Act How?

“Act Now” is the hottest slogan in town right now. Created by the government in an attempt to drum up public support for the 2012 constitutional reform package, evidence of the “Act Now” campaign has been plastered all over the city. From flags fluttering on lampposts, MTR advertisements and even YouTube videos, evidence of the government’s extensive lobbying is impossible to miss. On a 15-minute walk from Pacific Place to Southorn Playground, we counted no less than 25 “Act Now” flags hanging from lampposts. The chief executive and top officials have also taken to the streets to hand out brochures, chant slogans and ride around town on open-top buses—all amid well-reported jeers from a seemingly dissatisfied public.

The campaign has been considered problematic by some because of the government’s extensive use of its “announcement of public interest” spots on television and radio (spaces usually reserved for such public service campaigns as “wash your hands” and “observe good dental hygiene”) to promote the package. Political advertisements are actually not permitted according to the broadcasting law, and though the government claims that the campaign does not fall into the category of “political advertisement,” the fact that the government has taken a stance and is now trying to convince citizens to support its democratic reform proposal shows that it is very much politically driven.

The crux of the problem is that the government has an absolute advantage over the opposition forces in publicizing and promoting its constitutional reforms. Of course, no political parties or individuals could rival the government in terms of financial resources, but even if the opposition parties had sufficient funds and wanted to broadcast the same kind of publicity campaigns, for example by purchasing airtime from television or radio stations, they simply cannot do so because of the aforementioned broadcasting laws.

The government enjoys free TV and radio timeslots, and if they call their messages “announcements of public interest,” they can utilize all these resources to promote the package. With the government’s monopoly on such resources, all opposition voices are stifled on these channels.

“Claims that the government is neutral is absolutely absurd. The government will never be politically neutral,” says Ma Ngok, associate professor of the department of government and public administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “There should be a fairer platform for people to voice different opinions,” he adds.

Civic Party member Tanya Chan agrees. “The government is in a very privileged position… and it is able to run all these campaigns that we never could,” she says. Not only can the government promote constitutional reforms via television and radio, they can also use other exclusive resources—such as banners hanging from lampposts—to publicize the reform package.