• Mon
  • Dec 22, 2014
  • Updated: 8:29pm
Occupy Central
NewsHong Kong

Deliberation day was 'undesirable': Occupy Central

Movement considers canvassing opinion by adding questions to citywide vote - but rules out adding moderate proposals to the shortlist

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 14 May, 2014, 4:00am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 14 May, 2014, 7:41am

Occupy Central organisers believe the handling of the third deliberation day - on which 2,500 voters shortlisted three radical proposals to go forward to a citywide referendum on political reform - was "undesirable".

At a meeting last night, organisers said radical groups such as People Power had "violated the setting of Occupy Central" by mobilising supporters who had not taken part in any of the discussions to vote, according to a source. They agreed that this had "hampered [Occupy Central's] image and even its credibility".

The third deliberation day created a rift in the pan-democratic camp between radicals and moderates. It gave rise to concerns that the unofficial "civil referendum" from June 20 to 22 would offer only narrow choices for Hongkongers, as moderate proposals had been "screened out" in the May 6 poll.

Each of the three radical proposals would give the public the right to nominate chief executive candidates - a condition that moderates say is unrealistic as it has been repeatedly rejected by both the central and Hong Kong governments.

"The participants [of the meeting] said it was undesirable to see the moderate pan-democrats walking away from Occupy Central…they're worried the situation will affect the movement's bargaining power," added the source.

The development came just hours after an Occupy Central organiser said the movement was considering widening the scope of the referendum.

Dr Chan Kin-man said the movement could formulate extra questions to put to voters to better gauge Hongkongers' views.

One possibility was to ask voters whether there was any practice they would find unacceptable, such as block voting.

However, he ruled out adding moderate proposals to the referendum shortlist, as suggested by former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang.

"We cannot do that simply because someone is unhappy with the polling results," the Chinese University sociologist said.

"That would violate procedural justice."

Chan's comments were in response to a call from Civic Party leader Alan Leong Kah-kit.

The three shortlisted proposals came from student-led group Scholarism, the Alliance for True Democracy and People Power.

A breakdown of the alliance - made up of 26 of the 27 pan-democratic lawmakers - is looming after People Power and the League of Social Democrats reneged on promises to support the alliance's proposal.

The Democratic Party will decide tomorrow whether to quit the alliance, while Anson Chan, convenor of the Hong Kong 2020 think tank, and Civic Party legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah are meeting today to explore the possibility of forming a new platform to push their own proposals.

Both advocate making the nominating committee more representative while ignoring the idea of public nomination.



Related topics

For unlimited access to:

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



This article is now closed to comments

Dai Muff
What's ironic to me is that people criticise these guys for being "radicals", when their biggest problem is they are mostly academics destined to neutralise it into a talk fest. In the end, they'll have done everything "right" but achieved nothing except a lesson for students.
This article is an exercise in newspeak and aiding the SAR and central governments’ intimidation campaign against OC. How else do you explain a situation where a movement that is supposed to be founded on the principle of achieving universal suffrage characterizing and labeling the ‘winning’ proposals that actually does that – through the form of civil nomination – to be “radical”, while at the same time anointing so-called moderate proposals that actually collaborate with the regimes in denying universal suffrage to HK by allowing HK’s so-called red ‘patriotic elite’ to even compete for the position of chief executive. The so-called radical proposals actually posit the opportunity of real universal suffrage where collaborating moderate proposals actually are willing to accept an inner-party/grassroots democracy form of suffrage where the public can pick their favorite communist or pseudo-communist candidate. Obviously the ‘tea talk’ Chinese officials had with HK media is working as they also are laying down on the job and participating in calling Black, White. This is as bad as those fake feng shui 'masters' telling young women they can cure what ails them if they only have sex with them. Its rubbish as the once famous Mr. Tang would say.
Dai Muff
Double posting, please ignore.


SCMP.com Account