Advertisement
Advertisement
Universal suffrage in Hong Kong
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
Occupy Central co-founder Dr Chan Kin-man says Hongkongers' top priority right now should be protecting existing core values.

Hong Kong pan-dems only option is to veto reform plan, Occupy co-founder says

Occupy co-founder warns approving package for 2017 would leave the pan-democrats in turmoil and reawaken threat of national security law

Pan-democrats have no alternative but to vote down the government's reform plan even if it leaves Hong Kong's democratic development at an impasse for a decade, says Occupy Central co-founder Dr Chan Kin-man.

If a few pan-democrats did break ranks and allow a restrictive model for the 2017 chief executive poll to pass, Chan said it would severely split the pan-democratic camp again while also bringing a national security law a step closer - a price he called "unaffordable".

"Not only would those who cast a 'yes' vote definitely be forced to leave the political arena but, most important, allowing the proposal to pass would severely harm civil society," Chan told the .

Under the government's model, only two or three candidates could run in 2017, and they would need majority support from a 1,200-strong nominating committee. If any pan-democrat backed this, Hongkongers who joined the pro-democracy sit-ins last year would only turn more cynical and frustrated, Chan said.

"If eventually we still accept the reform plan under Beijing's framework even after the 'umbrella movement', how severely would it hurt the people who joined the sit-ins?" he said.

While some moderates in the pan-democratic camp believe that passing the reform would at least bar incumbent Leung Chun-ying from a second term, Chan argued that a chief executive put in power by pseudo-universal suffrage would bring about another imminent threat - enactment of the national security law.

A proposed bill was shelved in 2003 after 500,000 people took to the streets, believing it would threaten rights and freedoms.

"Enactment of the national security law is a real and imminent threat to Hongkongers," said Chan, adding that voting down the reform plan could at least put the bill off for a decade, as it would be tough for a leader without a popular mandate to handle this controversy.

Looking ahead, Chan said the city should instead focus on strengthening civil society, as it is unlikely that any progress in democratic development could be made in 10 years.

"Our top priority right now should be protecting our existing core values. The most important thing to do is to prevent our society from regressing amid 'mainlandisation'," Chan said, claiming Beijing's invisible hand had entered universities, which threatened academic freedom.

Four months after the end of the 79-day sit-ins, the city has seen a growing sense of localism with more radical protests.

The pro-democracy camp, meanwhile, has gone through a split. More radical forces have accused the pan-democratic lawmakers and sit-in leaders - particularly the Federation of Students - of being too mild. Several universities' student unions have broken away from the federation after internal referendums.

But Chan denied this was a consequence of the sit-ins, and said the civil-disobedience movement had delayed the emergence of such sentiments.

"These were all foreseeable," he said. "The work conducted by Occupy Central has, in fact, attempted to delay their appearance … [by] trying to bridge the gap between the pan-democrats and civil society and stop the radical forces from escalating."

Occupy, which stressed the importance of non-violence, was intended to attract more people from the mainstream to join the pro-democracy fight, Chan said.

He said Beijing had itself to blame for not making any concrete concessions over political reform as the radical forces would continue to bloom in the post-Occupy era.

"Our disappearance has also implied the disappearance of dialogue," he said.

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: 'The price for reform is too high'
Post