stupid; they appreciate frank talking, however uncomfortable it may be. More important, honesty is greatly respected.
Second, and very difficult, the time has come to put aside the bad blood generated between the democrats who supported the referendum and those who opposed it. That is easier said than done and, in all likelihood, the League of Social Democrats will not be able to do it. However, others can.
Third, why not learn from the government's brilliant tactics - words I never thought I would write with a straight face - and try a bit of the divide-and-rule strategy that has enabled the administration to create better relations with 'good' democrats while shunning the 'bad' ones.  
The pro-government camp is far from  monolithic, and there are some key players who yearn for the legitimacy of being so-called peacemakers. 
Leung Chun-ying,  who chairs the Executive Council and seems to be running for the office of chief executive, has given a host of indications that he wants to play some kind of bridging role. Anthony Cheung Bing-leung,  his Exco colleague, went further, writing in these pages this week with specific proposals for bridging the gap. 
It may seem naive to take these people at their word, but a failure even to make the attempt verges on serious negligence. At the very least, failure will quickly reveal whether the pro-government 'moderates' are indeed willing to compromise. Finally, there is the question of what to do when the government's constitutional reform proposals reach the floor of the legislature. 
At the moment, most democrats seem determined to march into the elaborate trap set for them by the government, intending  to vote against these proposals. 
The finger of blame for holding back the democracy agenda is already wagging in their direction, even though everyone who can read and write knows that a plan to retain the status quo simply by making it a bigger status quo is nonsense.
The democrats have enough votes to block these proposals, but they should not use them.
 Instead, they should simply boycott the proceedings and let the government and its allies do their worst. In this way, responsibility for blocking the road to democracy will clearly rest with the anti-democrats. 
That will not be the end of the story because the fight for universal suffrage will continue, but it will be unimpeded by a ridiculous argument over why this irrelevant legislation was blocked.
The majority of Hong Kong people have shown time and again that they want to live in a democratic society. 
Now, as the odds are increasingly stacked against the realisation of this dream, the time has come to be both principled and smart - and that's not an easy call.
Stephen Vines is a Hong Kong-based journalist and entrepreneur



The principled and smart approach to democracy