Stephen Vines’ column in today’s SCMP, and the Editorial column in the Ming Pao, both sounded a note of caution over the perceived victory of the Government in the political reform votes.
The Ming Pao editorial observed that, while the Chief Executive and his Cabinet had reason for excitement after the arduous passage of both proposals, the characterisation of their passage as a “victory for rationality” is hubristic given the heavy price paid by the Democratic Party. The column cited the belated adoption of the Democratic Party proposal by the Tsang government as the primary reason for the difficulties faced by the Democrats. Informed of the Governmental go-ahead a mere 2 days before the legislative debate, the Democratic Party lacked the time to build internal consensus, let alone explain the modified proposal to others in the pan-Democratic camp - resulting in the subsequent intra-party and inter-party divisions.
The Ming Pao editorial further noted that the Government’s belated adoption of the Democrats’ proposal also offended Royalist politicians, many of whom made their sourness at being taken for granted known in the legislative debate - and took the opportunity to snipe at the Government’s “Act Now” (also referred to on Nathan Road as “Weigh Anchor” from the Chinese) campaign. As the column noted, the execution of the campaign was botched from start to finish, resulting in increased social division rather than the building of consensus. For the Chief Executive to invite the Civic Party’s Audrey Eu to a televised debate after the disastrous 17.1% voter turnout of the Civic Party’s and League of Social Democrats’ de facto referendum could have been a prime opportunity for Tsang to spring a surprise on Eu. However, as the paper noted, the debate significantly diminished public support for the proposals - and highlighted the paucity of Tsang’s political ability and judgment.
In such circumstances, the Ming Pao editorial argues, it is blatantly inappropriate for the Government to gloat - what it should be doing is to display humility and act to heal social divisions. The paper criticised Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Minister Stephen Lam for his arrogant gloating in Legco after the vote, which did nothing but aggravate existing social rifts.
Stephen Vines’ column, while touching on many of these points, focused more on the winners and losers of the entire process. Vines noted that the Central Government’s direct involvement in negotiations had “shattered” any vestige of authority and credibility the SAR Government might have had and had fatally undermined “One Country, Two Systems”. The swift volte-face by members of the Royalist camp, Vines further argues, had the effect of reducing the rule of law to nothing more than political expediency. [Palmerston: This does not strike your corresponding as being terribly surprising, or even new - any objective study of the previous NPCSC interpretations of the Basic Law will reach exactly the same conclusion.] Vines considered it likely that the Democratic Party would lose its mantle of political leadership as disillusion set in over the modified proposals amounting to little more than entrapment. However, Vines noted that the Civic Party - one likely successor as the vanguard of the pan-Democratic camp - was itself divided by participation in the referendum and by its perceived closeness to the LSD. Ultimately, Vines concluded, the only political force which had indubitably improved its position was the LSD.
