Carrie on Dreaming

Beleaguered Chief Secretary Carrie Lam appeared on the TV news a couple of days ago at the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Fun Day in front of a banner proclaiming:

 "Your Dreams.  Our Goals."

(Unfortunately I have not been able to find a photo of this online - perhaps the media are getting tired of reporting every boring move made by senior government figures.)

Apparently this is the HKIE's slogan, not the government's latest vacuous feel-good campaign, but it did get me thinking:

Some of My Dreams	The Government’s Goal?
Real democracy	X
Human rights	X
Protection of the Country Parks	X
Rule of law / judicial independence	X
Academic freedom	X
Universal pension scheme	X
A cap on tourist numbers	X
Conservation of historic heritage	X
No white elephant projects	X

I guess one man’s dream is another man’s (or Party’s) nightmare.

DAB'd If I Know

Odd Things Happening All Over

"Very odd things are happening nowadays in the Legislative Council," says Chief Secretary Carrie Lam.  And how right she is - there is the spectacle, for example, of her government colleague, Secretary for Commerce & Economic Development Greg So, arguing that the government can't approve the amendments to the Copyright Amendment Bill proposed by the pan-democrats because "they haven't been thoroughly discussed with the public".  In other words, he is arguing that LegCo should pass the bill even though, on his own admission, it has not been the subject of adequate public discussion.

It seems to be becoming a habit for this government to argue that something must be implemented immediately despite widespread objections, usually with the sop that it can be reviewed some time later (which it probably never will be).  One example of this was of course the fake universal suffrage bill.  Clearly they have never heard of the maxim "Get it right first time" (nor indeed, in many cases, grasped the concept of getting it right at all!)

Pretty odd things are going on outside LegCo as well.  For example Lifelong College, exposed by Apple Daily as peddling fake (or at least unearned) degrees to, among others, council members of Lingnan University, 17 police officers, a District Councillor (DAB, naturally - the party already has form in that area with the Quat Doctor), and a TVB actress, claims that the newspaper's exposé is “unethical”.  Richard Nixon should have tried that argument on the Washington Post.

And across the Pacific, Sarah Palin and her new best friend Donald Trump (they should form a singing duo called the Intellectual Lightweights) are blaming Barack Obama for the arrest of Palin's son, who got drunk and ran amok with a gun.  It's certainly true that mental health care for veterans could be improved, but given his mother's loopiness, Trick (what kind of name is that?) Palin's mental condition could owe as much to heredity as to his army service.

The Trump/Palin linkup is interesting.  For Palin, the lure is presumably another shot at the Vice-Presidency.  For Trump, putting Palin on the ticket could be a safeguard against assassination if he gets elected.  Who'd bump him off knowing that she was next in line to the White House?

PS - correction - that should be Track Palin, not Trick.  less tricky, but just as weird.

And yesterday Greg So told the media that the copyright bill had been the subject of very thorough public consultation - more or less the opposite of what he told LegCo the day before.   Duplicity is the word of the day.

Fairy Story

A little far-fetched, perhaps, but rather more credible than NPC member Ng Leung-sing's nasty little smear in LegCo yesterday - for which he has since half-heartedly apologised - which sounded as though he was reading it direct from a script drafted by some underling in the Liaison Office.  Ng is the idiot who asked in LegCo a few months ago if there was any health benefit from drinking lead-poisoned water.

In other fallout from this case, Page One books has, presumably under pressure, pulled anti-Beijing books from its shelves.  Time for a boycott of Page One?

Hi There Fearmonger

However, we did have an intelligent conversation - that may be a bit difficult for Trump to handle.

Speaking Frankly

Today would be Frank Sinatra's 100th birthday if he was still alive - and it's interesting how reactions to Sinatra define one's age.  When I was a teenager, growing up on the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan, Sinatra was the epitome of unhipness (though 20 years earlier he had been the very epitome of hipness).  A liking for Frank's records then would have guaranteed the ridicule of one's classmates - though plenty of older people were still buying them.  Yet over time I came to appreciate his art and enjoy his recordings - or at least his earlier ones.

I think part of the problem was that in his later years, Frank tried too hard to keep up with the changing times.  This led him to record material - like Hey Jude, and probably Paul Simon's worst song, Mrs Robinson - that were simply not right for his voice and style.  The result was somewhat embarrassing, like seeing one's grandmother twerking.  But within his own comfort zone, Sinatra was unmatchable.  No one making the transition from youth to middle age can fail to be moved by the album September of My Years, Sinatra's meditative musical reflections on turning 50.

As a young man, I saw my musical hero Bob Dylan and Sinatra as standing at opposite ends of the musical spectrum.  yet Dylan's most recent album, the Sinatra tribute Shadows in the Night, did not come out of nowhere.  Dylan sang at Sinatra's 80th birthday celebration, and probably grew up on his music the way I did on Bob's.  We all tend to remain most attached to the music of our youth.

I will have more to say about music another time, but for now, let me just echo Bob's words: "Happy Birthday, Mr Frank".  And if you want to deliver that message musically, you may be interested to learn that the ubiquitous song Happy Birthday to You is finally out of copyright.

Country Matters

It looks like the Rotary Club of Kowloon could use some spelling lessons!  Be that as it may, at a time when the water that Hong Kong imports from the mainland has been found to be heavily contaminated with bacteria, it's a good idea to demonstrate public support for our beleaguered country parks.  In addition to supplying much of our clean fresh water, they are a vital haven for wildlife as well as being ideal for hiking, birdwatching, cycling, photography, and general relaxation - not to mention a peaceful retreat from urban noise and chaos, something that will increasingly be essential if we are to retain our sanity in the face of JHong Kong's expected population growth.

So get out and enjoy their scenic beauty tomorrow, post your pictures online, and show the government that we don't want this precious asset handed over to property developers to be smothered in concrete.

Making It Better:
Save Our Country Parks Alliance - and also on Facebook

Bringing Down the Curtain

Terrible Twins

Trump Card

A number of American state governors are calling for a ban on Italian immigration following the St Valentine's Day Massacre, claiming that many Italians are terrorists and cannot be trusted.  Governor Bobby Swindle - himself a son of immigrants - spoke for them when he said: "They may look like peaceful refugees, but who knows how many more Al Capones are hiding among them?"

Meanwhile maverick presidential candidate Crazy Horse went further, calling for a total ban on all immigration by Christians.  "Time and again my people have been subjected to unprovoked terrorist attacks by white men claiming to be furthering Christian civilisation'" he said.  "The well-known terror incidents like Wounded Knee are part of a pattern of Christian terrorism against peaceful civilians - so many in fact that Wikipedia has a whole category listing Massacres of Native Americans.  The only solution is to stop all of these people, with their dangerous religious ideology, from entering the country.  We have no choice."

The Company They Keep

The Lunchbox Vote

True Colours

Sports Quiz

Q. What is the difference between the Hong Kong football team and the Hong Kong government?
A. The football team can stand up to China for 90 minutes; the government can't stand up to China at all.

What a bunch of spineless wimps we have running Hong Kong!  Nowhere else in the world would a reporter even consider it necessary to ask a government minister which team he was supporting when his local team was playing - and nowhere else would the answer be so equivocal.  So fearful are CY Leung and his minions of offending the central government that CY effectively evaded answering altogether, while Health Minister Ko Wing-man (whom I used to consider one of the more sensible members of the sorry crew that passes for a government here) hedged his bets by declaring support for both teams.

According to the Basic Law - to which the government constantly promotes adherence - the function of the Chief Executive is "to represent Hong Kong".  If he can't even be bothered to support the territory's sports teams against external opponents, he is obviously failing in this legal obligation, and should be sent off by the referee.  He usually appears to be playing for the away team anyway.

Some people aren't going to like this, but...

The massacre in Paris is of course horrific, but innocent civilians are getting killed every day by French, British, American, Russian and Syrian bombing.  Is it any less terrible because governments are doing it?  Why don't we see the same outcry against it?  I really want to know.

All the worst

As a general rule, I try not to delight in the misfortunes of others; and I have seen enough dysfunctional families to sympathise with those trapped in them.  Yet against my better judgement, I found it hard not to feel a smidgen of pleasure when reading this story yesterday.  CY Leung has caused so much harm to Hong Kong that it is only natural to feel a twinge of enjoyment at the discomfiture he must feel when seeing his family's dirty linen hung out in public.  Ignoble of me, sure, but I';d be willing to bet that many other Hongkongers feel the same way.

Triple Jeopardy

When someone is found innocent once and the prosecution appeals, one may suspect a miscarriage of justice.  When the person is cleared for a second time, only to face yet another trial, it begins to look very much like political persecution.

It is of course entirely coincidental that Stephen Chan supported Henry Tang for Chief Executive.

Photo borrowed from View Hong Kong blog.

Why is Queen Elizabeth II like a bar hostess?

Watching President Xi's visit to the UK on television, it suddenly occurred to me that the Queen's job is remarkably like that of a bar hostess.  Consider the similarities:

• You don't get to choose your guests - the [Prime Minister/Mama-san] does that for you.
• You have to be friendly and smiling towards them no matter how unlikeable they may be.
• Encounters tend to follow a standard - and not necessarily entirely truthful - script: [the long-established friendship between our two countries/You handsome man, me love you long time].
• Some subjects are best not discussed: [and this was seized by our troops when they looted the Summer Palace/Does your wife know you're here?]
• You have to encourage the guest to keep buying [British exports/drinks].

Cheers!

Up Yours

In view of the South China Porning Most's (as we may now call it) report that the above photograph shows "a naked victim pinned down in what appeared to be a [fire station] changing room while a group of men, some half-naked and others in firemen’s uniform, tried to insert an object in his bottom", the Fire Services Director's choice of words may have been a little unfortunate when he announced that the Fire Services Department would "launch its own internal probe".  Ouch!

Who wins?

Hong Kong has once again proved it is different from anywhere else on earth.  While I am sure there have been previous cases where FIFA has fined national teams because their fans have booed the anthem of an opposing country, this must be the first time in history that a team has been fined because its fans booed the anthem of their own country.  Beijing may consider the fine a victory for China, but is it?  In fact it could be seen as a moral victory for Hong Kong, because it draws the world's attention to the fact that many Hong Kong people do not want to show any allegiance to a dictatorial state they had no say in becoming part of.

Has it been a year already?

Last week was the first anniversary of the most inspiring event in Hong Kong since 1997.

 

Looking at President Xi Jinping at official meetings, have you noticed how he shakes hands then turns away - not to smile for the camera, but as if he is expressing disdain for the person he's greeting?  It's an odd mannerism for a politician.

Shock as British Politician Refuses to Commit Mass Murder

30 September - British politicians rushed to express their outrage today as new Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn stated that he would not be prepared to murder thousands of innocent people.

Prime Minister David Cameron said "Since the Crusades, indiscriminate slaughter has been an essential tool of British foreign policy.  Britain has a long and proud record of the brutal killing of enormous numbers of people - the starving of the Irish in the mid-19th century, the concentration camps of the Boer War, the Amritsar Massacre in 1919, the bombing of Dresden in 1945, Kenya and Malaya in the 1950s, and the genocide of Tasmania's aboriginal population, to name but a few.  Now this fellow Corbyn comes along and wants to overturn all this magnificent heritage of violence in favour of building world peace.  Has he no respect for tradition?"

Some members of Corbyn's own party joined in the angry criticism.  One asked "The Americans have at least one massacre a week in their own country.  How can we expect our American allies to take us seriously if we're not even prepared to drop the occasional nuke or two?'

Making It Better:
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

How many shoe-shiners does it take to commemorate the end of a war?

Almost 300, apparently.  Chief Executive CY Leung is leading a delegation of 296 handpicked Hongkongers to attend tomorrow's ceremony in Beijing at which the Chinese government will celebrate 70 years since the end of the Second World War and Japan's invasion of China by having large numbers of soldiers march around.  Presumably we - the Hong Kong public - are paying for this trip.

The list of those invited shows that most of them are the usual United Front suspects - from the Quat Doctor to the odious Robert Chow.  Some of them are multi-millionaires like James Tien and Allan Zeman who could easily afford to pay for their own tickets, though I doubt if they will be asked to.  A token 1% of the group is made up of representatives of the watered-down end of the pan-democratic spectrum, but the party as a whole is hardly a cross-section of Hong Kong society.

How many of these people, I wonder, bothered to attend the recent events marking Hong Kong's liberation from Japanese occupation - once a public holiday here - and paying tribute to those who fought and died for Hong Kong?  And how many of the few surviving warriors who fought for Hong Kong were invited to the event in Beijing? It would be nice to have a Hong Kong government that paid attention to Hong Kong occasionally, instead of being entirely focused on sucking up to the central government.

What, Me Worry?

Nevergreen

Does their compulsive urge to destroy beautiful vegetation stem from some deep-rooted childhood trauma over being forced to eat up their spinach or broccoli?

[First frame adapted from the delightful Calvin & Hobbes comic strips.]

Labour's Leadership Dilemma

It's ironic that while the remnants of the Blair/Brown New Labour leadership in Britain continue to label Jeremy Corbyn unelectable, ordinary Labour voters - and many who had given up on the party but are now flocking back to it - are voting for him in droves in the Party's leadership election, making him the clear favourite to win.

The essence of "New Labour" was the concept that only by abandoning almost everything it stood for could the Labour Party get elected to power.  That worked for a while - in part because of the charisma and enthusiasm of the then young Tony Blair - but resulted in an administration that was effectively a more Euro-friendly Thatcher Light - continuing to turn nationalised industries over to greedy businessmen at the expense of ordinary consumers, removing in the name of deregulation anything that protected people from unscrupulous corporations, and slavishly following America's catastrophic foreign ventures.

These policies certainly attracted a sizable number of middle-class voters away from the Tories, but they alienated many traditional Labour voters who held fast to the Party's principles - particularly in Scotland, where the generally left-wing Scottish National Party succeeded in capturing much of Labour's electoral base.  Now with the LibDems as a credible alternative effectively wiped out by their ill-judged alliance with the previous Tory government, with Tony Blair and his former ministers facing probable intense criticism in the long-delayed Chilcot report on their role in launching the disastrous Iraq War, with UKIP nibbling away at the Tory vote on the other end of the political spectrum, and with the 2008 banking crisis and the subsequent Eurozone crisis making the "New World Order" appear positively frayed at the seams, the time may just be right for an "Old Labour" revival.

I've been out of the UK so long that I've lost my right to vote there, but I shall be watching developments with interest.

More fiddling

CY Leung plays Nero again with a big announcement at his last LegCo appearance - primed by an obviously staged question from DAB leader Starry Lee.  I'm as much in favour of clean streets as the next man, but doesn't the government have more important things to do something about?  Their problem is that genuine solutions to the real problems would require offending either their Beijing overlords or the tycoons who control our economy, so they are forced to fall back on sideshows instead to give the appearance of doing something.

Private Beach Art

Our Private Beach by American artist Barbara Ann Whalley.  You can see another of her paintings here.

Booby Crap

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen announced today that, having taken legal advice following the recent conviction of a female protester for assaulting a police officer with her breast, the Hong Kong government now plans to prosecute every woman in Hong Kong for unlawful possession of offensive weapons.  Exceptions will however be made for girls below the age of puberty and women who have undergone a double mastectomy.

"It is true that we may need to construct many more jails to accommodate three million additional prisoners," said Yuen, "but we cannot afford to have half the population walking the streets freely with these fearsome devices attached to them.  This is a small price to pay to protect the safety of our gallant policemen."

Discord in the Wolf Den

The sudden stepping down of two government ministers yesterday provides fertile fodder for speculation, particularly as Chief Executive CY Leung was typically less than forthcoming in his announcement: "I shouldn't discuss in public the background, the details of these changes, but suffice to say that both gentlemen will soon issue a press release in their own names and you will soon be able to find out the reason why".  Except we didn't find out - Home Affairs Secretary Tsang Tak-sing merely said he was "glad to retire", while Civil Service Secretary Paul Tang  cited unspecified family circumstances and expressed a desire to spend more time with his family - always a popular excuse for politicians eager not to discuss the reasons for their departure.

Leung should of course discuss the circumstances in public - firstly because we pay the government's salaries and are entitled to know what is going on; and secondly because uncertainty breeds rumours which can often be more damaging than unpalatable truths.  The mystery is compounded by the fact that the men were variously described as having been removed, retired or resigned.  Given that the two cases came at the same time, one must suspect that they reflect disagreements within Leung's inner circle rather than mere coincidence.  It's doubtful the ministers were sacked for incompetence, because there are far more obvious candidates for that fate - useless (National) Education Secretary Eddie Ng and Financial Secretary John "Never a Correct Forecast" Tsang spring to mind.  Maybe, according to Regina Ip's bizarre theory, the two were just too introverted for their posts.  Or perhaps Tsang Tak-sing, like his brother Jasper, showed occasional heretical signs of thinking outside the Beijing box, despite being a lifelong loyalist. 

Loyalty is hardly a quality one can attribute to Tsang's replacement, Homer Simpson lookalike Lau Kong-wah - an opportunist turncoat who (it is often forgotten) began his career as a democrat before switching sides to the DAB, making him probably the only politician to have lost LegCo elections on both sides of the political divide.  Despite being soundly rejected by the voters in the last LegCo poll, he wormed his way back into a position of power when CY indicated his contempt for the electorate by appointing Lau as Undersecretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs.  Having demonstrated his incompetence in this role with the failure of the government's political reform package, he is now being rewarded with a promotion.  Curiouser and curiouser.

Another strange appointment announced yesterday is that of former Housing Director Duncan Pescod as the umpteenth chief executive of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority - supposedly after a worldwide search, which sounds unlikely.  Strange because we had people with an arts background - none of whom stayed long - appointed during the phase when construction of the buildings was the main concern, and now we have someone with a housing background when we are supposedly getting close to seeing some actual cultural activity on the site.  But then this mega-project has been mishandled from the beginning - true to Hong Kong's preoccupation with enriching the property developers, debate on what should be constructed on the site took precedence over actually determining the community's cultural needs and wishes first and building to meet them.

Acknowledgement - the picture is from the Wolves Throne blog.

The Hong Kong Government Finds a New Enemy - on Two Wheels

In its never-ending vigilance against threats to the community, the Hong Kong government has identified a new danger to the public - an elderly bicycle repair man.  After recently taking action against another elderly man for the heinous crime of telling a fib about his age so he could continue working past retirement age, the authorities are now descending to an even lower level of petty-mindedness.

If they really want to punish people for obstructing the streets, why don't they take action against the masses of smugglers who routinely block entire thoroughfares in the northern New Territories to sort out their goods?  Or do they just like to pick on easy targets who are not doing any harm?

The Middle Way

 

Incidentally, does the Pro-China Morning Post have no competent sub-editors left after its recent purges?  The prepositions here are all over the place, and there's a definite article missing:

See also: The Middle Is a Lonely Place

The middle is a lonely place

Poor Ronny was a lonely boy.  He searched through the whole LegCo playground for someone to play his favourite game, Consensus, with.  But he soon found that all the other children in the playground belonged to a gang.  On one side was the Pan-Dem Gang.  Ronny joined them for a while, but they only wanted to play Pure Democracy, and they could never agree on who should be leader of the gang.

Across the playground was the Beijing Gang.  They claimed to rule the playground, but were so incompetent that when they had a fight scheduled against the Pan-Dem Gang, 34 of them didn't even turn up in time to take part - and half of them didn't even like their own gang leader, Big Bad Wolf.  The Beijing Gang claimed they also wanted to play Consensus, but Ronny soon found that under their rules, you had to agree with them on everything.  That wasn't the version of the game that he enjoyed.

In the end poor little Ronny became so sad that he decided to leave the playground altogether and go away to play somewhere else by himself.

Uncle Jeffrey's Advice Column

Follow that scream

Is you is or is you ain't my country?

The defeat of the government's ill-conceived political reform package would by itself have made yesterday a delightful day.  The cock-up which saw most of the pro-government legislators miss the vote in an apparent botched attempt to trigger a quorum count is just wonderful icing on the cake.

While speculation on how they could be so stupid will no doubt continue for weeks, one other odd thing about yesterday also calls out for an explanation.  The predictable frosty statement from Beijing, curtly stating that this outcome is not what the Central People's Government wanted, was delivered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  Given that the CPG is usually so sensitive about any suggestion that Hong Kong (or any other area not totally thrilled to be part of the country, for that matter) could possibly be anything other than an integral and never-to-be-severed part of the glorious motherland, it seems strange that the statement came from the Ministry supposedly dedicated to dealing with the barbarians outside the Celestial Empire.  Any explanations?

Seven Reasons the Pan-Democrats Must Stand Firm

It was Parliament of Liars time yesterday as the Legislative Council began its long-awaited debate on the government's political reform package.  Before the members began their dissection of the bill, its two main proponents both used misleading and arguably downright dishonest arguments in its support.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, as ATV news reported it, "told lawmakers that the public opinion is clear" and they should vote accordingly.  Excuse me?!  It is true that a few months ago the package commanded modest net support (though never an absolute majority) in the opinion polls, but opinion has gradually been swinging against it, with some recent polls showing more voters against it than in favour.  Certainly there is no great public consensus welcoming the package - it would be truer to say that public opinion is deeply divided on the issue.

Then Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen "told lawmakers that the government's political reform package has made use of all the leeway available under Beijing's framework for the 2017 Chief Executive election" (ATV again).  "Yuen also dismissed suggestions by the pan-democrats that the nominating committee would serve to vet candidates based on their political inclinations, and anyone who wanted to run for the top job could do so if they get the support of the committee."  This is about as meaningful as saying that "anyone who wants to can be rich in Hong Kong if they can win the Mark Six lottery" - we all know that the whole point of the nominating committee is to ensure that only Beijing's favoured candidates can get on the ballot.

The overall thrust of Yuen's argument was to paint the limitations on democracy as a legal matter about which nothing could be done.  This drew an uncommonly caustic response outside the chamber from the usually urbane Civic Party leader Alan Leong, himself a lawyer: "I would respectfully ask the Secretary for Justice to shut up!"

As the debate continues today, the likely outcome appears pretty much as expected.  But just in case any of the pan-democrats may be wavering in their determination to veto the bill, here are seven good reasons why they should stick to their guns:

1. Public opinion is far from solidly in favour of it - see above - and the 40% of the population opposed to it deserve to have their voice heard.
2. It is not a legal matter - the biggest flaw in the Basic Law is that the body charged with interpreting it is not an impartial legal tribunal, but a partisan political body with a vested interest in the outcome of its own decisions.  The NPCSC's interpretations of the Basic Law are inevitably political decisions, made in China's perceived interests.  This means that far from being an immovable barrier to progress, as Rimsky Yuen suggests, they can be changed if the Central People's Government can be persuaded that it is in their interest to do so.  Though the SAR government is pretending that the current decision - whichever way it goes - marks the end of the debate, the need for a more genuinely representative system in Hong Kong will if anything become more apparent in the months ahead, and the issue will inevitably be reopened, with the possibility of a different decision.  Indeed the Basic Law specifically states that certain decisions will be made in the light of "the actual situation in Hong Kong".
3. Legislators are not robots - even if it were true that public opinion largely supported the package, it has long been accepted that elected representatives in a parliamentary democracy are not delegates, bound to follow the public's wishes.  Indeed, if that were so, we could have government by public opinion poll with no need for a legislature at all.  Any student of politics will be familiar with Edmund Burke's classic statement of this principle in 1774: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion".  Our legislators may not always be wiser than us, but they should at least be better-informed on the matters they deal with - it is part of their job to be so. 
4. Right is right and wrong is wrong - following on from this principle, even if a majority of the public support a particular position, that does not automatically make it right - otherwise we would still believe that the Earth is flat.  A legislator who considers something wrong has a duty to follow his conscience and vote against it.  Without this, we could never have moral leadership in politics.  Many of the great advances in human progress - civil rights, the abolition of slavery, the end of capital punishment - have not initially enjoyed overwhelming popular support, but were pushed forward by courageous and far-sighted politicians.
5. Responsibility to constituents - notwithstanding that elected representatives are not obliged to follow every whim of the public, there is an expectation that they will nevertheless stick to the general principles on which they sought election.  The pan-democrats were voted into office by those who wanted them to pursue genuine democracy, and it would be a betrayal of their constituents to settle for the fake version offered by the government.
6. Hypocrisy - the government's claim that LegCo members should follow public opinion is of course merely a tactic, not a principle - you would have to be very naive to believe that if the opinion polls suddenly showed 60% solidly against the reform bill, the government would start telling the DAB to vote against it on the same basis!
7. The consequences - but what is so bad about the government's package?  Mainly this: the biggest danger is that the proposed system, while systematically excluding large swathes of public opinion from candidacy, gives an illusion of democratic choice.  The next CE could - and probably would - use this spurious mandate as an excuse to pursue policies which would advance the CCP's apparent agenda of cultural assimilation, tilting further towards "One Country" and weakening the "Two Systems" safeguards which keep Hong Kong worth living in.

Spot the Contradiction (1)

14 June 2015 - Chief Executive CY Leung pays his respects at the funeral of Yeung Kwong, a ringleader of the 1967 riots in which 51 people were killed, mostly by bombs.

16 June 2015 - Chief Executive CY Leung warns that illegal activities will not be tolerated in Hong Kong following the alleged discovery of bomb-making materials in Sai Kung.