• Thu
  • Sep 18, 2014
  • Updated: 7:02pm
Occupy Central
NewsHong Kong
POLITICS

Radicals urge public nomination choice on ‘deliberation day’ referendum

Vote on three electoral plans to form part of Occupy Central’s shortlist of proposals

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 06 May, 2014, 5:13pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 07 May, 2014, 8:31am
 

Poll

  • Yes: 13%
  • No: 87%
7 May 2014
  • Yes
  • No
Total number of votes recorded: 269

Three proposals that push for public nomination of chief executive hopefuls in 2017, an idea already dismissed by Beijing, triumphed in Occupy Central's third and final "deliberation day" yesterday in a vote on models for a citywide "referendum" on political reform.

Eight relatively moderate proposals, including suggestions by Civic Party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-Wah and former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang's Hong Kong 2020 think tank, failed to make the cut.

The University of Hong Kong's public opinion programme director, Dr Robert Chung Ting-yiu, who was in charge of the electronic voting, said the ballot was topped by a joint proposal tabled by the activist group Scholarism and the Federation of Students, with support from 1,142 of the 2,560 supporters present.

People Power's public nomination proposal came second with 708 votes, while the Alliance for True Democracy's plan came third with 452 votes.

A proposal by 18 academics that does away with public nominations trailed far behind with only 76 votes, while Chan and Tong's proposals clinched 43 and 17 votes respectively.

When asked whether the vote lacked representation or failed to give Hongkongers a genuine choice in the referendum next month, Occupy Central organiser Benny Tai Yiu-ting said: "It's showing the demand of the people actively pushing forward Hong Kong's democratic movement … And it's the reality that you have to face, whether you are radical, moderate, pro-establishment, or [from] the SAR or Beijing governments."

Scholarism's convenor Joshua Wong Chi-fung said he was happy that his group's plan won, and they would discuss with People Power and the alliance about co-operating in future.

Tong said he was not disappointed with the result because he "had little expectation about the unrepresentative" poll. He would continue to enlist public support for his blueprint.

The Occupy campaign vows to mobilise more than 10,000 people to block the main streets of Central if the government fails to offer a satisfactory plan for democratic reform.

At Chinese University, one of five venues for the meetings, members of People Power and the Faculty of Orchid Gardening urged supporters to pick proposals under which only the public would nominate candidates.

Attempts by members of the faculty to vote before discussions had been concluded led to chaos.

Radical lawmaker "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung even voted against a plan from the Alliance for True Democracy, of which he is a member. "My strategy is to get rid of the proposals from the academics and Hong Kong 2020," Leung said.

Minor scuffles broke out before another of the meetings, at a church in North Point, as activists from pro-government group Caring Hong Kong Power hurled insults at participants. Meetings also took place in Choi Hung, Tseung Kwan O and Yuen Long.

Vice-President Li Yuanchao reiterated Beijing's opposition to Occupy when he met members of the Hong Kong Federation of Fujian Associations in Beijing on Monday.

 

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

wiseman
Suddenly, no one talks about rule of law again. Isn't it correct that both the Law Society and the Bar Association have already pointed out that public nomination is against the Basic Law.
What a joke!
blue
"Will you call those anti-democrats radicals too?"

Absolutely. Like I said, they're two sides of the same coin.

"How radical to seek self determination and choose their own leaders."

Blowing off the Basic Law and insisting on public nomination is radical. You can't say you support rule of law as a core value while also supporting public nomination, unless you're also pushing for a constitutional amendment which is complicated even for sovereign states like the US. These radicals however aren't pushing for a constitutional amendment.

Although the Basic Law rules out public nomination, it also rules out screening mechanisms such as requiring the Nominating Committee to nominate candidates via majority vote. The Basic Law also firmly states that every permanent resident has the right to vote and stand for election. Additionally, the Basic Law states that compliance of the ICCPR is mandatory.

Complying with the Basic Law and and using a Nominating Committee can still meet international standards as proven by the academics. That is the moderate approach to political reform, and the most likely approach that will yield success.
321manu
I agree with those who have stated here and elsewhere that "screening out" proposals deemed to meet ICCPR standards is just as reprehensible as Beijing trying to screen out potential candidates who can stand for CE election. And being just as reprehensible as Beijing is never a good thing.
The parallels to the Beijing-lackey position is obvious, and it's disconcerting that Tai went ahead anyway. Instead of 1200 non-elected folks deciding which CE candidates can be presented to HKers, it's 2600 non-elected folks deciding which reform proposals can be presented to HKers.
elephant88
Massive own goal by Occupy Central! They are doing exactly the same as Beijing by screening out a broad spectrum of choices. How can the people choose if you only give them one kind of choice?
Get your act together and give the people a real choice!
the sun also rises
it reflects the minds and hearts of most people who yearn for a geniune universal suffrage in 2017 in the election of our chief executivwe.In a geniune universal suffrage, public nomination and to be voted and vote by 'one man, one vote' are all required.Not one of them can be waived or cancelled.
Carparklee
Wow! 2500 turned up in this activity yesterday. It's not a small no. but, what type of people constituted this sample of 2500? Are they mostly unemployed? Students? Or strongly associated with radical political parties? Smelling of screening of a kind, an even worse one perhaps.
impala
The idea of public nomination is rather far out on the spectrum of possible interpretations of the need for representativeness that the Basic Law calls for.

However, the idea that the entire ballot of candidates must be approved by a majority of the (largely appointed by the powers-that-be) nomination committee is pretty far on the other end of that same spectrum.

Will you call those anti-democrats radicals too?
ejmciii
How radical to seek self determination and choose their own leaders. What next? Challenging the party? Challenging the wisdom of princelings? Demanding accountability of their government? Heresy. Mao must be rolling over in his mausoleum.
Dai Muff
If Benny Tai is your idea of a radical, we have very different criteria.
blue
I find it absolutely unacceptable that moderate proposals that meet international standards and the Basic Law are going to be screened out by a bunch of empty headed radicals who insist on public nomination which is unconstitutional.

Also the level of contempt these radicals have for the academics and Anson Chan makes them no different than the Pro Beijing Stooges. Two sides of the same coin of you ask me! Long Hair after all worships a South American Communist.

Pages

 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or