熱門:

2017年1月26日

褚簡寧 Michael Chugani STRAIGHT-SHOOTING

Why the opposition's Election Committee votes are worth nothing

If you have something valuable to sell but demand a price so high that no one is willing to buy, is it still worth anything? It's a question that applies to the 326 seats the opposition won in last December's election for a committee that will elect the next chief executive.

The opposition has every reason to be giddied by its success. Controlling 326 seats, which is about a quarter of the 1,194 seats in the Election Committee, puts it in a strong position to influence the outcome of March's chief executive election? Or does it?

Strength comes from unity. The election is just two months away but there is little indication so far that the 326 Election Committee members who belong to the opposition are willing to unite for a common cause. In fact, it is an anomaly to say the opposition controls 326 votes.

Not all of the 326 who won seats in the Election Committee are solidly in the opposition camp. Some are independents. Others are not in the establishment camp but that doesn't automatically mean they belong to the opposition. They all have their own agendas, which may be at odds with the opposition's asking price in return for votes.

Some of the opposition's core leaders have proclaimed that the 326 votes make their camp a kingmaker in the election. Others have said they will use the votes strategically to ensure a competitive race. But what does all that mean exactly? A kingmaker by definition is a person or a group that can use political influence to bring a leader to power.

A chief executive candidate needs at least 601 votes to win, which means even if the opposition presents a united front, 326 votes coupled with other votes are not enough to bring a candidate to power if just 601 of the remaining 868 votes go to another candidate. To be a kingmaker, the opposition needs to give all its 326 votes to a chosen candidate plus garner another 275 votes from other Election Committee members. That is a tall order.

By using its 326 votes strategically, the opposition means it will share out its votes to make sure more than one candidate gets the required 150 nominations to enter the race to ensure a competitive election. The names of Election Committee members are made public when they nominate a candidate but the actual election is by secret ballot so the public won't know which candidate a member voted for.

Members don't necessarily have to vote for the candidates they nominated, which means they can nominate one candidate but vote for another.

If the opposition shares out its votes strategically to nominate one or more candidates, such as Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee or retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, to ensure a competitive election but then gives all its votes to John Tsang Chun-wah, has it made the election competitive in reality or just in name? If it divides up its votes to the candidates it nominates, can it still cling to its desire to be a kingmaker?

Many opposition leaders have set a high asking price for the camp's votes. Candidates who want the camp's votes must pledge to scrap Beijing's Aug. 31 2014 political reform framework, which was voted down in the Legislative Council, and start fresh with a new framework that allows so-called genuine democracy instead of one that lets Beijing screen out chief executive candidates it mistrusts.

They also want a pledge from chief executive candidates to make political reform the top priority in the next administration in return for their votes. And they want candidates to discontinue the judicial review against four Legco members that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying initiated to disqualify them on the grounds that they did not properly take their oaths to become legislators.

This asking price – some call it a bribe – is in direct conflict with the central government's position.

When opposition Legco members united to vote down Beijing's proposed Aug. 31 2014 framework, the central government made clear the framework would not be changed and it was up to Hong Kong to take it or leave it.

The framework proposes replacing the Election Committee with a Nominating Committee of 1,200 members. Candidates must get more than half of the Nominating Committee votes to enter the one person, one vote election. Even though the framework opened the way for universal suffrage in Hong Kong, opposition legislators rejected it with the argument that Beijing-friendly members would dominate the Nominating Committee, giving them the power to screen out pro-democracy candidates.

Candidates Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, John Tsang, and Regina Ip have all said they won't make political reform their top priority if elected. They have also made clear that if and when public discussion began again on political reforms, the starting point would be Beijing's Aug. 31 framework. None of the three have said they would scrap the judicial review. Only Judge Woo has said the Aug. 31 framework must be altered to make it more democratic.

The other three candidates have said the political reform issue can only be revisited when Hong Kong becomes a more harmonious society. That is easier said than done. Hong Kong is so politically divided now that the return of harmony can only be a distant dream.

The root of our societal split lies in the opposition's demand for true democracy and the central government's rejection of a political system that allows Hong Kong people to elect a chief executive without any input by Beijing.

The dynamics of this split make it virtually impossible to heal. There may come a day when Beijing trusts Hong Kong people enough to allow it so-called true democracy.

But that day won't come anytime soon. Given this reality, who will the opposition give its 326 votes to when three of the four candidates have rejected its asking price as too high?

 

 

放大圖片 / 顯示原圖

訂戶登入

回上

信報簡介 | 服務條款 | 私隱條款 | 免責聲明 | 廣告查詢 | 加入信報 | 聯絡信報

股票及指數資料由財經智珠網有限公司提供。期貨指數資料由天滙財經有限公司提供。外滙及黃金報價由路透社提供。

本網站的內容概不構成任何投資意見,本網站內容亦並非就任何個別投資者的特定投資目標、財務狀況及個別需要而編製。投資者不應只按本網站內容進行投資。在作出任何投資決定前,投資者應考慮產品的特點、其本身的投資目標、可承受的風險程度及其他因素,並適當地尋求獨立的財務及專業意見。本網站及其資訊供應商竭力提供準確而可靠的資料,但並不保證資料絕對無誤,資料如有錯漏而令閣下蒙受損失,本公司概不負責。

You are currently at: www.hkej.com
Skip This Ads