True split or just role play?

Amazing, isn't it? "Father of Democracy" Martin Lee Chu-ming is widening his split with the Democratic Party by threatening to quit if it votes for the "one- person, two-votes" proposal for 2012 political reform in the legislature.

Lee is the party's founding chairman, but is now opposing it more vigorously than anyone else.

He says he's angry because his party comrades are totally wrong in allowing compromises, while he's right by refusing to do so. But could it be just the other way around?

Lee's split with the Democrats is hardly isolated. Yesterday, he publicly admitted he failed to see eye-to-eye with his media-tycoon friend Jimmy Lai Chi- ying over this crucial matter too. Perhaps there's nothing more metaphoric than the position split between him and Lai - since both were instrumental in causing pan- democrats to act in concert to veto the political package in 2005.

Lee said he has discussed the latest issue with Lai, and their views are hugely different. He would not elaborate on Lai's thoughts, saying he couldn't speak on his good friend's behalf. But there has been no lack of clues in recent editions of Lai's flagship newspaper, Apple Daily, where insiders began to talk about a shift in editorial position a few days ago, culminating in the paper endorsing the Democrats' "one-person, two-votes" proposal with its de facto editorial yesterday.

It stated that passing the proposal doesn't mean giving up the struggle for genuine universal suffrage and the abolition of functional constituencies. What the Democrats have counter-proposed is only a midway-stop in the direction of universal suffrage - not the end.

Why all these baffling oddities? Should they be taken on face value? Could Lee and Lai have agreed to disagree in order to lead different roles thereafter? Objectively speaking, doing so will allow them to continue to engage the different factions, while retaining a degree of influence over the radical and moderate factions.

It's intriguing to notice a handful of Democratic Party lawmakers - namely James To Kun-sun and Andrew Cheng Kar-foo - have also threatened to break ranks and vote against the alternative plan initiated by their own party. Meanwhile, others like Confederation of Trade Union lawmaker Lee Cheuk-yan, and trade unionist lawmaker Leung Yiu-chung are similarly declaring they will vote against the government motions regarding the 2012 reforms.

It's mind-boggling. For Democrats To and Cheng, they have full understanding of the matter. For the CTU's Lee and Leung, they were also members of the Alliance of Universal Suffrage, with Lee even attending the meeting with the Central Government's Liaison Office deputy director Li Gang. They couldn't be ignorant of the dynamics of dialogue. But why are they suddenly opposing what their own people have initiated?

Obviously, they know there will be enough support to pass the political reform proposal, so the outcome wouldn't be affected even if they voted otherwise.

If they oppose the plan, they won't have to face charges of betrayal in the next election. Nevertheless, this places political gain ahead of the public interest.

英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma