Like Tree5Likes
  • 3 Post By David Smith
  • 2 Post By David Smith

Solving the current Occupy crisis

Closed Thread
  1. #1
    David Smith

    Solving the current Occupy crisis

    I started a new thread, but mods please move to the Opinions/Discussions thread, if that is more appropriate.

    Thinking how the current situation can be resolved, I see only three outcomes:-

    1) Slowly dwindles and people gradually leave
    2) A bloody repression
    3) A negotiated end, where government makes concessions and most protesters leave

    Unfortunately, it is very clear that the government does not have the patience for option 1) and so option 2) is looking more likely.

    I had high hopes that a compromise, along the lines of 3), would be reached after several rounds of talks. I thought the students trounced the government in the first round and the government seemed at least willing to engage. However, sadly, the papers seem to be pushing the ‘talks were fruitless’ line and the students have been talking about escalating their occupation.

    Certain government commentators have asked the protesters to leave, without offering anything in return. I think this is incredibly naïve: idealistic students who have camped on the streets for week and faced tear gas and worse are not just going to leave. So what should the government do?

    Government
    I would suggest the following:-

    1. More talks.

    2. An updated report to the central government (already conceded).

    3. An independent inquest into police handling of the matter. Certain police officials or the government security minister should step down.

    4. A meaningful concession regarding the nominating committee. For instance making it so democrats could get 30% of the seats (compared to 15% now). That would still be below the 50% threshold, but at least students could claim some progress. Civic recommendation (non-binding suggestion to the nominating committee), as suggested by Suzanne Pepper, is another possibility if Beijing is prepared to allow it.

    Not everyone will be satisfied by the above, but it would make the government seem more human, sap support for the remaining protesters and allow more moderate voices to prevail.

    Students
    I would recommend the following:-

    1.Press for more talks. Keep pressure on the government to resolve the crisis by coming up a good offer. Ask for the government view on civic recommendation (which unlike all other suggestions Carrie Lam did not dismiss in earlier consultations).

    2.The students should continue to say the nomination committee is a violation of democratic rights, but agree to discuss it to further communication. Use the discussion as a way to highlight its inadequacies and engage public opinion and awareness.

    3.Push the government to accept ‘general principles’ about the nominating committee.

    a) Transparency. The list of members and electorate should be publically available and free to copy. Currently it can be inspected but illegal to photocopy or make notes!. (This is hard for the government to deny in the spotlight of world media, but makes it easier to report on in the future and apply further pressure.)

    b) Clarity. The nominating committee should be kept simple and easy to understand. Must not be enlarged, only changing the composition to make it simpler and more broadly representative. (This prevents the nominating committee being flooded with new pro-Beijing sectors such as NT women associations or all district council members.)

    c) No corporate voting. Voters should be qualified individuals working in the sector concerned. The qualification can be further discussed.

    e) All seats in the commercial sector should be given weighting in line with contribution to GDP. E.g. Finance is 25% of GDP, but currently only has 18 seats. Agriculture and Fisheries, which should be in the commercial sector, constitutes only 0.1% of GDP, but has 60 seats.

    f) The electorate for each sector, other than political, should be expanded to at least 250,000 qualified individuals. The necessary qualification for an individual to vote can be discussed further.

    g) A student sub-sector. Perhaps this is too self-serving. However, if every child in education from 15-21 voted, it would increase public awareness and participation, in a way in which the government certainly does not want.

    4.The government says 2017 is only a start and the system can be improved later. Press for specific improvements and dates: ‘you promised us universal suffrage in 2017, but it turns out to be false and now many people are disappointed. How can we trust you this time, when you won’t even say when or what improvement will be made’. Ask Liaison Office to make a statement endorsing any timeline and improvements.


    The hope is that the government will agree to certain general principles which are hard to refute. Then find the implementation of these principles naturally pushes to more democracy (just as they are finding now with the 2010 commitment to universal suffrage in 2017). Also the government may miscalculate a concession and find that once certain sectors are democratized, the establishment loses more control than they anticipated.

    Most people don’t care about the nominating committee now. However, they may start to care more if they listen to the TV debate and realize they are excluded. For instance, I can’t imagine many investment bankers would be happy to learn that they are excluded and considered lower than teachers, social workers and nurses all of whom have the right to vote in their sector. Nor can I imagine bankers would be happy to realize finance is given less than a third the voting rights of fishing and agriculture.

    Another proposal, would be to give the sport seats to athletes representing HK internationally, and the music seats to local artists (determined by popvote). That would be popular and take some power away from tycoons. Finance could be opened up to any individual having a university degree and working in a financial institution, financial services to anyone having a CFA qualification, real estate to all licensed real estate sales agents etc. Even if only 2 sub-sectors were democratized, that would set a good precedent for the future, as other sectors of society could press for voting rights and organize their own marches.

    TheBrit, shri and cookie09 like this.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    θ–„ζ‰Άζž—
    Posts
    47,971
    b) Clarity. The nominating committee should be kept simple and easy to understand. Must not be enlarged, only changing the composition to make it simpler and more broadly representative. (This prevents the nominating committee being flooded with new pro-Beijing sectors such as NT women associations or all district council members.)
    BUT... you cannot exclude district councillors because they're pro-Beijing as a collective. They're after all independently elected by the masses.

    Agree with the rest.. but not sure if I'm missing something with the district councillor line of thought.

  3. #3
    David Smith
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    BUT... you cannot exclude district councillors because they're pro-Beijing as a collective. They're after all independently elected by the masses.

    Agree with the rest.. but not sure if I'm missing something with the district councillor line of thought.
    It's two lines of thought. The first that the larger the committee is, the more complicated and difficult to understand. The second that by keeping the current committee size, space for any new seats should be made available by reducing the size of over represented sectors and sectors with small electorates.

    Based on this principle, it is best to keep the political sector broadly as is in terms of size. However, it could be more representative by allowing all registered electors to vote on which district councillors would be on the nominating committee, rather than letting the district councillors vote amongst themselves. Similar to the super FC district council seats.

    A common establishment suggestion is to add all the elected district councillor to the committee. On the face of it this is very fair and democratic. It also favours the establishment parties. So if I was the students I would argue that a) it does nothing to rectify the unrepresentative nature of other sectors, b) under current system the district councillors already have twice the weight of the Legco councillors in selecting CE, is this really appropriate? c) district councils should not be politicised and voters should be free to elect members based on who will do the best job at organising local services, rather than considering who they will vote for chief executive.
    shri and Skyhook like this.