Results of 2016 Legco election will be a good measure of public discontent
Bernard Chan says election of more radical legislators will send a message
At an event last weekend, I was asked whether there should be penalties for Legislative Council members who misbehave. This follows radical legislators' attempts to filibuster the government's budget and incidents like the bun-throwing in Legco during a question-and-answer session with the chief executive.
My feeling is that these things should be decided by Legco itself. When I was a lawmaker, most of us took the council's public image seriously, and I believe members are in the best position to regulate their own behaviour.
I also believe punishments like pay cuts would backfire. The fact is that even the most radical members are elected by Hong Kong voters. I know their share of the vote is quite small, but they won their seats fairly by attracting enough support. Many of their voters probably want them to misbehave, and they would welcome being punished.
A lot of more moderate politicians and observers may not see it this way. But if enough voters choose a representative who shouts and waves banners, we have to accept that that is what they want. We should really be asking why they feel that way. There are cynical and extreme people everywhere, but if there are enough here to elect several lawmakers, it suggests something is wrong.
It will be interesting to see what voters decide in the 2016 Legco election. If radicals lose seats, it will suggest more people are getting fed up with their antics. On the other hand, if more radicals get in, it will suggest that whatever is making people seriously angry is getting worse. Since "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung seems to be especially popular among the young, the antics will not necessarily lose him votes, or his share of the vote.
Quite a few younger people, in particular, see radicals like Long Hair as fighting for social justice. Older or more moderate people might think the young are being naive or idealistic, but if this is a trend, we must take it seriously.
We know there are social problems, including inequality. A fair number of people seem to reject the idea that the current administration will do anything, even though it actually has a better welfare record than its predecessors. But ignoring or dismissing the most vocal and angry parts of the opposition will not work.
Fortunately for the government, the radicals in Legco decided to demand a universal pension as the price for ending their filibuster. I say this is fortunate because it is not a proposal that has broad and strong popular support. Many people in Hong Kong across the political spectrum are essentially fiscal conservatives. They do not seem hugely in favour of giving welfare to everyone, including the better off. Such entitlements have expanded to the point that they have left some Western countries in permanent deficit.
If the radicals had selected a more popular or perhaps practical cause, they could have put the administration in a much more awkward position.
As it is, Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah has said in his blog that the pension issue should not be used as a bargaining chip. He also acknowledged that the current retirement savings arrangements do need a rethink. To radicals and their supporters, this probably proves that direct action gets them noticed.
All this should highlight the importance of successful constitutional reforms, especially for the 2017 chief executive election. Although the debate is about nomination of candidates, the outcome is a big deal: a competitive race for the top job in which everyone has an equal vote.
That would be unprecedented in Hong Kong, and it offers a serious chance of more responsive and effective government. If it succeeds in providing that, the outlook for extremists and radicals will surely be far dimmer.
