One big headache
After vetoing the government's proposed constitutional reforms, there were no champagne corks popping in the dissident camp. Instead, there was public uproar in certain circles, internal bickering, soul-searching and some olive branches waved at the central government.
The dissidents, in practical terms, were the losers. Now, they are beginning to sober up and to feel an excruciating headache.
What comes next for them? There has been another wave of anonymous advertising campaigns, but few notice them and even fewer bother to read them. Rallies are out of the question, because few people would attend. Confrontational tactics are clearly not on - the door to amicable dialogue is shut, and they closed it.
This year is going to be a disaster for the dissidents. The discussion on future political development has moved to the Political Committee in the Commission on Strategic Development, where the democrats have a small voice.
Their very presence there is a sign that they acknowledge the leadership of Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen in political reform, and an implicit endorsement of the report the committee will produce next year - which they will have little excuse to reject.
Their only option is to walk out of the committee, but then they would be further marginalised. Being single-issue agitators, all they will do this year is object to everything that comes along, reinforcing the 'dissident' label. Still, it is difficult to imagine this bunch actually banding together on each and every issue and singing 'no' in unison.
Then comes the year of reckoning: 2007. As part of the 800-member chief executive Election Committee - which they so vehemently detest - they face a big dilemma. The politically correct thing to do, as pro-democracy lawmakers, would be to boycott it and collectively resign. Instead, they are planning to field a candidate. Should he or she be elected by this undemocratic assembly, what will they then make of the new chief executive? Their very participation in the Election Committee - especially if they put up a candidate for election - shows that they are simply power-hungry.
The next headache of the year will be the district council elections. In vetoing the reform package, the democrats have simultaneously aborted both the reform and empowerment of the district councils - pulling the plug on the possible advancement of their own members.
More importantly, if the current political mood prevails until the district council elections, the dissidents will lose a number of seats. If they get fewer than 100 district council seats, they could then lose some seats in the 2008 Legislative Council election.
What would happen if they won fewer than 20 seats in the next Legco? To them, it would be catastrophic: they would be unable to block another constitutional reform proposal, or a reintroduced national-security bill. Would their lives have any meaning if their objections no longer counted? Where would their power be if, when they said 'no', people just smiled?
Is there life for the dissidents after last month's veto? I hope so, as I am a firm believer in checks and balances on power. In a pluralistic society such as ours, we need to hear views and objections from different perspectives, which can sometimes make us think twice.
I have done my part as a dissident to the dissidents, and yelled 'no' at them more than once - but they have refused to listen. No one can help the dissidents if they choose a suicidal path. What they need now is an ice pack and a large bottle of painkillers.
Lau Nai-keung is a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate
