Eldon-Online

To Be Or Not To Be ... Hong Kong Elections!

To be, or not to be: that is the question: 

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer 

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, 

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, 

And by opposing end them? 

Wm Shakespeare (Hamlet) 

 Shakespeare had a much greater talent than most of us for expressing ideas succinctly – and asking questions the same way. But while the meaning in this speech by Hamlet was whether it is better to live or die, it is not my intention to go quite that far! 

By freely expressing your thoughts on politics or religion, no matter how well intentioned, you stand to lose more friends than you might expect, which is one reason I rarely get involved publicly, preferring to remain blissfully ignorant on the side lines of the machinations being undertaken - over which I have absolutely no control; not a good situation if you're a bit of a control freak! 

But first, let me take a step back.

Although it might have been the best deal on the table at the time, the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997 left Hong Kong with a somewhat unwieldy or even "unworkable" political structure.

In simplistic terms, the recipe was:

a) Take a Civil Service (and a very good one at that), and call it Government. It was unelected, unable to be voted out of "power", yet it was to be held accountable for whatever decisions it took.

b) Elect 30 representatives by a process of universal suffrage out of geographical constituencies, and 30 representatives from a series of “functional constituencies", generally representing business interests.

c) Create a Legislative Council (Legco), put all 60 representatives inside and call it - for want of a better word - opposition, who are actually accountable for very little.

Although there is provision in Hong Kong's Basic Law for full universal suffrage, this is unlikely to happen for some time yet and therefore political parties in Legco (represented largely by the 30 geographical constituencies) will be waiting a while before they might be in position to form a Government. So they tend to say whatever they think will get them re-elected even perhaps if they think the "Government" is probably correct. But agreeing with the Government does not appeal to most of the 45% (2008 figures; last Legco election) of eligible voters who bother to exercise that right. Apathy reigns with the remainder.

The election of Hong Kong's Chief Executive follows another system. It is an "election" decided by an Electoral Committee that represents around 0.01% of Hong Kong's population

Traditionally it appears to be done on a nod and a wink from Beijing, with their candidate then endorsed by the Committee after, of course, long and serious debate on the merits - or otherwise - of the candidates before them. In the past, the process has been reasonably clear-cut, and so it looked this time round until recently.

The favoured candidate, according to the people who should know, was Henry Tang, until recently the Chief Secretary of Hong Kong - he stepped down to concentrate on running for Chief Executive role. In the background was the seemingly less likely C Y Leung. Former Convener of Hong Kong's Executive Council, and widely reported to be unpopular.

But then the wheels started to come off Mr. Tang's train. First there was his admission last year of infidelity, but his wife stood squarely behind him and all was forgiven apparently. After all, he would not be the first among a list of leaders who have strayed - and undoubtedly will not be the last.

But perhaps strangely, a little before that admission was made came a flurry of views in the Chinese press that were suddenly supportive of Mr. Leung. No particular reason seemed to be forthcoming - but it was as if the media had suddenly woken to the qualities of the candidate in second-place. Being of cynical mind, I don't suppose this would have been anything to do with people in high places becoming aware of the announcement about to be made, and deciding to "float" the idea of a credible new candidate?

And so it has continued. In the best traditions of politicking, little gossipy things were hitting the media on and about both camps - and then came the bombshell. Or should that be bomb shelter!

The "discovery" of an illegal structure having been built under a home owned by Mrs. Tang. Not, of course, the first time that illegal structures have featured in Hong Kong, some belonging to senior people in both private and public sectors, but once found usually dealt with quickly and removed. It is harder though, to remove a 2,300 sq ft (214 sq m) illegal construction built under a property.

The suggestion that it could have been an oversight was hastily dismissed, and then the previously supportive Mrs. Tang was made to tearfully confess that it was all her idea.

If the people who make the decisions about who should, or should not, be elected were worried about the earlier admissions - they must be positively stressed out by this one. But what happens next is beyond the knowledge of a non-Chinese foreigner. We shall have to wait and see, although the question Henry Tang must be asking himself is "To be ... or not to be"?

If the polls are anything to go by, the public view is that Mr. Tang should not stand for election. I can only suggest another quotation, while he thinks about it:

To lead people, walk beside them ... As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence. The next best, the people honor and praise. The next, the people fear; and the next, the people hate. 

Lao-tzu - Chinese philosopher - 6th Century BC 

 

A Lesson For Us All

A normal day in Hong Kong. Noise pollution with dust and debris from the site across the street as yet another building in Central is demolished, prior to the construction of a new shiny bank head office, making concentration difficult. Particulate pollution in the air where the quality of the oxygen we breathe is regularly tainted - at times to alarming degrees,but mostly imported pollution of course, according to the Government. Amazing how it lingers at the road side - nothing to do with the cars then. That's good! Streets where traffic flow is impeded thanks to the actions of some overly self-important citizens - or their shopping bag laden spouses - who demand that their driver waits for them outside the Prince's Building, double or triple-parked until they emerge, having scant regard or care about the inconvenience they cause others. People in a hurry, grim-faced as they weave a passage through the crowds of people.

Despite all the negatives, Hong Kong works. It's a "material" city, but as long as your own sense of values does not get distorted, and you can live with the selfishness and the pollution, you can negotiate a path of your own making. You have that freedom.And we are lucky enough to live in a city that has almost full employment at present, with less than 3.5% unemployed. With a pretty good infrastructure, low taxes, good medical facilities and a high standard of education. 

So, if on balance it's not too bad, what brought about this retrospective? It was a recent visit to a school in South Africa! To a part of the country where pollution levels are non existent, where all you see around you is greenery with mountains in the distance. Not many cars - at least privately owned ones. Where the pace of life is very different. And the people are very poor.

It is a school that caters to a number of villages, thirteen in all, in the North East of the country. But where in contrast to Hong Kong, unemployment runs at a staggering 60% - and the level of illiteracy is at a similar level. A school where a little over 40 teachers cope with nearly 1400 children, where one teacher told me she had 56 pupils in her class, and that she had them all day. Perhaps not an uncommon statistic in many developing countries. But it's shocking.

Some 18 months prior to the visit, as a result of continuing to be impressed by the work done by charities such as Room to Read, about which I have written before, our family had made a donation towards facilities for this school. Although we had been kept informed about the progress of the school, we found ourselves unexpectedly in the region and on the off-chance asked whether a visit might be possible. Clearly we did not want to cause any disruption to the school's regular activities, nor did we want any special treatment, and the charities themselves are not really geared up to arranging such visits. The school's Principal was to say the least, accommodating, welcoming, charismatic and ...yes, absolutely inspirational. I cannot think of a better description for her.

Here, in the middle of nowhere, was a "facility" designed to improve through education the plight of thousands. How else can you describe the phenomenon whereby 1400 students turn up for school regularly, neatly dressed, and who are eager to learn. Students, some of who travel for more than a couple of hours - in each direction - between home and school, and not in comfortable air conditioned chauffeur driven cars! And if the genuinely happy smiles of the children, the evident rapport between the teachers and then the teachers with the children, the openness with which everyone in the school interacted, and indeed if the results achieved by the pupils themselves are anything to go by, this is a school blessed by dedication and by love. And it provides a lesson for us all.

Were we moved? Of course we were. I think everyone who genuinely feels that they might have contributed to "making a difference" - no matter how large or small that contribution - should be happy to have done so. Oh! And why did I say "genuinely"? Because it is sometimes too easy, especially as a corporation for example, when asked to donate or contribute to a cause, to do so because it is a "suitable cause" that fulfills your corporate social responsibility, without thinking too deeply about the positive impact that the $10,000 or $1m you can so easily afford, will have on so many lives. That is not to imply that the corporations don't "care", of course they do, but they need to think carefully about the impact on the donees, not just their CSR Committee.

This is where, and how, hope begins. This is what Room to Read, and others, do. And if I may paraphrase the Room to Read motto, opportunities for education exist in the developing countries of Asia, Africa or Latin America, and with educated children you create a better understanding of the world, with which will come positive progress.

Syria - No Excuse For China!

 

I know that through my Blog I have sometimes been described as an apologist for China. If it is the impression I give, so be it, even if I do not agree with the "label". But I do admit to having been conscious for a long time that many in the West fear China without understanding it. They want nothing more than to see China fall flat on its face, so they can continue to do as they have always done without having to face the inevitable economic competition that China brings. They do not want to acknowledge the progress made by China, certainly economically, and at a somewhat slower pace – socially.

My Blogs have therefore, where appropriate – and generally avoiding the “politics” of it all on which I am less qualified to comment – been an attempt to maintain a balance and keep matters in some sort of perspective. This does not make me blind to the faults of China, of which there are many, and accept that anything China does is okay.  Syria is a case in point.

The United Nations may not be the most effective body in the world, but in matters of global security it is the best we have got. If there were serious alternatives I guess they would have found them by now. It is a forum for the nations of the world to express their views on issues of the day, and there can be no more pressing issue than that of the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Frankly, as I have said before, this is an issue that the Arab nations themselves should deal with, and indeed the Arab League has been active for once, following its remarkable absence in the case of Libya where it basically hid behind the Western forces and used them as their shield to defeat Gaddafi.

Surely, the wanton murder – for there is no other word to describe it – of civilians under a brutal and despotic regime should be a cause for concern of any nation of right minded people. How can it be that China (and Russia of course), in full consciousness, does not share in the condemnation of such acts? The view expressed by the Russians (and presumably shared by China) – that approval of the UN resolution might lead to a Western-driven attempt to overthrow another Arab regime - is frankly ludicrous. The Arabs themselves want to overthrow the regime. The majority of the people in Syria, it would seem, want to overthrow their Dictator. But are currently powerless to do so. 

So with China’s veto of the resolution, the killings continue indiscriminately. 

I honestly cannot believe that the vast majority of the Chinese I know, if not all – were they able to express their views in something as simple as a referendum for example – think they should allow this situation to continue unchecked. 

One final thought. In the late 1970’s China started to emerge into the world rather like a newborn baby. It was huge in size, but unsophisticated in thought.  A rather gangly ungainly “teenager” was how I described it. Fast-forward 35 years, and there is no doubt the country has made huge positive strides in so many areas. But China is now looking outside its boundaries for future supplies of food, raw materials - and oil, of course. Its reserves and wealth have made it a major part of the global economy, with aspirations perhaps to run world bodies like the IMF for example. But if it is not prepared to be a part of the world, a humanitarian world, then the shutters will inevitably start to fall.

Russia is already falling backwards. I sincerely hope that China does not follow suit.