• Thu
  • Dec 25, 2014
  • Updated: 1:41pm
My Take
PUBLISHED : Friday, 07 February, 2014, 3:10am
UPDATED : Friday, 07 February, 2014, 3:10am

Divided pan-dems risk societal rift

The pro-Beijing crowd no doubt watched with glee the pan-democrats turning on each other on Wednesday over Occupy Central. While Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing and former chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan led a group of supporters to take an oath to join the civil disobedience movement, dozens of members of People Power jeered and booed.

A scuffle broke out, in which various objects, including, allegedly, a chair, a balloon and a wet towel - yuck! - were thrown at Ho and Lau. The pair had to be escorted by police to safety. The People Power crowd was protesting the would-be protesters for universal suffrage because the Democrats voted for the government's political reform package in 2010. You would think all that was water under the bridge among the pan-dems but the more extreme and uncompromising of the lot forget nothing - and of course, learn nothing either.

But the real reason is that the democrats, wisely, have not joined the other pan-democratic groups under the Alliance for True Democracy in demanding public nomination as the be-all-and-end-all for universal suffrage. For them, it's just one of several options. In other words, they are holding the door open for negotiations with the government and Beijing. The other pan-dems are now afraid the Democrats may be ready to do another deal with the government on the Legislative Council election and the chief executive vote in 2016 and 2017.

The deep division and growing internal animosity among the pan-dems may delight some people but we should all be worried. Even if you don't support them, for negotiations and compromises to work, you need leaders who have the prestige and influence to represent and carry their movement. Not only has the pan-democratic camp not had a credible leader for some time now, it's so divided it may no longer be considered a single coherent movement. The division started in 2010 but became even more bitter and extreme recently.

The danger is that the most uncompromising and loudest people could hijack the movement, making a deal difficult, if not impossible. If there is no settlement on full suffrage, Hong Kong society will only become more acrimonious and divisive.


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

The Democrats are paying the price for befriending with thugs to fight against political rivals. Nothing to worry about and just let them fight. l see the Democrats will still ally with them for political interest. I only worry about the ignorance of HKers on what is truely the soul of democracy.
I’m about to finish my use for 321manu
as I’ve beaten more than sufficient cacophony out of him
to prove what an empty barrel he is
321 has been dutiful in supplying the materials I want
for future generations to study how “democracy”
is discussed in the city’s English-speaking community
and to compare with discussions in Chinese newspapers
That’s why I fairly asked self-styled “democrats” to shut 321manu up
and find someone not so stupid to represent democracy in this forum
We should watch whether 321 blushes looking at his “logic”
"if law is a function of demo?" then “non-democracies have no law”
and how he not knowing what his “arguments” really were
again and again got further lost in verbosity and ignorance
gilding the lily to demonstrate what an unsalvageable fool he is.
321 is a case that self-education thru web surfing
could harm rather than help those students
who are mediocre but pretentious
uninspired and lack of intellectual depth / initiative
My intended discussion has been why / how
not to democratize into the majority of one
Prof Dahl envisaged three elective methods
and had a reasonable suggestion for HK
321 misunderstands and misapplies his references
that in any case are irrelevant for the argument
Once an avowed defender of integrity against ad hominem … etc
321’s short wit / honor were drained in no time
Beating the hollow barrel painted in black and white
makes ever more adhom and louder noises
"If law is a function of democracy", then what do you propose with your 'logic' is the state of 'law' in non-democracies? This I would love to hear. Take your time. And here's the thing. Rather than writing useless verbiage in the form of poetry over 7 stanzas, your time could conceivably be better spent in learning logic and devising actual arguments. I suppose it's only natural that 3 year olds need to be told how to best spend their time. Oh, and learn subtraction too.
Your "intended discussion"? LOL. Was there some impediment to you choosing to engage in your "intended discussion" prior to this comment? Not until you got called out for your pointless name dropping in the absence of a substantive argument as relates to Dr. Dahl's theses did you discover your "intent". I know you're slow, but come on.
And still, this is all you've got? If "Dahl envisaged three elective methods
and had a reasonable suggestion for HK", then where's your argument against it? After all, you're the anti-democracy stooge. Do you need a formal invite or something? Never have I seen a person loiter around an argument with such a repeated inability to actually make one. Have the CCP taught you nothing? Although I'm much obliged to your inadvertent humour and your efforts in amusing me, I think you might be better off lurking than speaking. You can remain silent and be thought a fool, or open your mouth and remove all doubt. I'm neutral, as I have something to gain either way.
I’d wonder while leaving the question unasked
because the answer really doesn’t matter:
“Have you ever blushed?”
Perhaps you may find some someone of your level
to discuss your problems with you
this comment is posted without perusal
of the mouthful of verbosity it replies to
mumble jumbles that may be of interest
only to social scientists and future historians
CCP apologist who can't answer questions, even when they are directly in extension of points he brought up, or names he dropped. That's to be expected. I would never count on anything more than that from 'you people'. In this realm, unlike in all others, you at least meet expectations. Well done.
And I am amazed at your ability to consistently speak without saying anything.
Oh, and if you plan to misquote me out of context again, you could try to suggest that I think you "consistently...meet expectations".
Hear, hear
who acts like “a 3-year old”
“you come back from these hikes
and you're dumber for it each and every time”
Doesn’t that sound like SOS
some ravaged soul
desperately pleading in intellectual starvation?
Having made 321 a representative of the English-speaking community
in the history of HK’s democrazy
I’ve no more use for the empty barrel
which will continue to be cacophonic
to rob attention by vituperations
in lieu of respect that he is incapable of winning
Telling you that you become dumber by the day is my "SOS"? After stating that you're starting at a level equivalent to that of a 3 year old? Wow, I'm good, but not that good. If that's my 'SOS', I'd be interested to hear myself when I'm really bringin' it.
Ahh yes, changing a letter in "democracy". That's really high brow stuff...again befitting of a 3 year old. Is this the best that CCP apologists can do? Maybe it's some genetic impediment. I've always accepted the possibility that some CCP apologist somewhere might be able to defend the CCP position in an intelligent and logical fashion, even though I've yet to encounter evidence of same on the internet. Your existence is making me start to doubt that position, since the evolutionary gulf to be bridged from someone like you to someone like that seems beyond the realm of what's achievable.
And let's be clear. Your "respect" is not sought, nor desired. You've gotta be kidding me. Why would I be even remotely interested in the respect of someone I consider to be an idiot whose only purpose in life is to amuse me? You've devolved from simply lacking in intelligence, to becoming completely lacking in a grasp of reality.
Wow. I detect an attempt at actually making an argument. Well done. A pretty pathetic attempt as I'll soon demonstrate. But still, that's progress, and I applaud you. Not bad for a 3 year old.
"if law is a function of demo?" - ahh, so you stipulate then that non-democracies have no law. Why do you support PRC citizens living in a lawless society. And why would you want to import lawlessness into HK and impose that upon HKers? That's one way to shoot you down.
Here's another: If democracy produces a lawful society, then obviously a lawful society is a component of said democracy. You can't separate one from the other (now, before you assume another idiotic position, let's be clear we're talking about rule of law, and not individual laws or pieces of legislation).
If you're gonna name drop with Dr. Dahl, then why not explore what the guy actually said? You seek to argue against democracy, and mention Dahl, yet have nothing to offer in rebuttal of his position. Who does stuff like this? You should note that the CCP specializes in inducement, power, coercion, and physical force, which are the bottom 4 of Dahl's "influences". Nice job aiming for the bottom...gotta hand it to those CCP high achievers. No wonder they always shoot themselves in the foot since they're forever aiming in that direction.
I gotta say, nothing you say, have said, and will ever say possesses the requisite value to warrant repeating. And my god find a dictionary. And learn subtraction.
Furthermore, if you're gonna quote, then quote, rather than cherry picking a non-representative portion and further misinterpreting it. I realize you people are genetically designed to be disingenuous, but it doesn't work here cuz what's written is on record. Don't know why you guys even bother...but the open displays of poor judgement and questionable ethics are amusing...so thanks for that.
This is what I actually wrote: "IF HK was an actual democracy, and we were actually upon the nomination/election stage, then the division among the democratic ranks might be strategically troublesome, as it might divide the vote among those who support continued democratization, and might allow some ossified CCP hack to sweep into office behind the unified support of the singularly focused pro-Beijing crowd." and "There is no vote-splitting at play here, since there isn't yet anything to vote on. It's only the negotiation phase". I'm NOT saying that "actual democracy can be troublesome". Again, I realize your raison d'etre is to be disingenuous. But to misquote to the extent you've done here smacks of pathetic desperation and a dearth of character i haven't seen since...well...whymak. You 2 really are made for each other.
You know, most people go for walks to clear their mind. For some reason, you come back from these hikes and you're dumber for it each and every time. It's as though CCP apologists don't function like normal humans, and might constitute their own subspecies.
Red and yellow T-shirts are the answer!
Lets all learn to demonstrate the Thai way. "Sa wa dee Krap"




SCMP.com Account