Probably from orders from our CE, our police acted with the "maximum restraint" but with "determination" and took such "decisive action" as C Y calls it, by using pepper sprays and then tear gas and arrested our student leaders and searched their homes and then detained them until the statutory limit of 48 hours "detention without trial" was nearly up and for the student leader Wong, only after the court ordered them to do so under the common law principle of Habeas Corpus and for the other two student leaders, only after the High Court's decision on Wong.
Vis-à- vis the action of the students and then of ordinary citizens took, what did C Y do? He had very little to say in his TV appearance and merely repeated what he had repeated a million times:
(1) we should continue to talk about getting a solution to the details of "universal suffrage" in 2017 with peaceful means
(2) those anxious for true democracy should not disrupt law and order
(3) the purpose of (1) and (2) is that Hong Kong should continue to prosper.
(4) He has no power to "demand" the People's Congress to rescind its decision.
On the surface, C Y appears to be quite "rational". But at the same time, he seems quite firm that everything must be done within the framework of the Basic Law and the decision of the People's Congress of the PRC ie. there shall be restrictions upon "who" is eligible to be elected as our CE, eg. that the nominee must be "patriotic" to China, something which is entirely outside of the ambit of our written Basic Law and in addition a "quality" which is quite "subjective" and even if it were (for which there is no legal basis), then according to normal legal principles, the courts will never "enforce" any provision which is not capable of being precisely "defined" for the simple reason that it is a fundamental principle the "rule of law" that law itself be "certain". If a term is vague and ambiguous ie. capable of many different equally reasonable interpretations, the court will not know which of such interpretation is the "correct" one to adopt. In effect, the requirement declared by the People's Congress that the candidate for all our future CE's must be a "patriot" ( a requirement which does not appear in our Basic Law,) will certainly in practice come to mean that he/she must be a candidate subjectively "approved" of by the PRC government. This is clearly something NOT in accordance with an unbiased interpretation of our Basic Law.
With regard to (4), he seems to be engaging in another "verbal play". Demand can be understood in two senses. One can demand for something as a matter of "legal right". If so, he is right. But one can also "demand" for something as a "political" demand. In that case, whether a demand will be satisfied is a matter of political bargaining and negotiation. Did he really try to tell Beijing the demand of the majority of the people of Hong Kong for true democracy. Did he truly reflect our views? If he really did, I am sure that he knows very well that it will serve his own interest to show the citizens of Hong Kong all such evidence. Since despite being such a scheming and self-serving person as he has shown himself to be, if we may rely on what is reported in our media, he has never given us any such evidence that he really did so, it is reasonable for us to infer that he never did so.
With regard to (3), I suppose by "prosperity" he really means prosperity for our land developers, financial services and tourist services" because there is little evidence that outside of these three sectors, there is any "prosperity" for the little guys under CY's bungling "leadership".
With regard to (1), we have been talking peacefully for universal suffrage for electing our CE for nearly 20 years. It is obvious we are not getting anywhere. Is he blind or deaf or is he both blind and deaf and in addition, not in possession of a mind?
So that leaves us with (2). With regard to that, CY emphasized the importance of our citizen observing the law. If as our CE, he does not defend our rights under the Basic Law and in fact actively colludes with others to go against the express provisions of our Basic Law, I wonder what right he still has to to ask the ordinary citizens not to disrupt law and order. True democracy is a matter of the greatest importance to all the citizens of Hong Kong because it affects what our government will or will not do with respect to our education, our tax system, our economic policies, our social security, our medical services, our transportation polices, our housing policies, our public health and sanitation policies, our immigration policies and on a deeper level the question of our social and political equality and freedoms. Hence our rights under the Basic law need to be guarded against with the utmost vigilance. If the government does not do it for us, we must do it for ourselves, by standing firm and saying "no" to what we know to be something against the express provisions of the Basic Law.
Shall there be one law for our CE and another for our citizens? If CY blatantly disrespects the express provisions of our Basic Law and actively colludes with its breach, I wonder on what basis he still has any moral, political and legal right to urge us to to not to do the same. In fact, if we were to do what he expressly urges us to do (without even the ability to understand the true import of what he is saying) it shall be our duty to defend the Basic Law ie. to insist that no extraneous conditions be imposed on the qualification for being a candidate of our next CE. This is precisely something he appears resolutely determined ("堅定不移) NOT to do. If for no other reasons ( in this respect, there are tons of such other reasons), he is no longer fit and proper to be our CE. If there is still any shred of decency left in him, he must step down as our CE without further ado. He does not have any choice.
沒有留言:
張貼留言