Chinese honor the memory of Qu Yuan, a poet and political activist
(3-4 Century BC) on the 5th day of 5th lunar month of
every year. Yuan took part in a fight to save his state against hostile take
over by a neighbouring state but had to retreat and be in exile owing to
orchestrated maligning of his character. He wrote poetries creating a genre of political
and philosophical verses. Finishing his masterpiece, he chose to give up his
life by drowning than being a witness to the loss of his state. Yuan was so
loved by the people that they rushed in boats to rescue him and later threw
cooked rice in water that fish spares his body.
This is a popular legend of Dragon Boat festival. The festival includes
dragon boat races that replicate the haste to save the life of Yuan and eating Zongzi,
cone shaped sticky rice wraps. A death for a cause, well remembered after
centuries.
The political suicide of pro- establishment Hong Kong legislators
just three days ahead of commemorating Qu Yuan, in relation to vote on
political reform, but will go down in history as a blunder that served no
purpose. The run up for reform in Hong Kong with relation to universal suffrage
in electing its Chief Executive has been a long strenuous period of struggle,
strain, grit and grind. All collapsed in a miscalculated walkout giving
advantage to none but causing severe dent to self-worth. The fate of the
truncated reform proposal that offered pseudo-democracy was pre-destined; it
was bound to fail but for any last minute converts from the pan-democrats.
A short background
Electoral reform to ensure universal suffrage in electing the Chief
Executive of the Hong Kong SAR has been in vogue for sometime now. The debate
has been centered on the details of the proposal. The reform offered all
eligible a chance to vote but to candidates vetted by a committee packed with
pro-Beijing sympathizers. The pan-democrats adopted a stance to veto the
proposal in legislature. The pro-Beijing
camp meanwhile had steered a roadshow and campaign to garner support for the
reform proposal. The tagline of pro-Beijing camp was - ‘pocket it’. The pan-democrats were warned that by disapproving
the reform package, they are holding the right to vote of the people of Hong
Kong to ransom.
The reform was put to vote on 17th of June 2015 in a
legislative council of 70 members with 43 Beijing loyalists and 27 democrats,
assured to vote against the motion. Statistics indicate the predictable outcome
of veto, as win require 2/3 majority. The count of vote on reform proposal was
an anticipated veto but the surprising element was the margin, the motion got
defeated by a whooping differential; 28 nos (one unexpected vote from the block
of 43 joined the democrats) and a measly 8 yes. This surprising self-goal by
the pro-establishment clique happened because of an untimely and
miscommunicated staging of a walkout to facilitate voting of one member who was
late to report and was on his way to the House. The walkout turned out to be
partial leaving quorum for voting, resulting in a loss of opportunity for the
walked out to express their loyalties to Beijing.
Outcome
Fall of the reform package was inevitable. Who defeated it and how became
the matter of amusement. With it crumbled the preplanned strategy of the pro-establishment
in the forthcoming district election and 2016 Legislative Council elections. A major plank for them would have certainly be, how the
pan-democrats snatched away the possibility to pocket the reform graciously
offered by Beijing and lost an opportunity to move ahead. As a strategy to
secure reform henceforward, more seats in Legislative council would have been sought.
The present shoddy performance leaves less room to convincingly take out the
democrats on this count.
The loyalists have exposed their political naiveté and
miscalculation at a critical juncture. It shows them in poor light and cast doubt
on capabilities of holding future and higher responsibilities. This also
highlight that, they may be competent business people but yet to be evolved as
adept politicians.
The flurry of activities that happened in the liaison office of
Central Government for Hong Kong, post the fiasco clearly shows how it irked
Beijing. It is sure to cost at least some their dreams of running for the post
of Chief Executive or a second term in legislature.
The democrats had the last laugh. The expected defeat of the
proposal was sweetened by the unanticipated gift of gaffe by the treasury
benches. In long term, this episode does not contribute anything definite to
achieving the ultimate aim of universal suffrage in form and substance. At the
most, they might be in a position to use it as a campaign tool. Even gaining a decisive majority in the Legislative
Council is no guarantee towards democracy as it is contingent on the Central
Government in China given the Basic Law of Hong Kong.
Epilogue
The debacle has changed nothing but for an exposé of inefficiency of
a bunch of representatives with whom the destiny of Hong Kong is vested. This
is an indication that the political system needs a serious relook as to who
represents the people and how they are chosen.
