Matthew Flintoff argues that the 'pan-democrats' may be cynically trying to block the constitutional reform in Hong Kong just in order to remain relevant

Civic Party leader Alan Leong was front and center of a particularly vocal chorus recently criticizing the government's open-top bus tours of strategic locations around the city. Aiming to promote electoral reform proposals scheduled for a vote in LegCo in late June, the tour has been severely waylaid by protestors, most notably in Kennedy Town, Lok Fu and Tai Po.

Amid this furor, the "pan-democrat" camp has kicked off its own public consultation campaign with a vow to maintain "close contact" with Hong Kong citizens. Such eagerness to consult with the public stands in stark contrast to the "pan-democrats" vow to boycott the government's consultation on constitutional reform. A checkered record of Legislative Council walkouts and a refusal to engage in dialogue with the government they labeled "pointless" and "a waste of time" hardly gives the impression of a political group concerned with developing a workable solution. Instead, widespread opposition to political reform has made this an all-or-nothing scenario, with Hong Kong's democratic future held hostage.

Additionally, Leong's eagerness to begin public consultation seems somewhat misplaced given that swiftly organized protests have denied government officials the chance to "come down from the bus" and explain the reform proposals. Surely the Hong Kong public should not be prevented from informing themselves about both sides of this debate?

"Pan-democrats" might see themselves as key beneficiaries of the phrase, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" made famous by French writer and philosopher Voltaire. They would, however, do well to remember that this cuts both ways. In denying the public the chance to inform themselves, they severely limit the credibility of any complaints they might make accusing others of shouting them down. In short, they cannot simply have their cake and eat it.

The roadblock strategy employed by "pan-democrats" may well be evidence of a more cynical motive behind their actions, both politically and in terms of public debate. In obstructing dialogue at every turn, legislators in the anti-reform camp hint at being all too aware of their political irrelevance should the reforms ultimately be passed in LegCo. It is consequently no surprise that, from their perspective, maintaining the status quo is priority No 1.

This would not be so bad if a viable alternative could be found to the reform proposals. The public want improvements to the current political arrangements. Some sort of progress would therefore be a far more desirable outcome than a return to the norm. But sadly no consensus from the "pan-democratic" camp has been forthcoming, and no alternatives offered. It seems they are set on maintaining the status quo in order to retain their relevance.

Make no mistake, political futures and livelihoods are on the line come the June LegCo vote, and "pan-democrats" are playing a zero-sum game. Their failure to organize positively on any issue is a telling sign that this might simply be a fear of change in action. The passage of the constitutional reform would mean the loss of a united platform and, potentially, a number of generous salaries (currently HK$90,770 per month for a LegCo member not serving on Executive Council). The absence of reform would, however, keep things ticking over conveniently for incumbents.

Only four swing-votes are needed for the government's proposals to overcome their current impasse. All eyes are on potential rank-breakers. The Civic Party's Ronny Tong is the latest to generate speculation over his refusal, on April 22, to join a walkout over the unveiling of Chief Secretary Carrie Lam's reform package.

Furthermore, the Hong Kong Federation of Students has recently distanced itself from Democratic Party member Albert Ho's attempt to trigger a de facto referendum on reform proposals. Ho himself has admitted that his plan to resign and force a by-election for his functional constituency seat would now be more difficult to implement. As they grow ever more isolated, we could conceivably be seeing the first cracks appearing among a "pan-democrat" camp increasingly running out of options.

The mounting tide of events will no doubt be a true test of "pan-democrat" resolve. What remains to be seen is whether their determination to cling to the current state of affairs will trump the government's own push for progress. Neither stakes nor pressure could be higher for potential swing-voters as politicking stands to increase to fever pitch this month. They face a choice that stands to permanently change the political landscape of Hong Kong. Will their actions be dictated by their sense of civic mindedness, or will more personal considerations win out?

One thing is certain: The people of Hong Kong deserve a decision from LegCo free of self-interest. Whatever the outcome of the vote on constitutional reform, this is the perfect opportunity for LegCo to prove it can put the interests of Hong Kong people first.

The author has worked as a researcher in European law at the University of Sheffield, UK. Since moving to Hong Kong in 2012, he has taught Legal English and Business Communication in the Department of English at City University of Hong Kong.

(HK Edition 05/15/2015 page11)