Hong Kong government's report on Occupy protests a lost opportunity to build trust
Surya Deva laments the government's report to Beijing on public sentiment surrounding the Occupy protests, which fell short of reflecting people's aspirations for genuine democracy
On Tuesday, the government submitted its report on public sentiment on Beijing's political reform rulings to the State Council's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office. It could have been a golden opportunity for the government to regain the trust of pro-democracy protesters and Legislative Council members and engage them in the second round of consultation. This required the government to tell the central authorities that the introduction of genuine universal suffrage need not undermine China's national interests.
But, alas, it did not happen. The document - which includes a main report and a day-by-day account of events in the annex - fails to reflect the level and extent of public sentiment against the highly restrictive and potentially unconstitutional framework proposed by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. Consequently, the second round of consultation might do little to bridge the gap between the two camps.
What is more shocking is that the report even falters on providing an accurate factual narrative of events that unfolded after the Standing Committee's August 31 decision, never mind accomplishing the more challenging task of offering an assessment of the "political situation" in Hong Kong.
The main report downplays or omits key events. For example, a controversial flashpoint during the "umbrella movement" was the police's use of tear gas. Yet, only one sentence in the main report's summary of events is devoted to this.
The report also censors the expulsion of James Tien Pei-chun from the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference for demanding Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying's resignation. Nor does the main report mention Leung's controversial remark about proportional representation resulting in political domination by Hongkongers earning less than HK$14,000 per month.
These omissions, plus the lack of coherence and analysis, also raise a question: were the authors under political pressure? Taxpayers are owed an explanation.
Even the main report's concluding remarks are flawed, saying it is "the common aspiration of the central authorities, the HKSAR government, and the people of Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage for the chief executive election in 2017 in Hong Kong as scheduled and strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant interpretation and decisions of the NPC Standing Committee."
The root cause of the problem is that a significant portion (if not the majority) of Hong Kong people do not agree with the idea of universal suffrage sold by Beijing and endorsed by the local government. If so, there is no one common aspiration for achieving universal suffrage. While the government rightly expects democracy supporters to "strictly" follow the Basic law, it is not willing to place a similar burden on the Standing Committee.
The political crisis in Hong Kong cannot be resolved unless the government acknowledges there is a problem with the democracy pathway prescribed and followed by Beijing. Understanding this problem requires stepping into the shoes of democracy protesters. Rather than doing so, the government seems to be pretending that all is normal, as the constitutional development issue has been "extremely controversial" all along.
The main report twice notes that Hong Kong is a "pluralistic" society, implying the presence of diverse views towards political development. No one should quibble with this. But, to make pluralism work, there must be tolerance and a sincere commitment to engage with diverse views, to build a consensus on common societal goals.
Has the Hong Kong government been tolerant and engaging? The answer should be a clear "no". Failing to clear the streets reflected the government's inability more than its tolerance. The government could have shown its tolerance to political dissent by not proceeding with the arrest and prosecution of the umbrella movement leaders. Similarly, instead of mediating between Beijing and local people, the government merely reiterated the position of the central authorities.Where do we go from here? The report states the government's wish "to work out together a fair, just, transparent and competitive proposal for selecting the chief executive by universal suffrage".
So far, the process has been anything but fair, just, transparent and competitive. Going by the top-down narrow contours of the consultation document for the second round, the situation is unlikely to change much in the coming months.
The government has wasted a golden opportunity. Can the chief executive use his policy address to reach out to Hongkongers fighting for their constitutional aspirations? Before asking the community to "seize the opportunity" by accepting a caged universal suffrage, he should seize the opportunity himself to show he is committed to safeguarding not merely "one country" but also "two systems".
