letters@scmp.com

I refer to Alex Lo's October 23rd's article titled 'Policies on HK are more forward-looking" where he states "US President Donald Trump's unexpected victory has been a godsend. It exposes the unreliability and irresponsibility of a democratic society".  Actually, Trump's election does not do such a thing at all. Quite the contrary, it shows that through the electoral system, democracy has lots of checks and balance which makes it incredibly hard for Trump to push the most radical parts of his agenda. Something that would not happen in China as we see Jinping giving himself unchecked powers.

Actually, Democracy has been the most stable political system since the industrial revolution; a system most adapted to balance the need economic growth, and popular desires.

This is what the autocrats such as Mr Lo fail to understand about democracy: it trades short-term "disorder" for long-term stability, while dictatorships are orderly through force in the short-run and invariably finish in revolutions of the people.

JC Clement



The original article from South China Morning Post:
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2116517/policies-hong-kong-are-more-forward-looking 

"Policies on Hong Kong are more forward-looking

Xi Jinping’s speech was without the warnings given by Hu Jintao against “external forces” and the need for a “grand united front”. Instead the focus was on long-term stability and prosperity

Critics of China will beg to differ but the policies of the central government annunciated by President Xi Jinping towards Hong Kong during the 19th national congress have been much more positive and forward-looking.

Gone are the warnings against “external forces” and the need for a “grand united front” in the speech given by then retiring president Hu Jintao at the 18th congress. Instead the focus is on long-term stability and prosperity, with such initiatives as the economic development of the Greater Bay Area of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macau.

Concerns about foreign interference cumulated with the Occupy protests of 2014. But as the so-called yellow umbrella movement dies down, so too have fears about political intervention by foreign forces.

Meanwhile, the split within the loyalist camp between the so-called Leung gang (named after ex-chief executive Leung Chun-ying) and the Tang camp (after Henry Tang Ying-yen, his defeated electoral rival) has been mended under pressure from Beijing.

The tone of the central government today is much more confident and assertive. No wonder; after the debacle of the city’s failed electoral reform, Beijing has essentially forced all the major Western governments to concede that Hong Kong is solely a matter of China’s internal affairs. Besides lip service, no Western government will stand up for autonomy claims made by the local opposition.

US President Donald Trump’s unexpected victory has been a godsend. It exposes the unreliability and irresponsibility of a democratic society. As the most unprepared and inexperienced president in post-war US history, Trump makes Xi look like a world-class statesman.

No Western country can take a meaningful stance against China without US backing, not even Britain, now deeply mired in Brexit. And over Hong Kong, there is virtually no hope or incentive for them.

So all the noises being made about Hong Kong by busybodies, usually from the US and Britain, are just that – noises. Tory activist Benedict Rogers being barred from entering Hong Kong? Good for a few news headlines. The report by the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China on “the long-term viability of ‘one country, two systems’? Nobody reads it. Marco Rubio, who?

Hong Kong has a great future when it can sort out a workable and amiable relationship with the rest of the country. Its opposition camp just needs to stop all that self-destructive foolishness thinking it can buddy with Western governments to put pressure on Beijing."

A trifecta of crass ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and grand-standing for Alex Lo and Michael Chugani

Letters to the Editor (SCMP). March 4^th, 2016

A trifecta of crass ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and grand-standing for Alex Lo and Michael Chugani in Marchst 1^st pages of the SCMP.

Lo asks: “But how does becoming a city state shield us from “mainlandisation”, when we are already a kind of a city state, with our own border control, separate law, taxation, government, currency and international representation?”
Because then Hong Kong wouldn’t be accountable to Bejing, would be on the fast-track to Democracy, and would be able to ensure that the values it cherishes and that have made it what it is today (the rule-of-law, independent judiciary, freedom-of-the-press, respect of private property and initiative, etc…) would be enshrined in a constitution that is not the product of a dictatorship.

A few pages later, Michael Chugani’s piece “Just imagine an independent Hong Kong” gets the prize for ridiculous; I understand he tries to be cynical (funny?) with his story-line reversal but it is such a fabulation that it loses any relevance. An independent Hong Kong would buy food, water and welcome visitors the same way it is doing now. We could in fact argue that it would get better quality version of all of them from somewhere else!  Actually, mainland China already tried to impose Putonghua, has shown numerous times that it will crush protests, and has little regards for the rule-of-law… no need to wait for 2025.

Luckily, Mike Rowse has brought some clarity (and sanity) to the rule-of-law debate on his 28^th of February article titled “Hong Kong’s rule of law is safe from street rioters” where he rightly explains the concept as “the legal principle that law should govern a community, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual officials”. Or simply, that everyone is equal before the law (no matter what Mr. C.Y. Leung might say). It can actually be read as such, straight from the Hong Kong’s Department of Justice’s publications and website (go have a look!).

I invite Hong Kongers to study the struggle for democracy, its essential pillars, its progress and achievements in the last few hundred years and contrast it with the outcomes of one-party systems.

I invite Mr. Chugani, and Lo to reflect on what is going to happen in 2047, once “One country, two systems” is no-more…

JC Clement

Tai Kok Tsui