Hamlet’s ‘To Be Or Not To Be’  is perhaps the most famous soliloquy in literature. It is most commonly understood as Hamlet pondering whether it is better to live or to die, whether he should bear the sufferings living will inevitably bring, or end his life but face the many uncertainties that will bring which could be worse than living.

The dilemma pro-democracy Legislative Councillors are facing now draws some similarity to Hamlet’s.

Back in July, the SAR government cited “public health concerns” to postpone the Legislative Council (LegCo) election by a year. The National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) then, at the government’s request to make a decision, handed down the verdict that the sixth term LegCo will continue to discharge its duties for no less than one year.

There have been calls for pro-democracy Legislative Councillors to reject the term extension due to the illegitimacy of the decisions. Backers of “Not to Stay” believe that pro-democracy Legislative Councillors have no public mandate to serve LegCo for another year once their original term is up, and that their “stay” equates to accepting NPCSC’s “appointment”, legitimizing government’s postponement, and playing into the hands of the authoritarian regime.

First of all, there is no dispute about the absence of public mandate for the Legislative Councillors who will be serving for another year. It is also highly doubtful that the postponement decision is 100% down to public health concerns. However, the more pressing issue at hand is whether pro-democracy Legislative Councillors should risk accepting NPCSC’s “appointment”, thereby legitimizing government’s decisions and playing into the hands of the authoritarian regime by staying, or leave but face the many uncertainties that will bring which could be worse than staying.

I believe it is hasty to conclude that staying equates to legitimizing government’s decisions and playing into the hands of the authoritarian regime because we have witnessed how the government has consistently disregarded rules and acted shamelessly all these years. The existence of LegCo’s functional constituency is undemocratic but that has not stopped us from joining to protest and challenge the system in the past. Once you are in the system, you can choose to ignore its injustice, but you can always choose to do something about it as well, be it confronting the undemocratic rules or adding democratic components to the system.

In an era that the government frequently cooperates with the pro-establishment camp to ensure there are sufficient votes for government bills to pass, without pan-democrats in the Council, it is absolutely plausible for the alliance to expediate the passing of: i) setting up polling stations in Greater Bay Area, thereby opening the floodgates for vote-rigging, ii) rolling out health codes without proper address of privacy issues, and iii) Lantau Tomorrow Vision’s funding, thus literally pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into our waters during a financially unstable time, etc.. Even though it is a fact that pro-democracy Legislative Councillors are outnumbered, we could at least cross-examine the government on their policies, expose government’s wrongdoings, urge rectifications on inadequacies, demand disclosure of details that are a matter of public interest and many more. Without pan-democrats’ resistance in the Council, the government and the pro-establishment camp will be free to pass all sorts of laws to their liking. Can we really afford to let this happen?

Furthermore, we have to acknowledge that LegCo is a crucial battlefield we cannot afford to vacate. No one can envision how the battle will play out, as everything can change in an instant, but I strongly believe that as long as there are soldiers on the ground to fight and challenge the oppressors, there is a chance of winning, however slight the chance is. Alternatively, if we vacate the battlefield, we are destined to lose. Besides, pro-democracy camp’s numerical disadvantage does not mean we have zero chance of winning, as evidenced by the victory in the Anti-Extradition movement last year. It would be unfair to discount how pan-democrats’ resistance and efforts in the Council helped to capture media’s attention and generate enough heated debates in the society, which all contributed towards society’s overwhelming support for the opposition movement and forced the government to eventually withdraw the bill.

In a way, a successful democratic movement operates like a football team, each person contributes by playing in his own position and working with his teammates. Some people are more suited to play as strikers, while some prefer to defend. We cannot all move upfront, as that will create chances for the opposition to score, and we should not simply surrender by walking out on the match. I am a firm believer in staying on and fight, which is why I have never voluntarily walked out on any protests or confrontations at LegCo in the past four years. I was absent only because I was ordered to withdraw and was often physically carried out of the meeting room. Leaving is easy but staying demonstrates one’s determination to defy the odds.

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party has already announced we will abide by the conclusion of the poll conducted by Public Opinion Research Institute on whether pro-democracy Legislative Councillors should serve LegCo for another year. Regardless of the poll’s outcome, we hope the hard-earned unity from the Anti-Extradition movement last year can be maintained and that all fronts within the Democratic spectrum can unite and work together. The Party and I will never stop fighting for Hong Kong’s democracy and freedoms.

(Ted Hui Chi-fung, Legislative Councillor for the Democratic Party)

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

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