• Fri
  • Aug 22, 2014
  • Updated: 7:55am
My Take
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 09 April, 2014, 6:02am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 09 April, 2014, 6:02am

A long road to a pan-democratic chief executive for Hong Kong

From central Europe to the Baltic states, post-Soviet satellites that have made the successful transition to full democracy have continued political reform and tinker with their election systems.

There is no perfect election system, a one-size-fits-all model. You evolve and hopefully improve as you go along. That is the normal state of affairs.

Hong Kong people must realise that as well. Yet, in the acrimonious debate over the system for electing the chief executive in 2017 and thereafter, both sides act as if whatever system comes about will be pretty much fixed and remain so for a long time.

Beijing obviously wants that to happen so it does not have to give any more concessions or make further promises. You may argue that is precisely the reason why the pan-democrats demand as good a system as they can get, otherwise it's game over. But my sense of the matter after talking to young activists is that many are idealists. They want the ideal, some kind of international or universal standard, at the expense of realistic expectations given our constraints under Beijing. For them, it's all or nothing. Both sides are uncompromising in this respect.

The following ways out of the impasse are unlikely but not inconceivable. It's clear Beijing will not allow public nomination in 2017. It would rather risk prolonged political turmoil for Hong Kong. Can or will Beijing offer some guarantee that our election system will evolve towards public nomination or one that does not pre-screen candidates? That would be a step forward.

In the first few one-person one-vote elections in Hong Kong, Beijing has nothing to fear. Past polls have shown that the majority of local voters prefer someone who can work with Beijing and the pan-dems are only useful as an oppositional counterweight. But in any democracy, the pendulum will swing and eventually there will be a pan-dem who will be of chief executive material. It's that future pan-dem candidate Beijing worries about.

In the next decade or so, there should be more pan-dems installed as ministers or deputies and Executive Council members. These are trust-building measures to produce a pan-dem chief executive with whom Beijing can do business.


For unlimited access to:

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



This article is now closed to comments

Pierce m'boy, you're back! As the well-trained doggy that you are, I knew you would be. However, you've forgotten to fetch me something funny as per your training. So no treat for you today.
Instead, you've brought me back retread stuff. The changing of my handle that represents your 3 year-old tendencies. The completely unfounded suggestions of "fear" on my part when all I've done is rip you up every time. My supposed "inferiority" when you're the one incapable of answering questions or offering up anything even remotely resembling a logical argument. I mean, those things were funny for a while, cuz who knew an adult (even a CCP apologist) could be so stupid and pathetic. But the same joke (even the funniest ones) lost their shine with repeated use. So it's time to bring me back some new ones. Given your genetic predisposition, I have no doubt you have it in you. You might not be capable of anything else, but you've shown that making me laugh is definitely in your wheelhouse.
So ring ring, m'boy. Go out there and try to make an argument. Given your track record, that still represents your best chance of being funny. Now don't say I never help you out. But I wanna give you every possible chance to earn your treat, m'boy.
you’re reacting to your subliminal fear
without consciously knowing it
Given the indisputable fact of your thorough inferiority
you can’t afford the luxury of integrity and dignity
which you relinquish to focus on "face" saving
relying on ad hominem and venom
The only skills you could muster,
being thick and unlearnt,
is to keep regurgitating your tiresome FIM routine
running about with the bell-collar I put on your neck
dingding dong dingding dong
Your superiors won’t go down to your level
get dirty and finish you off in the muck
where you hide and thrive
In a jungle a wimp like you won’t last five seconds
In a city, civilized people would treat you
like what you really are, a filthy beggar
and tell you
Hey, look what the puppy dog dragged in? His partner in "dumb", whymak, of course. Whymak doesn't respond with quite the regularity of Pierce m'boy, so maybe the ringing of the bell will not have the desired effect. However, I suspect the offer of doggy treats will be titillating enough to entice him. After all, although Pierce m'boy is certainly at a lower sub-species level, they're both CCP apologists, and they are certainly genetically more similar than they are different.
"if HK fell to anarchy...". LOL. There you go again. If the sky fell down, I wonder if we may use it as a blanket? I guess you never tire of the fear-mongering. Classic CCP apologist behaviour. Stereotypical, and predictable. You really should write for Oped News. I think they're on par with you in terms of competency in the realm of "rational discourse".
Anyway, whymak, be a good boy and bring me back some more. You and Pierce m'boy are useful to have around.
I am beginning to understand your strategy. The Illiterate's devil-made-me-do-it obsessive compulsion is now perfectly tuned to bark insanely at every cue of yours. Before we know it, he will be committed to Marquis de Sade Sanitarium.
While you're having fun taunting the Illiterate in Chinese classics, mathematics and economics, one thought occurred to me.
If Hong Kong fell to anarchy as the Illiterate had hoped, who would rise to be the Robespierre of this Democracy Cult rebellion, the Illiterate -- manure or by any other name that he is called, Benny Tai, Chan Kin Man and dozens of others?
Keep in mind that Robespierre's head was felled by the guillotine.
BTW, I am unaware that the Illiterate is even half way literate in science. Keep this conversation going, he will show you that he can talk faster than the speed of light.
Oh, say it ain't so, Pierce m'boy. Throwing in the towel so soon? I was looking forward to more doses of you talking about "international law", trying to explain "logic", and/or speaking unintelligibly about the appeals court's definition of "public". Laughter is vital, m'boy, and you were my drug store.
Alas, one is bound by their genotype, and yours has high penetrance with a very stereotypical phenotype, so your desire to run away and hide is not entirely unexpected.
That said, the call of the bell is hard to resist for a well-trained and neutered CCP puppy dog, so my guess is your hiatus will not last long. I imagine my wait for your unique brand of comic relief will be a short one. Ring ring...am I right, or am I right?
But for now, you should join your partner in stupidity. Hopefully, you guys will be going home to Beijing where you types truly belong. That said, I've never known CCP apologists to walk the walk, so that is probably unlikely. Too bad, m'boy, I'm sure you would have loved it.
A belated thankyou to whymak
Having sufficiently exposed the fool’s ignorance, now I should follow your wise counsel of April 12th: to waste no more time “preaching to some banana with no sense of shame, let alone having an ounce of the honor found in a 15-year old geisha”
近朱者赤, …
No no, Pierce m'boy. Logic isn't quite like litigation. But the burden of proof in logic is inescapable. If you assert there is such a thing as "international law", then it's up to you to prove it. Again, this is so simplistic as to defy description...except for someone as cosmically stupid as you are. I already showed you that the International Criminal Court functions by TREATIES and not statutes, and I've been saying that all along. To resort to arguing about language(?) and semantics(??) wrt such a straightforward question is mind-boggling, but then I remember that you lack the requisite intelligence to use language with precision, and it all makes sense. Heck, I wonder if you're looking up "international law" in urban dictionary as I write this.
But hey, as a CCP apologist, your job is to obfuscate, run, and hide. And you guys do it well. As CCP apologists, you guys as a cohort also lack the quality of upbringing to be able to admit where you're wrong. Also a pervasive trait among you folks. But that's ok. It amuses me to keep pointing it out to you. And once again, your purpose in life is met.
In fact, I think you should continue to go around telling others about this "international law" business, cuz I'm all for sharing, and good humour like that deserves to be propagated for more people to enjoy. Be optimistic, Pierce m'boy. This may be your ticket to go from just a website idiot to a famous international idiot. i'm rooting for you. Now ring ring.
This time 321stupid has tried harder than before
but the harder he tries the more manifest is his stupidity
I’d try to spare him from further embarrassment
that he isn’t aware of, too preoccupied
by reciting irrelevant elementary syllogism
which he memorized by rote for secondary exams
Such childish enthusiasm shows his ignorance of symbolic logic
let alone its application for social studies.
manure’s silly performance would have made him a laughingstock
in any freshmen level seminar
I’d be too unkind, to keep poking fun at such a wretched dilettante
Given manure’s assertion, that “there is no IL”,
let’s overlook the nonsense and treat it as a proposition
What kind of “true-functions” are entailed in this elementary proposition,
logical or linguistic?
For something so simple and straight forward
Wittgenstein’s counsel is “Don’t’ think but look” (PI 66)
It may present what LW would call a language game
where only a pretentious fool would work “dogmatically” with “logic”
and assign “burden of proof” as if he were in a litigation.
Pierce m'boy, you're a dog. Probably a neutered one. However, in ONE way you're actually better than god. One can pray to god, and sometimes those prayers are answered. But I ring the bell and ask you to fetch me something funny to make me laugh, and you deliver EVERY SINGLE TIME. M'boy, you have 100% success rate at saying stupid and funny stuff! Well done, m'boy! You and your parents should be so proud.
But m'boy, you gotta fixate less. You commented, then came back 4 hours later, then came back again more than 10 hours later! (oh, I can show you the arithmetic if you like, cuz that stuff tripped you up before, LOL). You are certainly dedicated to your job of making me laugh, and I'm much obliged. You get a treat, m'boy. There's a good boy. But maybe you should cultivate some alternate interests.
Anyway, your 6AM comment is just your typical stupidity. Your 723PM comment I've dispensed with below. As for 328PM, where did you get those variables? How far back did you go to make up stupid quasi-logic progressions? I can't conceive of a person so stupid as you to affix variables to random phrases taken out of context. But your existence certainly shows the true depths of stupidity that are humanly possible. Your gene lineage should be studied for its apparent evolutionary lapses. Oh, and I don't answer your inane stanzas. I point them out so I can mock them, and mock them I do. You're welcome.
Anyway, Pierce m'boy, ring ring. Now go fetch.




SCMP.com Account