To no-one’s great surprise, Hong Kong’s new government gives up trying to push its bureaucratic restructuring through the Legislative Council. The spin is that a few filibustering radicals should not be allowed to prevent innocent Hong Kong people from enjoying the life-enhancing measures being held up by the delay. It is a predictable enough angle, but it ignores the role played by lack of support among supposedly pro-establishment lawmakers.
This isn’t how it’s supposed to work. The phrase ‘executive-led government’ in Hong Kong’s Basic Law is a euphemism for government securely led by trustworthy folk acceptable to and appointed by Beijing. Just as the Election Committee that pretends to choose the Chief Executive is rigged, so – in theory – is the Legislative Council. The composition of Functional Constituencies is carefully designed to guarantee a loyalist bloc in the legislature that has the power to veto undesirable measures and the ability to join with directly elected pro-Beijing members to override pro-democrat opposition to desirable ones.
In practice, it doesn’t always work. This is partly because some FC members are billionaires who balk at getting out of bed at night to help get budgets through. But increasingly it is because some of the supposed loyalists are sullenly unreliable. The Liberal Party in particular, partly in a huff about CY Leung rather than Henry Tang becoming CE and partly out of self-preservation ahead of September’s legislative elections, are acting as a semi-opposition. (They did the same in 2003 by withdrawing support for Tung Chee-hwa’s Article 23 law.)
This means that they – in theory, again – are blocking the Chinese Communist Party’s ultimate and absolute control over the Big Lychee. Of course, if Legco tried to pass measures to pass control of Hong Kong to American and Taiwanese splittists, the Liberals would fall into line without question, but it is a supremely important principle. To Beijing officials monitoring Hong Kong, something and/or someone will need to be put right.
Meanwhile, today’s Standard leads with a ‘shock survey’ showing that “people willing to be interviewed on the street tend to be more liberal,” so rough and ready polls carried out by political parties are unreliable. Which is something we have long known; such surveys, employing leading questions, just create cheap publicity and give interns something to do. And that’s just as well given that this most recent opinion poll reveals Hong Kong people to be miscegenation-obsessed race-traitors. The research shows that 59% of males and 70% of females would rather marry a non-Chinese (we have to presume that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment Etc of HK, which did the survey, questioned only ethnic Chinese).
DAB spokeswoman Elizabeth Quat, perhaps forgetting momentarily that she is supposed to adhere to Beijing’s line on everything, breezily concludes that Hongkongers are more liberal and (you almost get the impression) are perfectly right to think Western culture is superior. A Chinese U academic on the other hand, stuck in his ivory tower and deluded by crackpot sociological theory, insists that Hongkongers are just money-grubbing vermin gold-diggers.
Either way, who would have thought it? For Americans who believe the Book of Genesis is science and Barack Obama is a Muslim; to Canadians whose response to external stimuli is to stare into space with blank, uncomprehending eyes; and to the British, grunting monosyllables and stuffing deep-fried pizza into their faces… there is hope.