By Lo Fung

The recent behaviors of the pro-establishment camp further proved that the phenomenon of “loyal garbage” as proposed by mainland guardian Tian Feilong not only exists, but it is also widespread. When the philistine Eunice Yung wagged her finger at the West Kowloon M+ Museum’s collection, it was already laughable, and she was taught a lesson by the experts who really know art. However, who knew that her mentor and party leader of the New People’s Party, Regina Ip, would take it even further. Eunice Yung is a philistine who doesn’t understand arts and culture, but Regina Ip doesn’t even understand politics and elections, and has been adopting all sorts of perversions to hard-sell the “perfected electoral system”. She also proposed a myriad of bad ideas to use against Hongkongers who have BN(O).

Let’s begin with this BN(O) incident. In response to Beijing’s violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the British government proposed a 5+1 naturalization route for BN(O) holders to protect the rights and interests of Hongkongers. Although this was a slap in the face for the Chinese and Hong Kong SAR governments, it would at least allow for millions of Hongkongers an option for a way out when the prospect of both politics and the economy is unclear. It is obvious that in the past forty years, in the midst of political turbulences, Hongkongers have tried really hard to look for exit plans. Beijing and the SAR government have always been adopted a tolerant attitude to this, and have not applied hindrance using policies. The most it did was to add some restrictions on the appointment of officials in the Basic Law and the elections of members. For example, principal officials and the President of the Legislative Council cannot possess the right of abode in a foreign country (the current LegCo president Andrew Leung gave up his U.K. passport at the very last minute in order to take office). The directly elected lawmakers of the LegCo are also required not to have the right of abode in foreign countries, but the functional constituency seats are not subject to this restriction.

This is proof that regarding the application for the right of abode or nationality of ordinary Hongkongers, the central and SAR governments have always been lenient and relaxed, hoping to instill confidence in the people and keep the best talents. Although this new 5+1 BN(O) plan by the U.K. is slightly controversial, the central government has only announced that it would no longer recognize the BN(O) as a valid travel document, but have not ordered to spare none of the BN(O) holders in Hong Kong. God knows why Regina Ip just wouldn’t let go of this problem and has been insisting on finding ways to limit these holders’ rights and make it inconvenient for them in border entry and exit; the newest trick proposed is to forbid young people holding BN(O) who have applied for work visa programs from boarding the plane to return to Hong Kong as a punishment for using the BN(O).

However, from a legal perspective, especially the provisions of the Basic Law, Hong Kong permanent residents, including BN(O) holders, have the freedom and right to land. Regina Ip’s suggestion is no different from weakening and even depriving young BN(O) holders’ right to land, which is a clear violation of the Basic Law and the immigration policy that is in place. From a political and humanitarian perspective, Regina Ip’s proposal is the same as degrading young Hong Kong BN(O) holders to second- or even third-class citizens, who not only could lose their basic rights such as entry, but also may lead to certain discrimination against Hong Kong BN(O) holders by other countries’ governments who might make it difficult for these people at the borders. These people might become the unwelcomed “human ball” kicked around the world with nowhere to go. Why is Regina Ip so set on going after these 3 million Hong Kong BN(O) holders, especially the young people? Why does she have to make society even more anxious and uneasy?

With regards to “improving the electoral system”, Regina Ip, an Executive Council member and a graduate of Stanford University Graduate School, should have been the most qualified, capable and responsible person to explain and get support for the proposal. Yet her Stanford education has been like “water off a duck’s back”, and has been returned in full to teacher Larry Diamond. To quote Regina Ip’s radio appearance last weekend, direct elections are “low-level elections”. Reducing the “eccentric candidates from the LegCo could improve the quality of the lawmakers. She also criticized the U.S., the U.K, and many other European countries for adopting a “double standard” in their criticism of the “improvement of the electoral system”, arguing that other countries are often modifying their electoral systems as well and cited the recent example of the state of Georgia in the U.S. that passed a bill to narrow the qualifications of voters. She questioned why “for you it’s okay, yet not for me.”

Regina Ip’s so-called accusation can only be described as confounding black and white through confusing the concepts. Of course, American and European democratic electoral systems are not going to remain static, and are often adjusted through amendments to the constitution or laws to adapt to social development and different political requirements. The point is that these amendments have nothing to do with reducing the participation of democratic participation within the system, nor letting a small group of people control the eligibility of participating in the election, let alone making decisions without consultations, debates, the parliament, or referendums. It is different for Hong Kong this time. Once the steps of the “improved electoral system” are in place, most Hongkongers have had no chance of being consulted, let alone a vote to express their opinions.

Moreover, the nomination mechanism for the qualification review committee and the election committee to be established is obviously to allow a small number of people to exercise the power of selection, which will very likely be restrictive for Hongkongers’ right to stand for election, thus undermining the fairness and equality of an electoral mechanism. This is a whole different story from the electoral reforms in the U.S. and Europe.

The accusation that direct elections produce low-level lawmakers is equally absurd. Looking at the past legislative councils, the ones who are always asleep, and others who are constantly late or daydreaming, mostly come from functional constituencies; members with low attendance and participation are also mostly from functional constituencies. Taking all these into considerations, Regina Ip’s theory is totally unconvincing, and basically completely debunked. In the bigger scheme of the central and SAR governments getting public opinion on their side, this is twice the effort and a reversal of the results. How is this helpful at all?

Click here for Chinese version

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

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play