Radicals gambled and lost

In the aftermath of the Legislative Council by-election, the public has immediately set its sights on the increasing likelihood of a direct meeting between moderate pan-democrats and the central government.

I'm not sure if the Civic Party-League of Social Democrats coalition feels bitter, but it's definitely good news.

From Beijing's point of view, the small voter turnout of 17.1 percent has created greater room for maneuvering. The Alliance for Universal Suffrage and central government officials were supposed to convene last week. But the meeting was put off amid concerns that playing the card at the wrong time could complicate Sunday's poll.

Clearly, Beijing's tactics are aimed at winning over the doves and keeping the radicals at bay, since it would be unrealistic to expect the Civic-League lawmakers to back the electoral reforms in and beyond 2012.

Both Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and Chief Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen are keen to see the 2012 package passed, for this would be an important grade on their report cards. But, understandably, only the central government has the decisive say.

With the by-election now history, it helps moderate pan-democrats show to the rest of the movement that constructive progress is being made. It offers a new balance favoring peace talks.

The self-proclaimed victory by the Civic-League alliance at the end of the poll was hardly surprising. Ironically, it could also be used as bargaining chips by moderates in their dialogue with the central government. They may tell the cadres that while it was reassuring to see 83 percent of voters refuse to participate in the "referendum," those who did cast ballots shouldn't be ignored.

Having said that, the Civic-League victory statement is plainly absurd. The general view is that they have suffered a serious defeat - even though all five candidates were reelected. Why?

First, they lost sight of the object of the exercise. They sought to abolish functional constituencies in the very beginning, then entangled it with livelihood issues, and later involved itself in the minimum wage argument.

Except for their diehard supporters who would vote regardless, most others failed to detect a clear theme.

Second, they were wrong if they thought the public was blind to figures. When the referendum bid was launched in January, the front set a turnout of 50 percent as the minimum threshold for declaring victory. "Mad Dog" Raymond Wong Yuk-man even said he wouldn't accept reelection if the voter turnout fell short of expectations.

Over the months, the bar kept dropping. A few days before the vote, the radicals said it would be satisfied with 27 percent. After the poll, even the 17.1 percent was good enough. By playing footloose with figures, they couldn't lose. But would the public agree?

Third, they blamed the SAR government for causing the low turnout, criticizing Tsang for taking the lead not to vote. If that argument stands, it would mean the rest of the 2.8 million eligible voters are simple and naive, incapable of thinking for themselves. Isn't this utter nonsense?

Please, Civic-League folks, show some courage and admit that you gambled and lost.

英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma