After attending the Forum at Asia World Expo last Sunday night where the three contenders in the 2017 Chief Executive election were questioned by members of the Election Committee, the Editor has asked me to put some thoughts on paper for your enlightenment before the main vote this coming Sunday. I am not a political hack, so you won’t get many deep insights or opinions. I am just one of the 300+ professionals elected by their 220,000+ peers to represent their views, and vote for the contender whose ideas match most closely with ours.
First let me state where I come from; I am a long standing member of the Civic Party, and also Secretary of the Professional Commons, a think tank supporting the 27 pan-dem Legco members with evidence-based social policy research. I have been elected three times a member of the Election Committee for the Chief Executive on behalf of the Information Technology Functional Constituency. Consequently I have a rather sceptical view of many policies proposed and enacted by a government led by people who have never been subject to a “real” election, just a small circle one dominated by electors nominated by the central Beijing government.
Unless you’ve been hiding from the media circus over the past few months, I’m sure I don’t need to go into the details of who’s standing, who’s up and who’s down in the polls. However, during the ding-dong forum last Sunday night many interesting questions were asked that should concern the good citizens of Sai Kung.
First, as far as the Small House Policy is concerned I think we can expect little change in present policy from whoever is in charge from June onwards. All three candidates stated that they could not say much as there were court cases in progress – the JR that is to review the legality or otherwise of the whole SHP, and the appeal on the misuse and selling of ‘ding’ rights. But it was also clear from other questions that all three candidates bow to the wishes of the Heung Yee Kuk. They all need the 100+ votes (out of 1194) that the Kuk controls. Unfortunately I can see no hope for any tightening of the policy through political means, only through the courts.
Secondly, a number of questions were focused on the rights of ethnic and linguistic minorities, especially for those having to deal with the vagaries of the government school system and the lack of support for those pupils who come from non-Chinese speaking families. This is something that most of us can relate to – especially if you can’t afford to send your kids to an international school and Chinese is not the first language at home. I know many families who are considered ‘ex-pats’ and who would not normally be classified as an ethnic or linguistic minority – but we are if you think logically about it. Many of us in the Sai Kung area are here because we are not on generous allowances for either rent or education. The only candidate who really understood the problem was Judge Woo. Carrie Lam had no idea what the real problems were – she’d just tinker with the existing system. John Tsang would set up a committee to investigate………………….I say no more.
Thirdly, the understaffing of the Lands Department was highlighted. One of the questioners was from the Architecture and Surveying FC. His question concerned the consequences of loading Land Department with more statutory duties whilst decreasing its personnel count. He claimed that many of the problems associated with planning and development were exacerbated by understaffing in LandsD. Discussing this with some of my fellow electors from that FC later this would seem to be a genuine problem, not just special pleading. Both Lam and Woo pointed the finger at Tsang, who as Financial Secretary had ordered departments to cut their staffing costs over the past two years. Only Woo indicated he would take a new approach to solving problems like this. Both Lam and Tsang basically waffled.
Finally, an interesting question came up about the future of RTHK. As you may know, RTHK has been a political football since the handover. The Brits used to run it along BBC lines. However after 1997 it was accused of not supporting the government on many occasions by many in the pro-Beijing elite, and a number of its Directors were political placemen with no broadcasting experience. With the gradual takeover of media in Hong Kong by mainland interests over the past few years, many people have sincere worries about RTHK’s future. Both Tsang and Woo promised to corporatise RTHK and turn it into an independent body along BBC lines. Lam was not so emphatic. As the only broadcaster in Hong Kong still having a number of non-Chinese channels the future of the organisation is of concern to many in the Sai Kung area. Running it as a corporation instead of a branch of the civil service can only be good, as long as it’s funding is also guaranteed.
All in all, quite a dispiriting evening. It’s clear that Judge Woo has a more developed social conscience than either the other two candidates. He is also more in tune with what the people of Hong Kong aspire to. Unfortunately he has no chance of being elected. Still I tip my hat to him; he has made the other two candidates take things more seriously and was unflinching in his attacks on their hypocrisy. I was seated amongst a whole crowd of pro-establishment electors. Interestingly, their biggest cheer was when Carrie Lam spoke lovingly and admiringly in support of the Hong Kong Jockey Club! They certainly did not applaud any of the statements made by Woo or Tsang, and certainly did not join in the standing ovations these two got from the pan-dem electors. So for those of us who vote next Sunday, assuming there is no change in the candidates standing, we will grit our teeth, hold our noses and vote for Tsang. The lesser evil as it’s called. We managed during the nomination stage to make it a three horse race; let’s hope we can force a run-off to a second round. That would send all sorts of messages to our lords and masters in Beijing, and may even bring some humility to our next CE. It’s just a pity that strategically most of us in the D300+ camp have agreed to not vote for Woo, who certainly chimes with most of us politically and socially. Politics never was a clear cut business.
Be the first to comment