• Wed
  • Oct 1, 2014
  • Updated: 5:46am
Public Eye
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 03 July, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 03 July, 2013, 4:31am

People out of patience as Beijing's man plays for time

BIO

Michael Chugani is a Hong Kong-born American citizen who has worked for many years as a journalist in Hong Kong, the USA and London. Aside from being a South China Morning Post columnist he also hosts ATV’s Newsline show, a radio show and writes for two Chinese-language publications. He has published a number of books on politics which contain English and Chinese versions.
 

Next up: Occupy Central. The way things look now, there's no stopping it. Monday's annual July 1 street protest on a stormy day told the story. It doesn't matter if the turnout was 430,000, as the organisers claim, 66,000, as the police say, or 100,000, which is the figure that pollsters have come up with. And it doesn't matter that not everyone was demanding democracy. Some were fighting for gay rights, affordable housing and other issues. What matters is that there was genuine anger on the streets, more than in previous protests. Public Eye was there to take the pulse of the people. The anger came across loud and clear - directed mostly at Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. Occupy Central organisers collected HK$800,000 in donations. Surely there's a message in that. Leung has precious little time to defuse the time-bomb of Occupy Central. And it is indeed a time-bomb. It's not just a matter of 10,000 civil disobedience protesters bringing Central to a standstill. It's also a matter of what happens to the other tens of thousands who marched on Monday. Will they be content to stay at home next year and let the 10,000 do the work? Or will the annual July 1 protest march proceed as normal. Will the two then merge into one? Who can then guarantee it will remain a peaceful civil disobedience protest? Are the police even capable of carrying off tens of thousands of people, not just 10,000, as the organisers of Occupy Central want? Leung's tired line of "We'll consult the people at an appropriate time" on universal suffrage has passed its shelf life. Even to the most clueless casual observer, it comes across as a clear case of stalling. He has to consult the people sooner or later. Why not sooner, with a timetable on when the process will start? Had he given a timetable before Monday's march, it would have won over more people than the day's pro-establishment camp carnivals.

Smoke may mean fire, but where are the facts?

Was former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang speaking with inside information when she said current Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor is being shut out of top policymaking by boss C.Y. Leung and could quit? Or was it just a cheap shot to grab anti-Leung headlines ahead of Monday's march? Both Leung and Lam have ridiculed her claim, insisting they are working closely. But Chan's unproven claim has already stuck in the public mind. That's the nature of juicy statements - true or false. Many people now suspect there is indeed bad blood between Leung and Lam. No number of denials can reverse that. That's especially true because the former government No2 said it, not some attention-hungry politician making outrageous claims. To some people at least, Chan's words still carry weight. That's why Public Eye was flabbergasted she stirred the pot without backup. Did she hear it first-hand, even though Lam says she hasn't seen Chan in a long time? Did she hear it from a close Lam confidante? Or was it just unsubstantiated hearsay? Chan said she sensed things were not right, based on some of Lam's public comments. But surely that's hardly enough to justify making wild claims on the radio that Lam could quit. Chan has always held a halo above her own head as the voice of reason and truth. Some in the foreign media have even dubbed her the "conscience of Hong Kong". She has now tried to drive a wedge between Leung and Lam. She needs to justify her action with facts. It would be unconscionable for her not to.

 

Michael Chugani is a columnist and TV show host. mickchug@gmail.com

 

Share

Related topics

For unlimited access to:

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

 

11

This article is now closed to comments

p.rennat
As usual, Michael Chugani's sneaky rumourmongering is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Carparklee
Perhaps, Chan is just simply projecting herself into today's Lam's role? Chan still cannot get recovered from her bitter and unpleasant experience during her serving the term under Tung? If that's the case, wouldn't it be that she has assumed too much for Lam now? Com'on, Chan is Chan and Lam is Lam. Different people have different calibre and personality. Chan cannot make herself a successful CS does not mean Lam cannot. Lam is determined but not full of big ego while Chan could have been brought down not by other people 7/8 years ago but her own ego. Chan, please do not project your miserable mental status onto our CS.
likingming
HKers, what do you really want ?
Universal suffrage ? or Democracy ?
Hong Kong is CHINA Hong Kong, not Egypt Cario !
Universal suffrage is not democracy !
Democracy is "Freedom of Expression" which CHINA Hong Kong has attained already. And is the most Freedom of Expression on earth
wwong888
we mostly want people like you to f-ck off and mind your own business, and let us run our own city you commie hack... and learn some english you muppet
impala
You have been misinformed, I fear by the education system you are a victim of.

While freedom of expression is undoubtedly a cornerstone of it, the essence of democracy is a rule by the people, most commonly embodied in the form of a government that has the tacit or explicit support of a majority of those it governs over. The support is one way or another recorded and determined by free elections.

And universal suffrage in that context means: 1) ALL people have the right to put themselves forward as a candidate for an electable position, and 2) ALL people have the right to cast some kind of vote that decides who gets elected to those positions. Granted, we do exempt children, convicts and the mentally disabled from this, but well, you have to draw a line somewhere.

The rule of a small elite of self-selected kleptocrats like it exists in China, and to some extent in Hong Kong, is by no means democracy, and certainly not of the universal suffrage kind, with or without freedom of expression. Keyword: self-determination.
likingming
jve:
Rule by the people? Rule ? people ?
Self-determination? Self?
Wow ! Don't be naive. There is no such democracy on eath !
In short, universal suffrage is in contradiction to democracy.
You either choose genuine universal suffrage with fake democracy OR
genuine democracy in the form of freedom of expression.
impala
lickingming, I see five unwarranted question marks that for lack of any coherent question preceding them appear to do nothing more than indicating your own ignorance.

I also see a number of statements of questionable coherence. Most importantly, I see no arguments, nor any facts, not even a reference to any form of established (or unestablished if you must push it) theory. In short, I unfortunately see no content worthy of further discussion.
likingming
Facts :
1) Greece, the motherland of democracy : what a mess !
2) France : awareness of the aftermath of french revolution, they don't want any more
3) USA : they want genuine "rule by the people", so each and everyone of them want to arm themselves with guns as stipulated in their constitutions. They feel secure with guns and believe they got some power to rule. By doing so, they are true masters. Even so, they are masters of destructions only. Why not give everyone of them atomic weapons ?
4) Cairo & Bangkok : "democracy" is fighting against "universal suffrage"
I could go on to chide any so-called democratic countries.
Verdict : No "rule by the people" democracy on earth.
wwong888
you are illiterate...
impala
And please let the record show that wwong88's comment was in reply to lickingming's, not yours truly's. Thank you wwong88.
wwong888
yes of course! it was in reference to lickingmyding not you jve!
 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or