The fight against 'Occupy' movement is not over yet

Updated: 2015-01-28 07:45

By Leung Kwok-leung(HK Edition)

  Print Mail Large Medium  Small 分享按钮 0

It has been over a month since the illegal "Occupy Central" campaign ended and the political situation in Hong Kong largely returned to normal.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying presented his third Policy Address earlier this month. The second round of public consultations on the next phase of constitutional reform is underway. The majority of local residents can now relax following more than two months of abusive behavior by the "occupiers".

Hugo Swire, a Minister of State for the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), met with several "pan-democrat" and pro-establishment members of the Legislative Council (LegCo) during his latest Hong Kong visit last week.

He reportedly called on opposition lawmakers to support the SAR government's plans for constitutional reform. Before his trip to Hong Kong he also expressed a similar view at a British parliamentary hearing assessing the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, 30 years after the two countries signed it. He reportedly said at the hearing that he had tried to persuade Hong Kong's LegCo members to examine the decision announced by the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) on Aug 31 last year. This is because Swire believes having some form of universal suffrage is better than having none - even if the policy framework is not "perfect".

Meanwhile, US Consul-General in Hong Kong Clifford Hart Jr. has reportedly softened his official stance on Hong Kong's constitutional development. According to press reports, at a recent meeting with Leung Chun-ying, a number of Western consul-generals, including Hart, voiced their support for the territory's electoral reforms - presumably on behalf of their governments.

This may give people the impression that the days of chaos in Hong Kong are over, but are they?

If the British government genuinely supported Hong Kong's constitutional reforms then it should have acknowledged that the Chinese government's decisions on Hong Kong's electoral reform conformed to the spirit of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and to the Basic Law.

It should also have promised that Britain would not support any attempt to interfere in China's domestic affairs or any activities which undermine Hong Kong's rule of law - such as "Occupy".

It should also declare that the British government would not protect organizations and individuals conducting illegal activities in Hong Kong.

Some Western countries, the US and Britain in particular, are major sources of funding for the opposition camp in Hong Kong. They have consistently provided political support to the "pan-democrats". If their more favorable attitude toward Hong Kong's constitutional development is sincere, there should now be no further problems.

But the real situation is not so rosy. The forces bent on disrupting Hong Kong are trying to jeopardize any measures the SAR government introduces. That is why Vice-President Li Yuanchao recently declared that "Occupy" was not over and "more drama was yet to come". His comments show that the central government knows the Western anti-China forces have not given up.

The patriotic camp in Hong Kong must remain alert against more attempts to destabilize the SAR. The truth was well expressed by Professor Thomas Chan Man-hung in a recent commentary published in the Oriental Daily News. He wrote, "The real target of 'Occupy Central' is constitutional reform, which is all about who holds Hong Kong's governing power, or who is the CE. The real goal of 'Occupy' is to force Leung Chun-ying to resign as CE and get one of the opposition politicians win in the CE election by universal suffrage. That is the only way for them to seize Hong Kong's governing power. In that process democracy is irrelevant, or just a means to an end, because the only standard the organizers and participants of 'Occupy' recognize is that at least one of their representatives is nominated as CE election candidate."

Chan goes on to say, "There is no universal standard for the design of democratic institutions such as the Nominating Committee, as each of them serves a specific purpose according to the specific needs of each society. It is up to members of each society to decide which democratic institution they want in their electoral system and no outsider has the right to impose their idea on the society concerned, since there is no international standard per se. That is why there are different electoral systems in the world and no one is in a position to decide which is better or otherwise."

He concludes, "The 'pan-democrat' camp has shown no sincerity in discussing the electoral reform because they are not interested in competing under the rules laid down by the NPCSC. They would rather deny Hong Kong society the opportunity to implement universal suffrage in 2017 unless their representative is in the race. In other words, they will accept universal suffrage only if it facilitates their attempt to grab Hong Kong's governing power."

Chan is correct. That is exactly what the opposition camp wants. They will not give up. The fight against "Occupy" will continue for quite some time.

The author is a veteran journalist based in Hong Kong.

(HK Edition 01/28/2015 page1)