Advertisement
Advertisement
In their focus on democracy, policymakers and politicians have ignored other things that affect people, such as overcrowded MTR trains. Photo: Sam Tsang
Opinion
Michael Chugani
Michael Chugani

Fake democrats choose to ignore Hong Kong's livelihood issues

Michael Chugani says the difference between firm leadership to get things done and a dictatorship seems to be lost on Hong Kong's fake democrats

Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood. But, predictably, I have been. Hong Kong's politics have become so toxic in the aftermath of Occupy that people prefer to misunderstand because understanding doesn't suit their political agenda. Two weeks ago, I said Hong Kong needed a dose of dictatorship to mend the many ills caused by our fixation with the fight for democracy.

Did I mean that we should become like North Korea? Of course not. Anyone who wanted to understand would have known that. If I say free speech comes with responsibilities, does that make me anti-free speech? No doubt, free speech fanatics would jump to that conclusion but sensible people know not to take fanatics seriously.

I chuckled at the feeble attempts to make me out as a fan of the world's worst dictators just because I said Hong Kong needed firm leadership to get us back on track. They even made an issue that I hold an American passport, as if a Hong Kong-born Indian naturalised as a US citizen has no right to speak his mind. It feels great that I can get up the noses of such people, especially those who call themselves democrats but can't tolerate different views.

Who can deny that our over-the-top focus on wringing so-called true democracy from Beijing has come at the expense of other equally important issues that affect our lives? Those who stop the government from doing the people's business by filibustering even an increase in old-age allowance in the name of democracy can.

I said that our society is broken because policymakers and politicians are so locked in battle over democracy that they have ignored other things that affect people's everyday lives, such as rising poverty, hospital shortages, overcrowded MTR trains and the influx of mainland visitors. I said we needed a dose of dictatorship - read that as firm leadership - to get things done.

It is ridiculous for us to have endless public consultations before policymakers can make even simple decisions, such as expanding landfills. Does saying that make me a Mussolini? US President Barack Obama, knowing a hostile Congress would derail his immigration policy, used his executive powers to implement it. Does that make him a dictator?

Our colonial masters didn't care much for public consultations. They ruled with a firm hand. If they wanted a new town to house our growing population, they went ahead and built it, razing villages. They built above-ground MTR lines that swept past the windows of people. Try doing that now. The commander of the British forces and the head of Jardines had permanent seats in the Executive Council. Did such stern leadership make our British rulers dictators? If yes, why are our fake democrats nostalgically yearning for a return to those days?

Democracy is no longer working as it should. It needs changing so that it allows governments to make difficult decisions in the overall interests of the people. Before I am branded a dictator, it was former British prime minister Tony Blair who said that in a recent article. Is he a dictator?

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: No compromise
Post