From my friend. Well-said. Wheres the exit? Have you thought about it? xxxxxxxxx This would be my longest fb post ever. And a boring one. Please bear with me. I feel that I cannot discharge my duty as a HK citizen if I don’t say this. Even though I’m nobody. I hope I can influence at least one person. In the past few days we’ve seen the quality, passion and courage of Hongkongers. I never expected any less from Hongkongers. I now urge all of my friends (if I’ve not been unfriended) to add 1 more quality to the list: Intellectual honesty (嚴謹的學術態度) I share the video below not to ridicule 周融. He does not deserve my attention. I want to illustrate the importance of asking the right question. The reporter summarized the reason why people occupies central in these terms: “They are there because they believe China is infringing upon their rights to democratically elect their chief executive” 周融 was forced to reluctantly agree with this cause, as he always claims that he supports democracy. The reporter then asked him for his alternative proposal to achieve this aim. Of course he has no such plan. This question exposed his lies: he never actually wanted democracy. He never thought that he needs to do anything. His plan is to do nothing. Pausing here: did the reporter summarize the reason for the OC campaign correctly? Isn’t it a bit too vague: how can China respond to a request of “democratically elect” the CE? HOW? Joshua Wong says his demand consists of 3 elements: (1)堅持公民提名、(2) 撤回人大決定(3)梁振英下台 Question: do we all agree with the necessity of civil nomination? This is the critical question as we now already have the “threat” (the critical mass), this question goes to the crux, the content of the demand. Civil nomination means essentially that all 3.5 million registered voters to be the “nominating committee” under the Art. 45 of the Basic Law. The Bar Association says this violates the Basic Law. Inevitably trivializing the arguments, in laymen terms, the Basic Law is a contract, a bargain between 2 parties: it would be absurd to suggest that when parties to a contract contemplate that there would be a “committee”, that committee” consists of the entire public. So while I agree that the White Paper’s clearly undemocratic proposal offend the spirit of Art. 45 (and thus I took part in the lawyers’ march), civil nomination is not “more correct”, at least not obviously so. From the PRC’s perspective, a party who negotiated such terms (Art 45), it is just as barbaric. So I’m afraid it is time to face the music: while the notion of HK having some sort of “democracy” is uncontroversial, what constitute “correct” form of democracy under Art. 45 is. And this is not a moral question. You cannot resolve this by “following your heart”, passion or sense (or more accurately impression) of justice. I urge everyone, from now on, to ditch/abandon this term “真普選” (“real universal suffrage”): it is too vague a notion for us to hold on to. It has no content, and gives no guidance on what to do next. I am not saying that one definitely cannot push for civil nomination. But those who choose to do so, and more importantly, those who tell others to do so, have to be intellectual honest to yourself and to the public. One must at least answer the following questions clearly: (1) whether civil nomination is consistent with Art. 45. If so, why? (2) If not, are you prepared to ditch the protection of Basic Law altogether? Do you know what are the consequences? These are the questions that EVERYONE have to consider, whether you support or disapprove the OC campaign. Unless you, like 周融, decides to do nothing. We now have gathered a critical mass: don’t waste it on an unreasonable request. I also urge my friends to refrain from using insulting language against one another. I trust that all of my friends love Hong Kong. And all of us had a few sleepless nights. It does not help to focus on (1) the level of violence used by the police (using tear spray is excessive force. The commander should be damned, but the individual policemen have a very difficult job) (2) potential violence of the demonstrators (I trust Hongkongers would remain calm and orderly, but there are bound to be a few black sheep) (3) whether you are pro-China (it is not a crime to love your own country, and is not inconsistent with loving Hong Kong) I am of a firm view that to move the matters forward, we have to be intellectually honest. We must come up with a proposal that is at least more obviously CORRECT. You can speak loudly only when you are in the right. Only there and then we will be on a true moral high ground. And my last comment: this movement needs a leader. It is not just because of the usual complaint that it is impossible to control the crowd without one: a leader is needed so that one can formulate a uniform demand. And I can only hope that this leader would be intellectually honest. The public who take so much risk to join the campaign deserve to be informed.
Posted on: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 18:29:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015