editorial
Written by: Hong Kong 01
2020-07-20 06:00
Last update date: 2020-07-20 06:00The result of the Democratic Legislative Council’s primary election vote was announced early last week. Against the background of the anti-amendment riots and the rapid legislation of the Minato City National Security Act, the "resistance and change" mentality dominated the election as expected, and insisted on bravery. In fact, the representatives of the opposition factions advocating self-determination and Hong Kong independence have higher votes than the traditional pan-popular candidates. Under the rebound of the epidemic, there were still about 610,000 people voting, which made the sponsors who originally expected only 170,000 people feel excited. The problem is that this kind of excitement is not healthy. The primary election is to choose the same group of candidates as they want to see. The result can only reflect the opposition and division of politics in Hong Kong. From a rational and realistic point of view, this kind of political operation cannot be in the long-term interests of Hong Kong, nor can it achieve the "recovery" and "revolution" that the resistance groups hope to achieve.
At the end of last year, the Democrats won a record number of votes in the District Council elections, making them confident of the Legislative Council elections in September this year. If that is the case, why did they expect such a low number of voters before the primaries? The reason is very simple. After the implementation of the "Minato City National Security Law", the cost of resistance has increased, fluctuating psychology has plummeted, and the number of people participating in violent demonstrations has greatly reduced. Even the pan-ministers have "interestedly" reduced the stance of resistance; On the shock, many citizens hope that society will return to calm as soon as possible, and it is not surprising that the number of voters is expected to decrease accordingly. But why did the voter turn up so much more than expected? It is generally judged that the Minato District National Security Law stimulates dissatisfaction among many young people, and the government accuses the primary election of violating the National Security Law, which discourages young people. Vote continues the spirit of "resistance".
Of course, no one knows the real reason, but based on various analyses, the calculation of the cost of resistance is always the main consideration. However, is there really no cost to let the resistance get "35+" and continue to fight through the "paralyzed" parliament?
The focus of the discussion on whether the primary election is illegal is not the voting behavior, but the resistance party bundling it with the democrats to "paralyze" the government after obtaining the majority of seats in the Legislative Council. This is where the primary election may be illegal. It is the right of the Legislative Council to vote against the resolution, but with the implementation of the Minato District National Security Act, using the veto as a political weapon to "hinder" government operations may violate the National Security Act. In 2015, the Legislative Council vetoed the constitutional reform bill. No one thought it was illegal, but now the protesters have indicated that they will threaten the government by vetoing the "Budget Budget" and realize the "five major demands, which are indispensable." This is another case. thing.
The 16 candidates who won the democratic primary election held a press conference a few days ago, stating that the resistance they formed has become mainstream in the primary election. (Photo by Li Zetong)
Bundled with the paralyzed government to fight off
In Western elections, competition for the majority of seats in parliament is to gain the power to formulate or influence policies, not to "paralyze" the government. If a political party does this, I am afraid that it will not be able to gain voter support. So why do Hong Kong's resistance parties so demand? To put it simply, the street struggle is unsustainable. They run for election and declare that they want to fight in parliament. Their reputation is a continuation. In fact, it is a means to find a way down. Anyone with a discerning eye knows that parliamentary resistance is also just a mud war. The final result is the same as street resistance, only destruction can’t solve the problem, and “responders” will only bet on the few political voices they have left and ruin their own political participation prospects .
Unfortunately, Dai Yaoting, associate professor of the Law Department of the University of Hong Kong who coordinated the primary election, described the primary election as a miracle for Hong Kong people. What is even more disgraceful is that after the primary election, one by one high-profile exits, expressly "will not take legal risks", Dai Yaoting also said that he should focus on academic research. If they think that the platform proposed by the pan-primary primary and the candidates is not illegal, why should they rush to cut it? On the contrary, if they think that there is a legal risk in the primary election, whether they should tell the candidates and the citizens, including telling them what the legal risk is of "paralyzing" the parliament, and similar proposals in the election may be prosecuted.
Dai Yaoting's behavior clearly shows that he did not think from the perspective of young people lacking political experience, ignoring their tendency to act impulsively under the drive of emotions and ignoring risks. He may still be obsessed with the political applause after launching "Occupy Central", fully devoting himself to the "political enlightenment" self-setting, ignoring the so-called "resistance" that has long been absurd, and a large number of young people who have been led astray Bear a heavy price. To discuss political participation is not to write a thesis, not to be divorced from reality, nor to resort to the actions of a political stubborn inciting confrontation. Haven’t enough young people been misled and sacrificed under the political confusion in recent years? Is Liang Tianqi imprisoned on his own, and Huang Taiyang, who is self-escape, is "traveling abroad"?
A Hong Kong poll released today (17th) a preliminary report. The report shows that 81% of the respondents will only consider candidates who voted for the line. Instead of referring to the results of the primary election, 8% of the people. Photo by Liao Yanxiong
Blindly indulge in confrontation for stronger resistance
More importantly, the operation of the "paralyzed" parliament under political reality is simply impossible. The Hong Kong government and the central government have already indicated the bottom line to the parliament's "scramble", and found that doing so violates "one country, two systems." It is particularly noteworthy that the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office and the Liaison Office of the People’s Republic of China issued strong statements after the primary election, condemning the primary election for possible violations of the "National Security Law of the Hong Kong District." Public opinion generally believes that the authorities will vote for the DQ contestants before the official vote in September, just as last year's district council elections refused to allow politicians who advocated self-determination and Hong Kong independence to enter.
Mainland official media once refuted the idea of resistance that could force the central government to retreat by "scrapping speculation" with "crawlers shaking trees beyond their control". Should the protesters be desperate for a political game with no chance of winning? To put it bluntly, the rebels cannot solve Hong Kong’s problems at all—the anti-revisional riots fully prove that blind political confrontation helps the society to reach a consensus, but instead creates more chaos. The result is strong intervention by the central government, including through the implementation of the Law" to restore social order.
It is conceivable that after the anti-amendment riots, the parliament also appeared to "scramble", which will inevitably lead to the central government's shot again. The resistance is dominated by the confrontation mentality, which indicates that they will not concentrate on deliberation in parliament, and the consequences will inevitably be dealt with seriously. Even if they have more than half of their seats, they can veto the Budget, but if they think this is enough to "paralyze" the government, it is really fantastic. The Central Government has been able to rewrite the political situation by using the "National Security Act of the Minato City." What is the ability of the resistance to test the bottom line? I really want to force the central government to fill in some loopholes in the legislation by interpreting the Basic Law, or even directly amending the Basic Law. Isn't the final price to be paid by the resistance? In fact, after the central authorities rationalized the power to govern the country according to law, the threshold for interpreting and amending the law will not be too high.
Looking back now, the resistance faction has become a force in society, except for the inaction of the Hong Kong government and the establishment faction. It is largely the result of the acquiescence and connivance of some members of society. I still remember that during the anti-amendment riots, many "He Li Fei" citizens refused to part with violence, disguised as radical demonstrators, and plunged Hong Kong into the worst violent conflict since its return. Now that the resistance has moved from the streets to the parliament, the citizens are again faced with a choice: whether Hong Kong needs a group of protesters who are addicted to political confrontation and unable to extricate themselves, or whether they need to find space within the framework of "one country, two systems", be willing to discuss politics rationally, and make compromises when necessary Member of Parliament? Knowing that the parliament's "scramble" is just a tree, why don't we choose a pragmatic and feasible way? If you think you can play a game without any loss, you are wrong.
On July 14, a fierce demonstration conflict broke out in Shatian New City Plaza. (Information picture/Photo by Lu Yiming)
Democrats choose time to return to reason and find a way out
It is also due to the incompetence of the traditional pan-people that the rise of the rebellion based on bravery, self-determination and Hong Kong independence as the main axis. It is an obvious fact that traditional pan-popular people have lost ground in recent years when radical thoughts have risen, they cannot see the political situation clearly, thinking that Hong Kong must change through violence, but they dare not go to the front line and can only defend and fall into violence. Cheerleaders for the resistance. It is a pity that the Panmin have not yet awakened and lack the courage to say no to the adventurists represented by the resistance. A major focus of the Democratic primary was Huang Biyun of the Democratic Party. She was attacked by the protesters for being cut off from the brave faction that undermined the Legislative Council on July 1 last year. Who is who is wholly at a glance, but she failed It is reasonable to strive to withdraw from the formal election on the grounds that "the democrats have no conditions to split" after the defeat in the primary election, and even hope that "the new generation will respond to the roar of the times." It seems that she believes that courage, self-determination, and Hong Kong independence have become the mainstream of the democrats.
We never say that the current radical struggle should never become a way of fighting for the democrats, nor will it be the way out for Hong Kong. In the face of the central government’s adherence to the "one country" bottom line, the extreme ideas of advocating courage, self-determination, and Hong Kong independence are only dead ends. One. Traditional pan-people must choose whether to cater to the populism, sacrifice democracy, bless the illusory "struggle line", or return to rational communication. Hong Kong is at a critical moment where we need to think carefully about the way forward. For the democrats, this is also a major test for its continued development.
Of course, the real choice is always Hong Kong people. The former democrats represented the majority of Hong Kong, and their appeals were always based on rational debate and communication and compromise. Once resistance groups with bravery, self-determination and Hong Kong independence as the main axis become mainstream, Hong Kong will be hijacked by political violence. Since the anti-amendment riots, "lanking speculation" has become a slogan for venting dissatisfaction. Few demonstrators can recognize the illusion of "lanking speculation" like Li Zhuming, chairman of the Democratic Party's founding party. Unfortunately, his awakening is too late. "Hong Kong 01" has repeatedly pointed out that no matter whether "scrambles" on the street or "scrambles" on the parliament, it will not hurt the mainland, but it will incur a strong counterattack from the central government. In the end, it will only "scramble" and ruin Hong Kong's fundamental interests. People will always have negative emotions, and it is not bad to vent, but if it is fermented to interfere with the operation of the government and the Legislative Council and directly challenge the bottom line of "one country", it will not only have to pay the political price, but also face legal punishment.
The recent epidemic in Hong Kong has rebounded, and many people have suddenly realized that the original stable situation can be lost in an instant. How can this principle be applied to politics? Hong Kong people experienced a six-month anti-amendment riot, not only ironically under the impact of the epidemic, they realized that life still needs to continue, and finally they have a breathing space. Should we consolidate it and focus on thorough reforms, or should we "restart the struggle" and wait for the irrational parliamentary chaos to reappear? The desperate people may choose to support the resistance and be willing to "put it to death", but if in fact there is only "death" and no "afterlife", is this the "resistance" that everyone wants to participate in?
[01 Weekly Editorial] To protect both "one country" and "two systems"
Don't add to the "native" snake
[01 Weekly Editorial] Hong Kong should reflect on how to benefit "one country, two systems"
Browse more weekly articles: [01 Weekly News Page]
Please pay attention to the 223th issue of "Hong Kong 01" weekly newspaper published on July 20, which is available at major newsstands, OK convenience stores and Vango convenience stores.
You can also click here to subscribe to the weekly report, or click here to preview the weekly e-newsletter to read more in-depth reports.
Legislative Council election 2020, one country, two systems, anti-revision demonstration, Hong Kong version, National Security Act, 01 weekly editorial