Democracy in HK is not an "Impossible Dream"

Awaiting a Democratic Hong Kong,

I read this commentary on the Asia Times Online, by a teacher in HKIS, Kent Ewing. Hong Kong Democracy Movement Gets New Life I don't know why this guy who probably isn't a Hong Kong person feels he can speak for me about how the behavior of the democrats would lost support for the "Hong Kong" people, as well as that we want Donald to succeed. Actually I want Donald out and be replaced by someone who got voted in directly. Here goes:

What happens next? Beijing has made it clear that, no matter how many people march in the streets, no timetable for democracy will be immediately forthcoming. But the chief executive now needs to make a concession and at the same time save face. Most people realize that, caught between the irreconcilable demands of the central government in Beijing and the democrats in Hong Kong, Tsang is in a tough spot. But they also want to see him succeed.

 

800 vs 250 000?

Actually I really want to see Donald go as with ever other person who believes in universal suffrage. Firstly I am not sure who "They" are, could it be the whole 800 people who voted for him (actually it was less because some democratic legislators voted against and some of "voters" didn't cast a vote at all) as they are the only people who have shown any "real" concrete support for the man. It can be surmised that 250,000 (or 63,000 ahem) people who were out there on the street do not want him to succeed. No, those people wanted a time table for direct elections, which is why they were on the streets in the first place, to disagree with Tsang's reforms. Why? Oh, maybe because they don't believe in Beijing appointed leaders. 70% of the votes in the 2003 "elections" for the 30 directly elected seats went to the democratic camp. A funny thought came to mind, there are more students in HKIS than there were people who voted Donald Tsang into office. I think 70% might constitute more of "most" people, than a random sample taken out of thin air.

Just because people are not active in voting or if they are not engaged enough to come out for the protest, it is wrong to assume they have any opinion at all especially against those who do. Unless comes the day when the Central government can rally the same number of people the democratic camp does to support their policies, it's difficult to gage exactly where "most" people stand. The Chinese government has previously tried to create counter protests, and the turn out has always been incredibly low proving there really isn't much passion against what the democratic camp is seeking.

"And if the democrats  still refused to compromise on their impossible dream of an immediate timetable for democratic development, then it is they who would lose the support of the Hong Kong people, not Tsang. The ball is now in the chief executive's court, and the game, much to Beijing's chagrin, is once again democracy."

I hope Mr. Ewing is not a history teacher because one upon a time "Impossible Dreams" included: the end of slavery, Negro people in America ending segregation, women having the vote, India and other African nations having independence from their colonizers, the the Berlin Wall going down, the Soviet regime ending, and probably a man on the moon as well.

I don't think people in Hong Kong who support universal suffrage and those who want a time table thinks it's an "impossible" dream. Democracy is not an impossible dream, and without a timetable, it's very likely it will never happen. Democracy is a dream that many nations have achieved through peaceful demonstrations, and through time. Just because "some people" fail to see a different future than that of the present does not mean things people seek are "impossible dreams." It is so rude to dismiss the dreams of a few hundreds of thousand's people who walked onto the streets by calling it "Impossible" or even worse using it as an excuse to feel we should back off or give up.

Furthermore there is no evidence what-so-ever that the democratic camp will lose support because they work against the government and will not sign in this package. For one the turn out for this protest was far larger than anyone expected, signifying a support for the democratic camp and their beliefs. The democratic camp has been against much of what our government has done for a good 16 years and beyond, and the movement has only gained momentum through time.

The first large scale direct march of democracy and universal suffrage in Hong Kong was right after the July 1st 2003 protest against the anti-subversion bill, and 30,000 people attended, since then further sole issues protest that demand universal suffrage has gained momentum. The march last weekend was twice the size of the July 1st 2005 protest even according to government figures, according the organizer figures are 8 times that of the first protest on July 9th 2003 (and if we look at aerial photos easily proven). All these years the democrats have not once changed tactics.

Mr. Ewing's logic sounds so very much like it is directly from Tsang's mouth. Support this reform or you get nothing. Do not go against those in power because you will never succeed. Through history we know this is a tactic used by those in power to scare those who seek change. It's truly one thing to say that we should compromise because it's the best way forward, it's another to tell 250,000 people that what they support will merely turn those who did not attend against us. It will not. It is clear a timetable for democracy will not materialize through this protest, but it does not mean the democrats need to back down, instead what we need more than ever is to increase momentum and pressure towards our government until they are willing to compromise with us.

Comments

[baswizzle]

If I were you, I wouldn't have even reacted to the miserable Asia Times article. The Asia Times is a ultra-conservative paranoid monster of a paper that regularly reads like Asia propaganda.