Package with little merit

MODERATE pan-democrats have hoped tohave talks with the central governmentabout an ultimate plan for introducinguniversal suffrage, but the SAR government hassuddenly unveiled a package of proposals on themethods for the two elections to be held in 2010. Thatshows it is doubtful that the central government issincere about having talks with the moderates.

Furthermore, the package the government unveiledyesterday is silent about the functional-constituency(FC) system (which has not a few drawbacks andhinders democratisation). One cannot but doubt thatthe central government and the SAR government aresincere about introducing genuine universal suffrage.

The responses the moderates have received overthe past three months have raised hopes. Such thingshave happened that the moderates think they mayhave a chance to compare notes with the centralgovernment. Many citizens think so too. The cruelreality is that not a single significant meeting has beenarranged between them and the central government,though the SAR government has unveiled the package.

Unless the central government and the SARgovernment continue to do what may demonstratetheir good will towards them, the moderates will be onthe horn of a political dilemma. They may have to payfor the choice they have made, and their supportersmay be disheartened. However, in our view, even ifthis is the case, neither the central government nor theSAR government should congratulate itself, for themoderates will never go over to the establishmentariancamp. They would have no option but to turn radical,and Hong Kong's political ecology would become evenmore agitated. Furthermore, an SAR governmentsource has hinted that the moderates should supportthe package, saying that would foster trust betweenthem and the central government, which would be thefoundation for talks between it and them. In our view,that is very unlikely to happen because for themoderates to do so is to commit political suicide. Thechasm between the democrats and the central andSAR governments would become even wider, evendeeper and even longer. This is the grief of HongKong's political situation. Internal strife may intensify,and Hong Kong may have to pay dearly for it.

The central government and the SAR governmenthave been telling Hong Kong people constitutionalreform must be gradual. What is left unsaid is that FCsare undemocratic. Therefore, to reform theconstitutional system gradually, it is necessary for theFCs to fade out. The FC system is not just the rootcause of the deep-rooted contradictions of theconstitutional system. It also has much to do withdeep-rooted social contradictions. The solution of thisproblem would help eliminate or ease many socialcontradictions.

The government would allow FCs to continue toenjoy their political privileges, saying there is nogeneral consensus about the issue. That is just apretext. Hong Kong is so pluralistic that there cannever be perfect consensus about any issue. Therecan only be greatest common denominators.

Furthermore, FC legislators would not give up theirpolitical privileges, nor would the interests theyrepresent. If the government keeps the FC systembecause they are against its abolition, one may say itis not determined to introduce genuine universalsuffrage.

The government should encourage discussion andtry to bring about consensus instead of hiding itselfbehind "differences" and doing nothing. If it putsforward a plan for reforming the FC system, it may notgo through the Legislative Council by a two-thirdsmajority because FC legislators may vote against it.But this situation would be different because it wouldclearly show FCs are by nature obstacles todemocratisation. However, FCs now lurk behind theSAR government, which wants to preserve the FCsystem and would impede Hong Kong'sdemocratisation.

After the SAR government's package has comeout, the moderates feel fooled. However, they find thepackage unacceptable not because of what hashappened to them. They do so because the package isconservative and the government has made noconcrete pledge to introduce genuine universalsuffrage. In our view, unless neither the centralgovernment nor the SAR government cares whetherthe package will be thrown out, before it is put to thevote, the SAR government should at least try to dowhat may convince citizens that the FCs will eventuallyfade out or FC elections will tend to be universal andequal. In politics, it is of no use to say, "Please justbelieve us." The most practical thing to do is to stoptalking and take action.

(D1201)

2010.04.15明報社評

政府推出雞肋方案民主進程命懸一線

泛民陣營的溫和派（下稱溫和派）一直期望與中央溝通，尋求終極解決普選安排之際，特區政府「突然」公布 2012 年兩個選舉辦法的方案，此舉顯示中央與溫和派溝通的誠意有值得商榷之處；另外，昨天公布的政改方案並未觸及阻礙民主進程、弊病叢生的傳統功能組別，使人質疑中央和特區政府落實真普選的誠意。

過去3 個多月，溫和派所獲回應，曾經使人有所憧憬。連串事態發展，使溫和派憧憬有可能與中央溝通，社會上不少人也這樣理解。殘酷的現實是，到特區政府公布政改方案之時，溫和派連一次有意義的對話也未獲安排。

除非特區政府和中央對於溫和派有後續善意行動，否則，這次溫和派在政治上將陷入進退維谷困境。一時之間，溫和派可能要為選擇付出一定代價，其支持者也會感到沮喪；不過，即使如此，我們認為特區政府和中央不應該因而高興，因為溫和派肯定不會投奔建制陣營，他們只會被迫採取激進取態，香港政治生態勢必進一步激化；另外，特區政府消息暗示溫和派支持2012 年政改方案，以建立與中央溝通的互信基礎，我們認為此情况出現的可能性渺茫，因為若溫和派這麼做，形同政治自殺。經此一役，民主派和特區政府、中央之間的鴻溝更大、更深、更廣。這是香港政局的悲哀，香港整體或許會因為內耗加劇而付出沉重代價。

中央和特區政府一貫告訴港人政制要循序漸進，其中潛台詞與功能組別的不民主有關，因此若要使政制循序漸進，功能組別必須循序漸退；另外，功能組別不但是政制深層次矛盾的根源，不少社會深層次矛盾與功能組別也關係密切。所以，解決功能組別問題，也可以使其他許多社會矛盾得以紓緩或化解。

特區政府以沒有共識為藉口，讓功能組別續享政治特權，只是託詞。香港是多元社會，對任何議題不可能得到百分之百共識，只能取得最大公約數；另外，現有功能組別議員和他們所代表的利益，當然不會放棄其政治特權，若政府因為他們的反對而加以維護，那是反映政府沒有落實真普選的決心。

政府應該推動討論，營造共識，而非躲在「分歧」後面的不作為。設若特區政府提出改造功能組別的方案，而功能組別議員反對方案，未能取得三分之二議員通過，這樣情况就不一樣了，因為那是功能組別暴露其阻礙民主化的真正本質。現在則是功能組別躲在特區政府背後，政府成為保護功能組別、窒礙香港民主化的元兇。

政改方案公布之後，泛民陣營溫和派雖然有受騙感覺，但是他們反對方案，基本上不在自身遭遇，在於方案保守，又未能取得更具體、確切的真普選承諾。我們認為，除非中央和特區政府不在乎方案被否決，否則到方案提交立法會表決之前，政府起碼要在功能組別做工夫，讓市民看到功能組別最終都要淡出，或是功能組別的選舉真的朝着普及而平等的方向前進。在政治上，講「你信我喇」不會有用，最實際是「無謂講嘞，做俾我睇喇」！

G lossary

not a fewmany.

congratulate

If you congratulate yourself, you are pleased.chasm /'kaz ?m/

A chasm between two groups of people is avery big difference between them.