December 16, 2003

You are on the invidual archive page of Democracy HK style. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
Democracy HK style

Let me give you an insight to what passes as appropriate political conduct in Hong Kong. From the always unlinkable SCMP comes two gems.

Firstly imagine that the country's treasurer/finance minister brings down a budget with an increase in tax on new cars. Then a few weeks later it emerges the same person went and bought an expensive new car in the weeks before the public release of the budget, but after the new tax had been agreed upon. This person goes to car dealers and demands the new car be ready before a certain date. This date also happens to be the date the new tax is due to start. And the minister at first denies and hushes it all up. A scandal. Definitely. Resignation of said minister. Absolutely. In this case it took several weeks but finally even Antony Leung could see he had to go and Tung Chee-twa cut him loose. In most normal places that would not be the end of it. There would almost certainly be some sort of investigation and possible civil or even criminal sanction. Effectively it is a form of insider trading.

So what do they do here? They hire a couple of expensive lawyers to find reasons why they cannot prosecute.

Former financial secretary Antony Leung Kam-Chung has escaped prosecution over the Cargate scandal after the Department of Justice concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove his actions had criminal intent.
The department made the decision, announced yesterday, after consulting two independent legal experts, who advised that while there was a prima facie case, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
I'm no lawyer (thank God) but if there's a prima facie case, then surely it's up to courts to decide the result. But it is politically convenient to put a lid on it and move one, so that's what's been done. No point dredging up the past; that's what the harbour's for. They're even applauding it as a victory:
Lawyers groups have welcomed the decision not to press charges against former financial secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung, saying it heralds a new era in transparency and openness by the Department of Justice.
Really? They publish the decision and the two legal opinions and that's a victory? What about actually taking this guy to task for his conduct? It all smacks of elites looking after their own.

I had hardly finished cleaning up the corn flakes I had spat out on reading that one before I come across the next gem. To give this one some context for non-Hong Kong readers the Legaslative Council, which has little power anyway, is not elected by universal sufferage. Instead half the seats are voted for by the almost 7 million residents of HK. The other half are filled by "functional" constituencies such as the medical profession and business. Usually to vote in these you are a member of some exclusive organisation that may number 500 or 1000 people. Gerrymandered like this, the Legco is never going to give the Government much grief, even with its smattering of democrats.

So this comes out:

Tycoon Peter Woo Kong-ching has called on the central government to protect the "rights" of Hong Kong's business community by not allowing a dilution of its power in the Legislative Council and the election committee that chooses the chief executive.
He said the public was "too hopeful" about the prospect of directly electing the chief executive, implying he believed universal suffrage would do more harm than good.

He urged President Hu Jintao and other state leaders to consider how to maintain a "balanced participation" in politics without introducing universal suffrage.

The business sector should keep at least one-quarter of the seats in the legislature even after the review of the post-2007 constitutional framework, said Mr Woo, chairman of Wharf Holdings and an adviser to the central government.

In a recent speech, Mr Woo said the central government should keep the trade-based functional constituencies in Legco because Hong Kong was a "business city".

"The introduction of elections of chief executive and all seats of Legco through universal suffrage amounts to abolition of the business sector's rights to participate in politics," Mr Woo told the leaders.

...

"After [the] July 1 [protest], I hope that the central authorities will send out a stronger signal on this to make it clear there will not be any change to this position," the speech read.

Mr Woo said the public was "too hopeful" on the prospect on electing both the next chief executive and Legco after 2007, after "encouragement" from the proponents of universal suffrage.

He said without copying the political system in the US or Europe, consideration should be given to preserving the present system of participation in politics.

Yes, you read that correctly. A tycoon is saying that people in HK don't need universal sufferage because HK is a business city so businessmen should run it. It is a polite way of saying HK plebians cannot be trusted with having a say in how things are done. Imagine if the UK saved a quarter of its seats in Parliament for businesspeople, or the Congress set aside 1/4 of its seats for the great and good (no, not the Senate). Yet this kind of comment passes as mature political discourse in Hong Kong.

This is exactly why HK needs greater democracy. To stop the Antony Leung's and Peter Woo's of the world.

posted by Simon on 12.16.03 at 09:07 AM in the




Trackbacks:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/8344


Send a manual trackback ping to this post.


Comments:

To be honest Simon, as much as I would like to see Leung prosecuted, it is the department's perogative to decide whether or not there is a reasonable chance of conviction. It is a central reason for deciding whether or not to prosecute in any case. You don't prosecute everybody and it is not good to have things thrown out of court for lack of evidence.

It is the matter of criminal intent. It one thing to say he was irresponsible and should have stepped down immediately and a leap to say he criminally intended to mislead.

He was an idiot but I doubt, after due consideration, there was much chance to prove much more than that.

posted by: Phil on 12.16.03 at 03:10 PM [permalink]

Point taken but I still think the prima facie case and decision not to prosecute smacks of political convenience, as admirable as the new found openness of the Justice Department is.

posted by: Simon on 12.16.03 at 04:15 PM [permalink]

Well what if Anthony Leung had nicked a few bottles of wine from the Democratic Party Christmas party, turn up pissed in Legco and started calling a female legislator "a fucking bitch" while physically assaulting her? Should he lose his job? Face prosecution? Or maybe stay on as leader of his party?
What would happen in your country?

posted by: Mike on 12.16.03 at 06:09 PM [permalink]

Simon,

That you think that is testement to the incredible litany of cock-ups perpetrated by the Department of Justice. I do remember the Sally Aw case and I always found it interesting as someone who used to work for me when I was the circulation manager for a Hong Kong based magazine once told me how he drove around in a van while working for the Standard dumping bundles of newspapers in the harbour.

If they had have prosecuted there is a good chance the case would have been thrown out and we might have had a situation where the decision to prosecute could also have been declared politically expediant to satisfy the masses.

I read the two outside legal opinions and I think in this case the government has acted correctly even though it shocks me to say that.

Mike - what is your point? In most places such an act would prompt a resignation - in Hong Kong unfortunately probably not although one would like to see that change. I am not sure exactly what there would be to charge him for as the example you make has little comparitive value to the point at hand nor is it very realistic in the case of this man.

posted by: Phil on 12.16.03 at 06:37 PM [permalink]

My point is that this is exactly what happened with the leader of the Australian Democrats party last week. HK isn't the only place where politicians get away with "inappropriate" behaviour. Our PM doesn't declare his interests in the ethanol industry that he gives massive subsidies to, our immigration minister locks up Iraqi children but somehow forgets he had dinner with a Singaporean fraudster with no visa ... so my point is people who live in glass houses (or come from amateurish democracies) shouldn't throw stones.

posted by: Mike on 12.16.03 at 08:33 PM [permalink]

Mike - "my country" also happens to be Australia. It is many things, but immature democracy it is not. Certainly the recent behaviour of the Democrats leader in Australia is inappropriate and he has paid a price in public ridicule. But he didn't try and beat his own tax rise. It would be like Costello announcning a new tax rise on Aussie cars, only for it to turn out he bought one a week before the budget. The other things you bring up are political differences that you hold with the current Government. You can hold those opinions and express them; you know about the ethanol links and refugee policies because they are openly debated in both parliament and the press. In HK half the "Parliament" is appointed, as is the "Prime Minister" and his cabinet. The newspapers basically kowtow to the Government. It is an immature democracy in every sense. And the politicians here have been known to do much worse without penalty.

So I'm puzzled, unless you were under the misapprehension that I am a Hong Konger.

Phil - point taken. I read the opinions in the SCMP today but I still feel Leung's getting off lightly. A prosecution can sometimes be worthwhile if it acts as a deterent to others as much as to achieving a conviction. In this case it seems an example of better to leave sleeping dogs lie.

posted by: Simon on 12.16.03 at 09:14 PM [permalink]

The reason why HK's democracy is so "immature" as you call it, is because the chief executive, in order to retain his postion, has to make all decisions according to the best interests of the central government, not the public. If democracy in HK is to "mature", the central government must first give free rein to key political figures.

"Certainly the recent behaviour of the Democrats leader in Australia is inappropriate and he has paid a price in public ridicule. But he didn't try and beat his own tax rise."

Are you saying that trying to beat his own tax rise is the worst thing a finance minister can do? Is that so much worse than what Mike above mentioned about Australia's politicans? The USA's? England's?

In HK "losing face" can be worse than doing time for politicians. We think differently, and even though what Antony Leung did was wrong, the fact that he was shamed publicly is punishment enough.

One last point. Democracy in HK is not THAT weak. Look at the recent protests, surely that is a sign that the citizens in HK aren't just puppets for businessmen to play with.

posted by: Connie on 07.13.04 at 11:47 AM [permalink]




Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?










Disclaimer