By Koo Lap

President of the Legislative Council (LegCo) Andrew Leung has put up a whole peacemaker front, expressing his welcome to the pan-democratic lawmakers who have accepted the results of the polls and will remain in office, and said that that the more people work in the parliament, the better. Sure, bless him for wishing that the polls could decide for the lawmakers, but nothing comes out as planned. The polls showed that 47.1% support the lawmakers to remain in office, while 45.8% support that they leave; neither meets the 50% predetermined threshold for either the option of staying or leaving. Therefore, staying or leaving was not decided by the polls like Andrew Leung said, but a “political decision” supported by the lawmakers' personal courage and accountability for consequences – if there is a LegCo election next year, whether they had stayed or left, the lawmakers will face the judgment of the voters.

Although Tanya Chan is leaving LegCo together with Raymond Chan and Eddie Chu, she may no longer have to face the judgments of the voters. For one, she was convicted in the case of the Occupy Central Nine, and was disqualified from running for election. Two, she is 49 years old and barely scraped a brain tumor, now with a “deep understanding of how much more important family and health are”; she decided to “wave politics goodbye” and “conscientiously think about how the second half of her life will pan out.” This is why she has not only made the decision to leave LegCo, but broke up with her comrades and resolutely withdrew from the Civic Party. It is the Mid-Autumn Festival. I wish lawmaker Chan, who has devoted 14 years of her precious youth to Hongkongers, a happy reunion.

Although the results of the poll fell short of the threshold for the lawmakers' decision to leave or stay, Robert Chung, who was in charge of the polls, pointed out that 30% “strongly opposed staying”; and on the contrary, only 25% “strong support staying”. This showed a more aggressive public sentiment – likely reflecting the stance of younger localists – that does not support lawmakers to remain in the parliament. Even among the central-leaning, 54% support the lawmakers to leave; not to mention the pro-Beijing camp with 73% supporting to leave. If these 14 lawmakers participate in the next election, they will definitely have to pay the price for today’s decision.

Putting aside political calculations and simply judge from the principle of right and wrong, it is difficult to support the 14 lawmakers to stay. To borrow Eddie Chu’s words, the voters voted for him to be a four-year member of LegCo; now that the current term of office has expired, unless he is once against authorized by the votes of the people, there is no reason for him to be a squatter. Cardinal Joseph Zen also pointed out that in order to fight for true universal suffrage, Hongkongers have sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears. Now that true universal suffrage has still not been achieved, the pan-democrats are accepting Beijing’s appointment, how is this not contradictory? How is staying different from accepting amnesty and enlistment?

Furthermore, compromising to stay is not only to be despised by Hongkongers, but accepting this kind of amnesty is forgoing a great opportunity to resign en masse to demonstrate to the world how the CCP has brutally trampled on the Basic Law and abandoned its promise of Hongkongers ruling Hong Kong, to once again expose the lies of the CCP on the international stage and get to be isolated. Yet with only 15 lawmakers accepting the poll results, even if more than 50% support that they leave collectively, the effect of 21 pan-democrats resigning en masse will not be achieved. What’s more is the ambiguity of the poll results, even if all 15 lawmakers do sign off in unison, they may not necessarily be responding to the demands of all Hongkongers. The pan-democrats are truly in a dilemma.

The biggest reason to stay is undoubtedly to retain strength and continue to fight, such that there is no room for Carrie Lam’s regime and the royalists to do as they please. Cardinal Joseph Zen agrees that the fight must continue, but it but not necessarily be within the LegCo, and other new fronts can be started outside of it. Lam Cheuk-ting, who advocates for staying, believes that the fight outside of LegCo is indispensable, but he disagrees with “handing over the entire front to the opponent”. Especially under the Hong Kong national security law, street protests and international connections have become increasingly dangerous and difficult. The parliamentary front, guaranteed to a certain extent by the constitution, has increased importance. Civic Party’s Alan Leong pointed out that even if LegCo cannot fully stop Carrie Lam’s regime and her royalists from divvying up the spoils, it can, at the very least, be a slap in the face of benefit transfer, so as to unite the people and continue to preserve strength.

DAB’s Starry Lee agrees with this and remarked that the equal divide between staying and leaving shows that the societal atmosphere is still tense. The pan-democrats who stay will reflect public sentiments and are bound to escalate their resistance and hinder government work. In other words, the postponement of the election to buy time by Carrie Lam’s regime has actually made things worse, and brought people’s frustrations from the streets into the parliament and added fuel to the fire. Carrie Lam, thinking that in the false name of the epidemic to postpone the LegCo election to buy time, has ended up agitating the people. Demonstrating how one goes for wool and comes home shorn, Carrie Lam has once again failed by her self-proclaimed smartness.

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