Letters | Hong Kong national security law: pro-democrats lost their chance, now city is paying the price
- Neither the pro-democratic camp nor protesters waving the US flag have clearly spelled out the system they want
- Beijing’s offer of electoral reform in 2014 was a decent compromise that was rejected out of hand
As yet, neither the pro-democratic camp or the protest leaders have clearly defined what system they want. None has yet produced a workable, coherent and concise manifesto outlining an alternative system.
Do they want a democracy modelled on the US that effectively has only two legitimate parties; where citizens can enter a shop or even a house of government carrying dangerous weapons; a system in which to be elected you need massive financial backing? It is a system where the rights of the individual so far exceed that of the community that the community often suffers.
How about the UK? Yes, anyone can stand for election based on certain criteria. But again, only two parties have a realistic chance of winning. Do the “people” get to choose their leaders? Not really, as the parties decide internally who stands in which constituency and who their leaders are. The voters only get a choice by default.
Closer to home, there is the benevolent dictatorship in Singapore – a democracy only in name. Their reaction to protests would be much harsher and swifter. There would be no “slap on the wrist” sentencing from their courts.