Pan-democrat leaders have utterly failed student protesters
Grenville Cross says senior pan-democrats have been wholly ineffective in offering leadership or advice to student protesters, in particular about the sanctity of the rule of law and the potential consequences of their actions
Politics," said Otto von Bismarck, "is the art of the possible." The assurance by the former chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, that the central authorities will not use force to remove Occupy protesters, as they have confidence that the police force can handle the situation, is welcome. If Beijing intervened militarily, this could herald the end of "one country, two systems".
In any event, the chances of the current system continuing after 2047, when the Basic Law's promise of "50 years unchanged" concludes, are already uncertain, and they would be greatly diminished by armed intervention. Some people, however, would privately relish this outcome, not least because it would represent a significant policy failure for Beijing, and also make the chances of Taiwan ever returning to the national fold even less likely.
Last June, when the State Council issued its white paper on Hong Kong, it emphasised that the continued practice of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong required that "we proceed from the fundamental objectives of maintaining China's sovereignty, security and development".
Sovereignty and security are, therefore, the keys. The spectacle, for example, of leading pan-democrats courting prominent politicians in foreign capitals earlier this year will have incensed Beijing. The rawest of nerves will also have been touched by the revelation that huge amounts of cash have been covertly channelled into opposition purses.
Moreover, many of those who are now loudest in their calls for democracy are the very same people who, in 2003, were most vocal in opposing Tung's national security legislation, which is surely no coincidence.
Had Tung's proposals on treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the central government been implemented, there is little doubt that Beijing would, when it announced its plans for the 2017 election last August, have been far more accommodating towards local democratic aspirations, and less insistent on the patriotic credentials of the next chief executive. To that extent, therefore, the pan-democrats have shot themselves (and Hong Kong) in the foot, and their earlier intransigence has now been repaid in kind, although they have since switched tack.
READ MORE: Click here for all the latest Occupy Central stories
After the police used tear gas on protesters who violently attacked their cordon on September 28, some people were genuinely concerned, although many pan-democrats shed what were clearly crocodile tears. They cynically exploited the incident to try to discredit the police, and, insofar as they had any regrets, it was, presumably, that only 87 gas canisters were fired. Again, when triad heavies appeared at the protest site in Mong Kok, an attempt was made to malign the police with a preposterous claim that they were somehow in cahoots with the triads, surely a smear too far.
What they really needed, however, was a martyr, and they found one. Once police officers were caught on camera allegedly beating a protester, who had himself allegedly tossed a noxious liquid over officers from a height, they duly milked the incident for all it was worth.
Even the pan-democratic lawyers who, of all people, should have known better, hysterically demanded that the police officers be hung, drawn and quartered, when they had not even been charged with an offence, let alone convicted. So much for fair-trial guarantees, or innocent until proven guilty, and to hell with the legal niceties.
Meanwhile, the protesters themselves have gone out of their way to upset mainland sensitivities. After Scholarism leaders insulted China at Bauhinia Square on National Day, by turning their backs on the flag, other protesters christened their squatting area the "Democracy Square", while others played up the "umbrella revolution", all red rags to Beijing's bull. If the protesters thought such tactics would help win friends and influence people where it really mattered, they were sorely mistaken, and Beijing has refused to give an inch. Perhaps, for many, it is the fight that counts, and not the victory.
Although some people have admired the idealism of the students, the senior pan-democrats themselves are bereft of ideas, and have, in consequence, become marginalised and irrelevant. Rather than moulding events, they have been dragged along by them, and have resorted to posturing and bluster, always poor substitutes for leadership.
Instead of cautioning the protesters that court orders must be respected, that the criminal law should be upheld and that the rule of law is sacred, the pan-democratic leaders have become mere bit players, shamelessly egging the young people on to ever more audacious acts of defiance, irrespective of the consequences.
After all, the protesters have been engaged in allegedly unauthorised assemblies on the streets for many weeks, and offences of riot, affray, criminal intimidation, wounding and assault may also have been committed. These, on conviction, are punishable with long prison terms. If convicted of any of these crimes, the consequences for the offenders will be severe, not least in career terms. The courts may try to be as lenient as they can, but this may not be possible if continuous law-breaking is involved or the crime is grave.
Those who are prosecuted may well try to pose as martyrs for their cause, but, at some point, reality will kick in. It is a crying shame that, just when they need sage advice from their elders, the pan-democratic leadership is, grandstanding apart, wholly unable to step up to the plate.
Sometime soon, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung will have to decide which protesters are to be prosecuted, and on what charges. However, Yuen, who belongs to the three-person task force responsible for promoting the government's constitutional reform package, is clearly conflicted, as the suspects will have got into trouble for opposing his own reforms.
Therefore, to avoid being blasted like the police for bias, he will need to disengage from the prosecution process, and leave the cases to the director of public prosecutions, a neutral figure without ministerial responsibilities.
