Hong Kong: China's Last Words?

[Concrete Meadow]

My brother was there around Christmas time last year (he's a classical musician and gave some concerts and workshops) and his words about Hong Kong: "once you're on the streets, it's energy, energy, energy." I haven't been back for a couple of years but I Know I'd still love it.

I remember the typhoon season well. After all, we spent seven childhood summers in my grandmother's flat in Kowloon between 1983 and 1990. Although I was born and raised in New York City, Hong Kong has always been a second home. It is where I learned to read and write Chinese as well as playing 6-person soccer on hard grounds.

Jessie, I would love to discuss the lies of "One Country, Two Systems," if you don't mind a boatload of questions the first being:

In all honesty -and reality- can such a concept be practiced economically, culturally, and legally? When Deng Xiaoping initiated the "four modernizations" back in the mid 1980's, he also insisted that "China must reform by allowing a small group of people to become wealthy before others." I guess that was the purpose of the creations of special administrative regions such as Hong Kong. While this concept reminds one of feudalism, how did the idea of "One Country, Two Systems" affect Hong Kong in the past seven years?

I know. I asked too many questions. So I will sit back and contemplate the direction of Kompasu ... and think about those lovely crabs and prawns ... in another city by the sea, on the eve of my birthday.

Ta.

Meadow

 

[Jessiedog]

I'll think a bit and then post.

Happy Birthday Meadow!



Blessings.

Woof

My brother was there around Christmas time last year (he's a classical musician and gave some concerts and workshops) and his words about Hong Kong: "once you're on the streets, it's energy, energy, energy." I haven't been back for a couple of years but I Know I'd still love it.

I remember the typhoon season well. After all, we spent seven childhood summers in my grandmother's flat in Kowloon between 1983 and 1990. Although I was born and raised in New York City, Hong Kong has always been a second home. It is where I learned to read and write Chinese as well as playing 6-person soccer on hard grounds.

Jessie, I would love to discuss the lies of "One Country, Two Systems," if you don't mind a boatload of questions the first being:

In all honesty -and reality- can such a concept be practiced economically, culturally, and legally? When Deng Xiaoping initiated the "four modernizations" back in the mid 1980's, he also insisted that "China must reform by allowing a small group of people to become wealthy before others." I guess that was the purpose of the creations of special administrative regions such as Hong Kong. While this concept reminds one of feudalism, how did the idea of "One Country, Two Systems" affect Hong Kong in the past seven years?

I know. I asked too many questions. So I will sit back and contemplate the direction of Kompasu ... and think about those lovely crabs and prawns ... in another city by the sea, on the eve of my birthday.

Ta.

Meadow

 

[Concrete Meadow]

I'll think a bit and then post.

Happy Birthday Meadow!



Blessings.

Woof

Grazie mille Jessie and I'm just recovering from the weekend!

Speaking of recovering, I hope the recent pipe burst in Central hasn't affected y'all. I read that a main road was closed for 14+ hours and fresh water (in giant containers) were hand carried into offices and hotels ...

Stay well!

 

[Jessiedog]

Central's fine, and LKF still rockin'.

On the other hand, I just wrote a nice 600 - 700 word response to your previous requests, then pushed the wrong nipple. It all went tits-up and I lost the lot!

Bollocks!!



I'm off to find the gin and will be back when:

a) I cool down.

b) I sober up, and...

c) I learn to type in Word and then C&P into here.

Oh well....



Woof

 

[Thomas77]

Jessiedog

On the other hand, I just wrote a nice 600 - 700 word response to your previous requests, then pushed the wrong nipple. It all went tits-up and I lost the lot!

Bollocks!!



I'm off to find the gin and will be back when:

a) I cool down.

b) I sober up, and...

c) I learn to type in Word and then C&P into here.

Oh well....



Woof

Is it worth doing again or trying to recover.. I for one know what slant it will be taking..

Concrete Meadow

Jessie, I would love to discuss the lies of "One Country, Two Systems," if you don't mind a boatload of questions the first being:

I love the unbiased way the above is posed!! Go on Jessie love, plenty of ammunition for you to launch a tirade of diatribe against China..

Pathetic really..Lots of love Thomas

 

[Jessiedog]

Jessiedog


Is it worth doing again or trying to recover.. I for one know what slant it will be taking..

Concrete Meadow


I love the unbiased way the above is posed!! Go on Jessie love, plenty of ammunition for you to launch a tirade of diatribe against China..

Pathetic really..Lots of love Thomas

As you wish Tom.

I note tho' that you have repeatedly refused to answer any of my questions on this thread (and are still failing to rectify said oversight).

Perhaps you'd better re-read the thread. I'd even go back through myself and repost my many specific questions and subsequent repeated pleadings for answers if I thought you might make any kind of a valid contribution, but......

As you wish Tom.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Here ya go Tom.....

Please explain exactly why HK should NOT have direct elections for the whole legislature and the Chief Executive in 2007 and 2008 respectively.

It is allowed in the Basic Law.

Why not?



Woof

You have provided no reason that HK should not have democracy other than to say that democracy is not perfect.

You claim to value democracy. So doi we here in Hong Kong.

Any REAL reasons, or are you just babbling uninformed nonsense?

I ask again. Why not?



Woof

Alright then...


I have been following every utterance from the mainland and have analysed all their so called "reasons". Nothing said so far has amounted to anything more than "HK people are not ready"? No reasons have been given.

So, In your wisdom....

What insights do you have into the thinking of the CCP leadership and why they would find HK democracy "problematic"?

And with your great foresight....

What problems may occur in China as a result of a democratic HK?

Please tell us, do...

Got any arguments?

Let's have them!

You've been a bit short on those so far.

To reiterate.

I can see NO valid reason to delay full democracy in HK.

Please enlighten me if you have some information that may disbuse me of this notion.

Thx.

As I have repeatedly asked....

Pray do tell....

Or are you keeping your "knowledge" of the impact a democratic HK would have on China as a "closely guarded secret"?

Please share.

So you STILL refuse to share your superdoopertotallyindepthunderstandingofandinsightsinto China.

Oh well.

Guess that speaks for itself then.

Next!!

"Blah, blah, blah! I know what I'm talking about. But I'm not going to tell you what I am talking about. Blah, blah, blah!"

Doesn't wash Tommy boy!

If you have any arguments, present them here.

Or give over.

Seriously Thomas, let's drop the animosity and have a chat here too.

I have, of course, heard many/most/all of the arguments I believe you may put forth.

I'm certainly not going to propound on them here tho'!

Many of them, as I have mentioned, I might be inclined to give some merit to were they restricted to the debate over the democratisation of Mainland China.

I am aware of the arguments for restraining HK's democracy and feel that, on balance, they do not merit further inhibition, indeed, to the contrary, I am convinced that a democratic Hong Kong would be a beacon of prosperity and stability in China and demonstrate clearly that an accereration (not a mad dash) of liberalisation in the Mainland is not just essential to maintain mid-term stability, but is actually feasible without massive disruption.

If you have read my ramblings on China here over the last two years, you will know that I support China, despise the CCP (although am still willing to give Hu and Wen the benefit of the doubt in the short term - things do move slowly in Beijing) and dream of a democratic, peaceful and prosperous nation - within my lifetime.

It starts in Hong Kong and the time is now. The CCP has made some terrible mistakes here in HK over the last few years and none have been as misguided as the recent debacle of yet another Baisc Law "interpretation", so now our mini-constitution assures us that a cat is a dog and a bird is a lamb. The CCP's recent actions in HK have done more to damage China's interests both internally and internationally than democracy in HK EVER could.

The interests of the CCP are NOT the same as the interests of China.

A democratic Hong Kong would be good for China; and the sooner the better.


Tom, put up a few of the arguments that democracy in HK would threaten China's interests in some detail (or any or arguments for delaying universal suffrage here), I'd be delighted to engage with civility.

I must say though, I believe I am fighting for our fundamental and basic right to select and change our leaders. We were promised. These promises have been trashed and trampled underfoot in the most uncivilised way by the same political party that made them in the first place. Yup! The CCP.

And yet here I am, sitting arguing with someone who enjoys these rights himself and yet would deny them to us, but will not put forth his reasons as to why we should be so denied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas77
hippol
It appears to me that by granting democracy to H/K at this time there would be grave consequeces for the whole of China.......the problem that I have is that a China more unstable by these demands by the people of H/K would also have consequences for the world at large.. Oh and that means me!!




Hi Thomas,

Hmmmm.....Here we go again......

Would you please be more explicit about (specificy,) these "grave consequences for the whole of China", should HK enjoy democracy in 2007/08?

Would you also please clearly elucidate how our (the HK peeps) demands have/are creating "instability" on the mainland?

Further, please clarify how this this impacting you?

Perhaps then I could address your concerns.

Thanks,

But Thomas, you have yet to put forth any reasoned arguments here......Hence I repeat:



If you have indeed studied the situation, surely it behoves you to at least iterate some of your thoughts? I've asked you to about a half dozen times.

Sooooooooooo?

Any REAL arguments Tom?



Woof

 

[Thomas77]

jessie

I lost INTEREST on this thread when I saw the level of debate and the totally blinkered view points of some of the idiots posting..

Oh yes and the personal verbal drivel I had directed at me by clowns who In everyday life I wouldn't give the time of day too. You know who you are!!

Maybe when I have time I will draft you up a reply that may shed a little more light on the topic than what your used to here. I will PM this to you.. I'm not sure when though as other things are more important for me to be doing at this moment in time than trying to open the eyes of some-one to the bigger picture when it clearly is of no importance to their understanding of the topic..

Have a nice day..

Thomas

PS A parting thought for you though, maybe you would like to address this in the meantime

In over 155 years of colonial rule by Britain there had been no democratic elections in Hong Kong. Why the massive demands now? Do you think the British were wrong to appoint leaders and deny the people of H/Kthe right to vote? What has changed so much since 1997 that makes democracy so necessary?

 

[Concrete Meadow]

On the other hand, I just wrote a nice 600 - 700 word response to your previous requests, then pushed the wrong nipple. It all went tits-up and I lost the lot!

Bollocks!!



I'm off to find the gin and will be back when:

a) I cool down.

b) I sober up, and...

c) I learn to type in Word and then C&P into here.

Oh well....



Woof

I hope the gin helped.



Meanwhile, what is all the noise about government investigations of the seven local newspapers? And the continuing saga of Tai Pan (Cheng the radio talkshow host)?

Do all these have something in common with the lies of "One Country Two Systems"?

- Meadow

 

[Jessiedog]

Just a quick bump to apo;logise for the delay in replying.

Still busy ATM.

Just got back from Singapore.

Will try to get to it this week.

Blessings all.



Woof

 

[mjelly]

Back out here again after a two week break - it almost feels like home now - I am going to miss this place when I leave

 

[Jessiedog]

Drop me a PM mjelly.

Let's do a HK Urban75 meetup.

Maybe chinchilla will come along too.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Errrr.....

Would someone keep this thread alive with their considered thoughts please?



Me busy. Wanna contribute when I can.

Thanks peeps.

Back soon.



Woof

 

[Thomas77]

jessie

I lost INTEREST on this thread when I saw the level of debate and the totally blinkered view points of some of the idiots posting..

Oh yes and the personal verbal drivel I had directed at me by clowns who In everyday life I wouldn't give the time of day too. You know who you are!!

Maybe when I have time I will draft you up a reply that may shed a little more light on the topic than what your used to here. I will PM this to you.. I'm not sure when though as other things are more important for me to be doing at this moment in time than trying to open the eyes of some-one to the bigger picture when it clearly is of no importance to their understanding of the topic..

Have a nice day..

Thomas

PS A parting thought for you though, maybe you would like to address this in the meantime

In over 155 years of colonial rule by Britain there had been no democratic elections in Hong Kong. Why the massive demands now? Do you think the British were wrong to appoint leaders and deny the people of H/Kthe right to vote? What has changed so much since 1997 that makes democracy so necessary?

Looks like the above has just about shut you up then girl eh? Since I stopped posting on this thread you are now pleading for people to keep the thread alive. Democracy for H/K keep up the good work!!

 

[Concrete Meadow]

This thread thanks you, Thomas77, for not letting it slip away from page one.

Regarding our posts: we don't have all the answers here and we don't need to prove that certain posters are more superior than others. We do, however, like to converse about a place that is dear to us, Hong Kong.

That is all.

 

[Concrete Meadow]

Jessie:

Have been working 15-hour days but have not forgotten our favourite topic.

It's 10 days to Election Day in Hong Kong, care to give us an overview of all those involved?

 

[Thomas77]

Yes and maybe you could let us know a little about ping pong democracy. You know if there is a tie between the candidates you will decide the winner by choosing ping pong balls!!

 

[Jessiedog]

Still busy.

I'll get to it asap.

Thanks.



Woof

 

[Concrete Meadow]

12 Septemebr, 2004 - Election Day, Hong Kong

"Time has passed,the image of 7-1 (2003 & 2004) rally never fades and
gets rooted in every HK citizen's mind. We should stand up and vote for
those who are truly working in the best interests of HK people.
Vote for pan-democratic candidates. Our next generation will
be grateful to us for our voting. "

- message left on yahoo.hk, 12 september, 09:07

I will be back with more news a little later. In the interim, please keep us posted, Jessie

 

[Jessiedog]

Right!

I'm off to vote now (registered in the New Territories East, need to travel out from Central).


Looks like Leung Kwok Hung (Cheung Mo / "Long Hair") gets my stamp, particularly since the democrats on list 3 will easily get three seats, but are unlikely to get four. Voting actically, Cheung Mo, being quite a bit short of the votes he needs, seems the best alternative. Especially if it helps to keep out Li Kwok-ying of the DAB.

I must admit, it would be brilliant to see him in the LegCo chamber, rather than constantly being forcibly removed from the public gallery by security guards.

"Long Hair! Long Hair! Long Hair! Long Hair!"

Laters.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Right then.

Looks as good as can be expected in the geographical constituancies in exit polls.

Long Hair may well have it and Cyd Ho may have scraped in on Audrey Eu's ticket. Martin Lee looks good too.

Results should start coming in by 5:00 am, but I really need some sleep.

The functional constituancies, we'll have to wait and see. With 11 seats out of 30 going uncontested to the pro-communist/big business alliance - well, kinda says it all about the gerrymandered system imposed by Beijing.

C'mon th pan-dems!



Woof

 

[Concrete Meadow]

Big up for Cheung Mo!

Be back "after work," in the interim, keep the faith, Jessie!

source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3650534.stm

Pro-Beijing parties have kept their majority in Hong Kong's legislative council, winning 34 of the 60 seats on offer in Sunday's elections.
Pro-democracy parties, which had been expected to do well, increased their seats by just three, winning 25.

There was a record turnout for the poll, which was seen as a test of public feeling towards Beijing's rule.

Former Democrat leader Martin Lee said the complicated voting system had favoured pro-China candidates.

Thirty of the Legislative Council (LegCo) seats were elected by popular vote, and the remaining 30 by special interest groups that have tended to favour the pro-Beijing camp.

HONG KONG RESULT
All 60 seats in Legislative Council elected
Pro-Beijing camp win 34 (last election: 34), including 12 directly elected (7)
Pro-democracy camp win 25 (22), including 18 directly elected (17)
Turnout was 56%

The BBC's Chris Hogg in Hong Kong says voters appear to have steered a middle way between the two camps.

He said Beijing's tactics in the run-up to the poll - offering economic incentives and events designed to promote patriotism, instead of attacking opposition candidates - seemed to have paid off.

Leading pro-Beijing politician, Tsang Yok-sing, said voters had opted for stability.

A shortage of ballot boxes led to claims of improper procedures

"The message we got from voters in the past few weeks is that many want ... a stable, harmonious environment," he said.

Pro-democracy candidates won 18 of the 30 directly elected seats, while pro-China candidates did well in the so-called functional constituencies.

These are reserved for trade and professional bodies like accountants and bankers, and tend to elect pro-establishment politicians wary of antagonising China.

The pro-democracy parties said they were disappointed with their showing, which analysts said could have been affected by a series of recent scandals.

"I am disappointed. It shows how unacceptable the electoral system is," said Martin Lee, former chairman of the Democratic Party, who was himself re-elected.

One winner was radical pro-democracy activist Leung Kwok-hung, better known as "Long Hair", who is a regular heckler of the government.

"I'll demonstrate my electorate's dissatisfaction towards this minority-chosen government by protesting in the council in my special way," he told Cable Television.

Around 1.7m people - 56% of eliglible voters - took part in Sunday's vote.

There were 200,000 more voters than the previous record turnout, eight years ago.

Analysts said it was the most fiercely fought election since the territory was handed back to China seven years ago.

The vote had been seen as a referendum on the aspirations of some Hong Kong residents for more democracy.

 

[Jessiedog]

Long Hair in LegCo?





Kewl!

But Cyd Ho lost out.



AND, overall not a good result.

It's difficult to compete while a goliath is climbing all over yer back, but frankly, the pan-democratic camp did not put in a performance to be proud of.

Yeung Sum says that "we" will learn from our mistakes and improve our strategy next time around (2008).

I say we should have learned from our mistakes last time (2004) and implemented a better strategy this time.

Not good enough!!!

(Edit: Let's not forget tho', that the pan-democratic camp secured over 60% of the votes cast and yet with our "fair" voting system, won only 25 legislative seats out of 60.)



Woof

 

[Concrete Meadow]

I went through several Chinese-language newspapers with a fine-toothed comb but still cannot understand the "reasons" for Cyd Ho's demise. What do Martin Lee and Yeung Sum have to do with this? Guess I need some clarifications ... help, Jessie?

And Long Hair, please stay the way you are - now that you are "on the otehr side" -

Four very interesting years ahead ...

 

[Jessiedog]

I went through several Chinese-language newspapers with a fine-toothed comb but still cannot understand the "reasons" for Cyd Ho's demise. What do Martin Lee and Yeung Sum have to do with this? Guess I need some clarifications ... help, Jessie?

And Long Hair, please stay the way you are - now that you are "on the otehr side" -

Four very interesting years ahead ...

It was due to the list voting system.

Martin was second on the democrats list, headed by Yeung Sum.

Cyd was second on the list headed by Audrey Eu.

In the HK Island constitiuency, polls showed that there should be just about enough votes for Audrey's list to ensure that Cyd was elected too, while there was a question mark as to whether Yeung Sum's list would secure enough for Martin to retain his seat.

Initially, the pan-democrats strategy was "one + one = four" for HK Island, meaning they were advising voters to team up in pairs and one to vote for each list, thus ensuring that all four candidates were elected.

As it happens, this strategy, if stuck to, would have worked. Unfortunately, Martin and his supporters panicked at the last minute during polling and sent out the word that Martin was going to lose and those who had yet to vote, should all vote for Yeung Sum's list to ensure Martin's re-election. The voters duly complied, but ultimately this resulted in Yeung Sum's list getting @ 13,000 more votes than they needed to secure the two seats (but nowhere near enough for the third placed candidate on the list to win a seat).

In turn, Audrey's list secured just 846 too few votes to secure a second seat (Cyd's), so Audrey got in and Cyd was effectively dumped, paving the way for (the bitch) Choy So-yuk of the DAB to secure a seat instead.

If Martin and his boys hadn't panicked, Cyd would've got in and Choy denied a seat.

Overall, the pan-democrats strategy was a shambles, with intra-party and cross-party infighting over who should stand, on what list and in which list positions.

This, combined with the overwhelming (and surprising) support for Long Hair (some 60,000 votes, compared to 28,000 in year 2000), the last minute entrance of Albert Cheng (Taipan - who secured a seat) to the race (both of whom drew support away from the Democrats) and the lawyers of the Article 45 concern group (Audrey Eu, Ronny Tong and Alan Leong) who similarly drew "the middle classes" away from the Democrats, ensured that only 25 "pan-damocratic" seats were secured, rather than a possible 29.

Sure, the list voting system is designed to favour the pro Beijing camp, and the system in general (with half of the 60 seats going up for grabs in small circle "business interest dominated" functional constituencies instead of all geographically delineated "one person one vote" seats), but really, the small "d" dem's in general and the Democrats in particular really shot themselves in the foot - too much self interest and not enough concern for the overall result.

All in all, a very poor show by the pan-democrats!

And, with the DAB, as usual, executing a flawless strategy and thus maximising their impact - they have now overtaken the Dem's to become the largest single Party in LegCo, with 12 seats to the Democrat's nine.

Very sad!



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

jessie
In over 155 years of colonial rule by Britain there had been no democratic elections in Hong Kong. Why the massive demands now? Do you think the British were wrong to appoint leaders and deny the people of H/Kthe right to vote? What has changed so much since 1997 that makes democracy so necessary?

In fact, direct elections for some seats of the Legislative Council were introduced by the UK in 1991.

Indeed, under the last governor (Chris Patten,) direct elections were effectively introduced for ALL 60 seats in LegCo, to the detriment of his own ability to govern (both the democrats and the pro-Beijing camp therefater, voted downn many bills - the pro-Beijingers for them being "too radical" and the democrats for them "not going far enough).

Of course, the governor was still appointed, so it was hardly true democracy, but with LegCo (effectively) fully democratic, during the two years before the handover HK enjoyed a far greater degree of democracy than at any point in its history, eithyer before OR AFTER the handover (in July 1997, Beijings hand picked wholly unelected and undemocratic LegCo rolled back all of the deocratic advances under Patten).

My opinion of the Brits?

They fudged everything (before Patten) in order to stall democracy as long as possible, despite surveys showing strong support for democratic rights during the 1980's - predominately to keep Beijing happy in order to further the UK's business interests. Why they let Patten have his head at the last minute is a mystery. The Brit's said they were seeking an "honourable withdrawal", IMO they delivered anything but and instead, sold the people of HK "down the river".

The Brits were wrong to deny us our democratic rights at a much earlier stage.

The Brits did the dirty on HK!

The reason that democracy became so important to us after the handover is obvious. Before the h/o, under British rule we were run as a (very) benign dictatorship, which allowed us all the trappings of a liberal democracy (rule of law, free press, free speech, association, right to protest, travel, etc, etc.). Ultimately, the democratic parliament in the UK also gave us some level of protection, in case for example, a governor went crazy and imposed martial law against us for no reason, parliament would have intervened.

We were then handed over to China a FAR from benign dictatorship that, since the handover, has squezzed and squeezed our rights and freedoms. We are "on our own" now and sincerely believe that only democracy can protect us from the overarching power that the unelected leaders of the CCP wield.

THAT is why we now crave democracy ASAP - we do not trust the Chinese Communist Party. Why should we? It has demonstrated and proven its intention to restrict the freedoms we enjoyed previously.

Capice?



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Looks like the above has just about shut you up then girl eh? Since I stopped posting on this thread you are now pleading for people to keep the thread alive. Democracy for H/K keep up the good work!!

Not at all Thomas.

I've just been busy, as I've already mentioned.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Jessie:

Have been working 15-hour days but have not forgotten our favourite topic.

It's 10 days to Election Day in Hong Kong, care to give us an overview of all those involved?

You're joking right?

There are some 169 candidates!

Anyway - results are out now.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Yes and maybe you could let us know a little about ping pong democracy. You know if there is a tie between the candidates you will decide the winner by choosing ping pong balls!!

Tell you what Thomas, I'll leave it to you to explain that one, eh?

After all, I've made a fair few contributions to this thread, whereas your input so far has been (pretty much) limited to evading my questions and simply repeating (without analysis,) that HK should not enjoy democracy.

So.....Over to you.....

Please explain this phenomenon and add your own comments as to its efficacy and any alternatives you could envisage.

Thanks.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

I went through several Chinese-language newspapers with a fine-toothed comb but still cannot understand the "reasons" for Cyd Ho's demise. What do Martin Lee and Yeung Sum have to do with this? Guess I need some clarifications ... help, Jessie?

And, from this morning's SCMP, the Editorial. Can't say I disagree, indeed it seems to echo my recent posts. I do hope they're not plagiarising me!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin Lee's blunder hurts democratic cause


Martin Lee Chu-ming has long been seen as a champion of the people. His years of devotion to the pro-democracy cause have made him a figurehead of the movement. Some people even talk of him as a saint.
But there are no saints in politics. And the manner in which Mr Lee secured his election on Sunday proves the point. When it came to the crunch, he and his party blindly pursued their own interests to the detriment of the wider pro-democracy cause. They needlessly cost the democratic camp a seat in the Hong Kong Island constituency. Many pro-democracy voters have been left angry and frustrated. The halo, it seems, has begun to fade, if not to slip.


The outcome should have been so different. The Hong Kong Island race offered a golden opportunity for different groups within the pro-democracy camp to prove they could co-operate. If the Democratic Party had stuck to the agreed plan, it would have been successful.

Much effort had been made to get the tactics right. After many meetings, it was decided to split the constituency's pro-democracy candidates into two lists. Veteran heavyweights of the Democratic Party, Mr Lee and Yeung Sum, ran on one ticket. Rising stars from outside the party, Audrey Eu Yuet-mee and Cyd Ho Sau-lan, stood on the other.

The aim was for them all to win seats. And the key to success was to make sure that the pro-democracy vote was equally split between the two lists. If either won too many votes, the other would suffer.

This is an unattractive byproduct of our electoral system. But it is a tactical problem which the pro-democracy and pro-Beijing camps alike faced.

The strategy developed by the democrats was a good one. Their supporters were urged to pair up with another pro-democracy voter. One would cast a ballot for the Democratic Party list and the other for the ticket led by Ms Eu. That way, it was believed, the votes would be evenly distributed and four seats secured. Opinion polls conducted in the days just before the election suggested the tactic was working. The two democrat lists were the most popular and there was little difference between their levels of support.

But then the Democratic Party reneged on the deal. In the final few days of campaigning it went into crisis mode - warning voters Mr Lee was in danger of losing his seat. Ms Eu and Ms Ho, they claimed, already had enough support.

It is understandable that the Democratic Party was desperate to make sure Mr Lee was elected. If this well-known campaigner had been defeated, it would have sent a negative message about the people's appetite for democracy.

But Mr Lee was not in jeopardy. By Sunday evening, this was becoming increasingly clear. It should have been obvious that it was Ms Ho who needed votes. Yet the Democratic Party continued to urge supporters to back Mr Lee instead. In the end, Dr Yeung and Mr Lee received almost double the number of votes they needed. And Ms Ho did not win enough. It was a gift for the pro-Beijing camp.

It is difficult to understand why these leading lights of the Democratic Party acted as they did. If they genuinely believed Mr Lee was involved in a battle for his survival, they made a huge mistake. But the "Save Martin" campaign also leaves them open to suggestions there were other motivations involved.

Perhaps there was an element of wanting to reinforce their party's claim to be the driving force of the pro-democracy movement. If so, it has had the opposite effect. The party's reputation has been severely damaged.

At the very least, these veteran politicians allowed naked self-interest to cloud their judgment. Their emotional expressions of regret and tearful apologies are scant mitigation for their actions.

The soul-searching must now begin. The future of the pro-democracy movement no longer lies in the hands of the Democratic Party alone. The sooner the party's leaders wake up to this, the better.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Woof