Ironic truths about democracy
Democracy has many ways of illustrating its utility as the simplest and most manageable means of government. Irony was the form chosen last week, when a US congressional delegation visited Hong Kong as part of an Asia tour.
A cross-section of Legislative Council members and candidates were invited to meet the delegation, along with members of the US community and Chief Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen. Many Legco members and candidates did find time to meet the delegation. The most common reason for those who did not was that they were busy campaigning.
When asked by one Congresswoman if 'campaigning' was just an excuse, I took a sip of my champagne and informed her that I did not think this was the case. I was well aware that James Tien Pei-chun and Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee - candidates the delegation specifically wanted to meet - were out giving 'high fives' to teenagers and bowing to old ladies.
To understand the irony of this, one must understand that none of the six visiting members of the US Congress have any serious opponent in elections this autumn. In fact, three of the six have no opponent at all. While all eyes are on the US presidential race, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are also standing for election. Yet with a 90 per-cent-plus return rate for the House and Senate, it is not much of a stretch to consider Hong Kong a more competitive election environment than the US.
As a student in America, I did not foresee the day I would be drinking champagne with unopposed members of the US House of Representatives as we discussed the challenges facing Hong Kong's democracy movement - while the pro-government candidates who want to hold back democracy were out shaking a succession of hands.
There was little doubt that the delegation was less than impressed with the entire functional constituency segment of Legco. At least one of these US politicians knew his subject matter when it came to the political structure in Hong Kong and tore away at the functional constituency system with an argument not about democracy, but about self interest.
Not unfamiliar with Hong Kong property developers, he wondered how smart they could be to put their faith in one elected official when there were 60 to choose from. What if their representative was less than competent? As he pointed out, for a group that likes to cover all bases, the business community appears to have all its eggs in one basket.
Again, my education failed me, as it never occurred to me that an army of US lobbyists and a treasure in campaign contributions allowed the manipulation of a democratic system far more easily than in Hong Kong. After all, sycophancy and pouring good money after bad through 'political' investments in western China seemed to be the strategy of choice for business in Hong Kong.
And while there were no takers among the delegation for the argument that democracy brings instability - advanced by the Hong Kong business community - I did receive a surprising rebuff from one Congressman to my comment that it was not a valid excuse to delay democracy because the tax net was not spread wide enough. 'If [business] has got to pay, then don't the democrats have to, as well?' he asked. 'The Boston Tea Party was about no taxation without representation - not no taxes.'
How ironic it would be if the Hong Kong business community finally recognised that in a truly democratic system, the interests of business should be treated the same as anyone else's.
Mark Simon is a businessman in Hong Kong and vice-chairman of Republicans Abroad
