• Thu
  • Dec 18, 2014
  • Updated: 9:07pm
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

The idea of HK's democratic evolution occurring as a step-wise and incremental process is a laudable one. Unfortunately, acceptance of such a concept requires trust, and that is sorely lacking from both sides right now.
The feasibility of such a concept is also in question, thanks to the talking heads like Carrie Lam and Rimsky Yuen. All along, they have insisted that Basic Law is written in stone. What might change after 2017 that would allow for any such evolution to occur? And then of course, if change is in fact possible after 2017, what is so magical about 2017 that any such incremental change can't occur now? By arguing their position in the manner they have done, Lam and Yuen (and by extension, Beijing) have given little reason for HKers to trust in their future flexibility.
Well said.
Pierce m'boy, you have proven (yet again) that you are too stupid for words. But you are consistent. Well done, m'boy. The feasibility, as I have shown, is indeed in question. That you are too stupid to understand this is not my concern.
Sure, it's open to interpretation. Sure, interpretations can change over time. But when the Lam's and Yuen's state that Basic Law insists upon nomination only via the committee, how much room is there for a change in interpretation? I guess in m'boy's world, "insists" will eventually become "does not insist". Which kinda makes sense, given the general level of m'boy's "thinking" that is on display here.
Oh, and of course m'boy is too stupid to actually understand this: "if change is in fact possible after 2017, what is so magical about 2017 that any such incremental change can't occur now?". In M'boy world, is 2017 of some rapture-like significance, after which things will never be the same? It's still 3 years away. Things need to be settled now to keep Beijing happy, and then they can change it thereafter? Is Beijing some petulant cry-baby that needs to be mollified? Actually, probably yes.
I think the best thing for Pierce m'boy is to begin his physical step-by-step march towards Beijing, for that is after all his mother ship, and a CCP apologist cannot be truly at peace until he goes home. That might be a good suggestion for his next "hike", since all his prior ones have evidently not done him or any of us one iota of good.
ME is putting up smokescreen
to pull the wool over eyes of those unfamiliar with ME’s history
Some reminder may help the Septuagenarian in real and feigned amnesia
manu321, or “manure”, as he is called
by a learnt commentator
is very well decorated with awards
each for a superior act of putting foot in mouth (FIM)
the latest being ME
for his declaration
“your purpose of life is to entertain me”
When in fear he prays
to his God
Pierce m’boy
Always illogical, he is especially so when cornered
Thus the nogician moniker
e.g., “if change is in fact possible after 2017,
what is so magical about 2017
that any such incremental change can't occur now?”
Nogical ME is such a master of irrelevance
with a long history of stalking
begging for replies to his nonsense
One can’t be serious and treat ME like a normal person
Ring the bell, and the dog walks in. Isn't science great? Well, I see Pierce m'boy is once again engaging in his "evolution" of the English language, what with neologisms coming out the whazoo. No doubt, he has trusted his reliable literary source, the urban dictionary, to unearth some of his latest gems.
Mr. Lo and folks like whymak are more like the typical CCP apologists. They write well; they try hard. Maybe their logic is a bit subpar, and that results in weak and untenable arguments. Also the tendency to use questionable sources like whymak's reliance on oped news on the Anson Chan thread. It's amusing, but usually not laughable.
Pierce m'boy, on the other hand, is simply a whole new subspecies. Can't write; when he tries, it comes out with non-words and looks like stanzas; not a hint of logic; and most of the time, not a hint of an actual point. For exhibit A, see his last effort below. Completely undecipherable mumble-jumble of nonsense. I have no doubt the CCP appeals to the lowest common denominator...and in Pierce m'boy, I believe they have found it. They do so richly deserve each other.
Perhaps the "resident narcissist" will undergo some magical phase of intellectual growth, and join his CCP apologist peers with a healthy reservoir of poor logic, rather than remaining in the realm where he is devoid of any. Here's hoping.
M'boy, you're a person too. I'm rooting for you. Your reach should exceed your grasp. And now the bell returns..ring...ring.
The ME way to mock is by self-mockery
Please let’s have the ME “arguments” again
to wonder at ME’s self evident detelligence
ME’s thinking follows ME’s unique nogic
No one can do it better than ME
It’s not easy to copy
For popular appreciation of ME detelligence
I may ape some simple ME line
and sing the patented ME refrain:
“Your purpose of life is to entertain ME”
ME’s fear is understandable albeit unnecessary
Fear not ME, neither yourself nor me
ME is but ME no more and no less
Come hither, come hither, come hither.
Here shall ME see
No enemy
But winter and rough weather
Septuagenarian ME may have better potential
to learn how to play ball than to learn how to think
If "fear" is to call you out for outrageous stupidity and mocking you at every turn, then yeah, it's in "fear", I suppose. Ah Pierce m'boy, so desperate to make yourself feel better that you have to convince yourself an anonymous commentator must be fearful of you. It's kinda pathetic. But I certainly can't be responsible for your sorry displays, so you do what you gotta do.
Qualify for further discussion? LOL. Listen, you control what you can control, which isn't a whole heckuva lot. if I want to comment, I will. Ain't nothing you can do about it. And if I want to mock you, I will. That's not gonna change either.
So now I'll await your response, before I mock you again. For like a Pavlovian dog, you can't help yourself. Bell's ringing, m'boy...
In fear, ME prays to m’boy
When lost, nogician repeats his routine FIM act
ME sermon repeated by self-hypnotized ME
Algorithmically entrapped, ME couldn’t see
the kind offer of a heuristic exit
To qualify for further discussion
ME has to show that he can satisfactorily handle
the assignment previously given
Otherwise ME can only be left
to babble ME rubbish all by MEself
AL refers to young idealists
but some septuagenarian is more insistent and impatient
Consider ME, the nogician
who is giving another live demonstration
with ME assertions as premises
for ME articulation of ME arguments
“The idea of democratic evolution is a laudable but not feasible”
because of the insistence that “Basic Law is written in stone”?
Of course the law is the law because it’s written in stone
Only in ME’s world are “laws” written in sand
ME can’t conceive that stone inscriptions are subject to interpretations
In ME’s stony mind, the law must be read ME way
a new stone and a new inscription for different interpretations
ME’s presbyopia is both a cause and an effect
of ME magalomanic egocentrism
near vision permeanently damaged by de mininis over concentration
That’s why before 2017 issues are settled,
ME is already concerned with changes aftewards
“if change is in fact possible after 2017”
why “such incremental change can't occur now?”
ME is nogician par excellence
For ME’s education,
ME misconceives “ideas” that have long been deliberated and debated
International standard recognizes the need to balance
"due respect for sovereignty and the right of self-determination"
and the step-by-step approach is a universal standard
[homework for ME: look up the references]
With the ME problem
ME is singularly unsuitable
for balancing and step-by-step discussions
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.




SCMP.com Account