Convert the “Two Evils” to “Two Goods” | Lee Yee
According to the Basic Law, the 4-year-term of the 6th Legislative Council (LegCo) councilors (the lawmakers) has come to an end. Therefore, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s (NPCSC) decision on extending the terms of current lawmakers for “no less than one year” will not be “made by the people” like the four years given by voters, but “assigned by the central government” which was not set by the Basic Law. If the current lawmakers accept the appointment, they would be accepting a lawmakers selection process that is in breach of the Basic Law; if they don’t, it would not be a “group resignation”. It would just be them declaring they do not accept an appointment that is not given by the people.
For the pan-democratic lawmakers (pan-dems), whether to accept this appointment or not, has become a dilemma. They have had numerous deliberations trying to find consensus, in the hope of continuing their “sticking together thick and thin” mentality, but they could not come to an agreement. There was a rumor couple of days ago that most pan-dem lawmakers side with “stay”, who gave some reasoning to support their “taking the lesser of two evils” decision; but those who side with “go” have also given their reason, and have also suggested deciding by a referendum or a poll.
Chairman of the Democratic Party Wu Chi-wai, who has sided with “stay” said that, if people are not satisfied with them, they can vote for the others like the localists or any newly emerging parties in the 2021 election. He does not think there is any problem. Judging by the pan-dems primary election a while ago and the orientation on the internet lately, the answer is possibly no longer an “if” but a “definitely”.
There are two evils, indeed. “Stay” would attract death wish like “you are a new person now” from the pro-CCP and pro-establishment camps, which is disadvantageous for next year’s election; in addition, when accepting the appointment, the “no less than one year” can be extended to two years, three years or longer. “Go” means they will lose the power to protest in the LegCo meetings, although they don’t even have sufficient number to be a key minority, but they can still use delaying tactic; also, not being a lawmaker means attracting less media attention and not being able to bring the LegCo debates into the society; and of course, their income would be dramatically reduced.
Tsang Chi-ho (Broadcaster from RTHK) said yesterday, “this is a political conspiracy that, no matter staying or going, pan-dems will be badly hurt.” I fear it is exactly the case. There is no “lesser evil” as both are “evil”.
The evil is to cause division within the pan-dems camp. In the past, pan-dems lawmakers always opposed the localists and protesters, but the anti-ELAB movement last year has brought pan-dems with different orientations together with the mantra: each brother climbs the mountain his own way, no cutting ties, no snitching; young protesters motivated people to join peaceful demonstration, and in turn, their fierce actions were supported by the peaceful and rational pan-dems. This joint force seemed to have formed, which continued to District Councils election and pan-dems primary election, and that is the scenario the CCP wants to see the least.
When Carrie Lam’s regime suggested extending the lawmakers’ term for a year, someone at the pro-establishment camp said the four current lawmakers, who have been disqualified to join the new election, should not be able to have their terms extended. The pan-dems have allegedly said, if the terms of these four cannot be extended, then all pan-dems lawmakers will resign together. But that was only the pro-establishment testing the water because the CCP has already hatched a plan. It will allow everyone to extend a year, so now the “ball of dilemma” will be on pan-dems’ court: if they accept the appointment, their wall of support from the people will collapse, if they refuse, they would no longer have any power.
A KOL has recently made a suggestion which I found excellent: how about those four who have been disqualified accept the extension, and the rest of the pan-dems refuse?
So what is the good of that? 1. these four accepting the extension is not saying they agree on the legitimacy of NPCSC’s appointment, but to highlight how ridiculous it is to disqualify them since NPCSC accepts their candidacy; 2. the other lawmakers refusing the appointment mean they hold onto the democratic ideal of the Basic Law and “elected by people”, and that they deny the legality of the lawmaker’s appointment by NPCSC; 3. these two actions will embarrass the CCP and meet the criticism of candidates being disqualified and the appointments made by NPCSC from the international society, who might increase sanctioning action; 4. there is still a voice from the opposition in LegCo. Since there are not enough people to maintain a key minority anyway, then four people would be sufficient, and they can also bring the LegCo debates into the society; 5. prevent pan-dems from dividing and keep the “yellow” people in the society together; 6. destroy the political conspiracy of dividing pan-dems, once again boost the spirit of people who support democracy and build a foundation for the next election.
This is a way to change danger to opportunity and convert the “two evils” to “two goods”. The only loss would be a substantial amount of resources.
