Guest Comments by Margaret Ng
A lawyer and legislator, the writer represents the Civic Party, a political group at the forefront in Hong Kong's long battle for meaningful universal suffrage. This week, she made the following comments (edited here) in the Legislative Council during a debate on the Hong Kong government's political-reform package.
HONG KONG -- What has to come, has to come. The result of the vote is not in question. We are here to explain the reasons for our decision.
Democracy is not about the art of compromise, of closing a deal and then selling it to the people as the best bargain. It is not about counting votes or manipulating public-opinion surveys.
Democracy is the endeavor to reach consensus through open, rational and informed debate, by giving each other an opportunity to test our positions through argument. This is not such an occasion. We merely are striving at doing the second best, and that is to give reasons for how we have decided to vote and be accountable to the public we represent.
Honesty and integrity are the minimum requirements of public office. Otherwise, we rule by naked power or plain deception, and sooner or later, this leads to an eruption of anger among the people, and we face turmoil and violence.
The stability of Hong Kong is very much on my mind as we debate the government’s proposals for political reform. I oppose those proposals for three reasons.
First, they completely fail to address the constitutional and social purposes of reforms. They should aim at moving towards the elimination of unfairness in Hong Kong's political system, at giving people the right to universal suffrage under the Basic Law and at ensuring good governance. They should not be to protect the vested interest of some members of this Council and the sectors they represent, or to woo extra votes by creating seats to give the followers of any parties better chances as LegCo members.
Second, the method the Government adopted to push through these proposals has been dishonest and in utter contempt of the people. The consultation exercise was a sham. Minimum resources were used to give ordinary citizens a real understanding of what these proposals are. Views received were put into a compendium and committed to oblivion. Then the Government mounted a propaganda campaign that did nothing, except to disgrace the chief executive personally and the government as a whole. The final deal was reached behind closed doors, ostensibly between the Democratic Party and representatives of the Central Authorities. No one not already in the know was allowed time to digest these developments. By his action or lack of action, the chief executive has made clear that he no longer represents the people of Hong Kong, and “one country, two systems” is no longer a sustainable illusion.
Third, I oppose these proposals on the grounds of conscience and principle. I have stood for election in the legal functional constituency so we may give our vote to the abolition of functional constituencies, the continued existence of which runs contrary to the Basic Law and places a blatant unfairness in our political system. I have been returned on that pledge, and I stand by it.
This reflects more than my personal conviction or that of the Civic Party. Personally and as a party, we have gone to the community to explain, listen and consult people in all walks of life. We firmly believe that the development of democracy is not to be achieved as a gift begged for on our knees from those who hold absolute power. We must earn democracy by personal participation and by taking responsibility for our choice.
Our sincere actions in the referendum movement have been the target of personal insults from this government acting as the puppets of the power and influence behind it. But no one can take away the truth that innumerable citizens of Hong Kong have come to realize: that we must have a roadmap to genuine universal suffrage that will abolish all functional constituencies.
There is an equally important message in our opposition. The government has been doing its best to equate being rational and moderate with supporting these proposals and to equate opposition with violence and unreason. The essence of democracy is that one can oppose resolutely and rationally without violence. And that is what we stand for and uphold.
We do not condone violence, but must warn the government that it will provoke violence by pursuing divisive policies that make a section of the community feel permanently alienated.
ARCHIVES
|
Legislator Margaret Ng dislikes when
the government acts dishonestly
and 'in utter contempt of the people'.
Using this image, Hong Kong's government
mounted a dismal 'propaganda campaign'.
|
