[原創] On Democracy in Hong Kong, plagarising pearltea lor

When we talk about democracy, there is usually a very specific form of democracy in mind. A brief search on wikipedia, will give quite a few variations of how democracy can be implemented into government. Rather than giving a run down of the various forms of democracy, I want to point out a few observations that I found to be rather interesting, especially in a philosophical sense. My aim here is not to challenge or change anybody's views, but to challenge assumptions that more often than not are simply taken for granted. As indicated in the title, I want to use the issue regarding democracy in Hong Kong as my example for discussion.

When we say we want "democracy" in HK, what specific form of democracy are we arguing over? More specifically, if "democracy" as defined by the HK and Beijing Government in the political reform bill that was voted down is not "real", what then, is "real" democracy? More specifically, what alternative form of democracy is being put forward for discussion, and more importantly, what makes this alternative more "real"? (Although I am tempted to argue that social realities, such as "economics" are virtual realities, and "democracy" is just another example of a virtual reality, I will perhaps expand on this at another time.) If "democracy" is taken at its basic definition, in other words where the people are involved in the decision making in the ruling government, then what was offered by the Chinese government is not a bad deal at all. Sure, the candidates, so to speak, are handpicked by a selected committee, but what should also be taken into consideration is the fact that the choosing of the HK CEO is still dependent on the general populace of HK through "one person, one vote". We can argue whether this is in fact "fair", but the fact that the political leader of Hong Kong is chosen through the popular vote is an instance of democracy at work. As a matter-of-fact-ly speaking, I would argue that this form of democracy is still more true to the spirit of democracy than say USA, where the president wins an election through the electoral college, not the popular vote. Similarly, in Britain, the prime minister is chosen by the people but appointed by the Queen. Theoretically, the Queen retains power to fire the prime-minister and dissolve parliament to force an election. Similarly in Australia, the Governor General is appointed by the Queen, and has mandated authority to fire the prime-minister. 

In regards to the issue of "back-door" politics, do people really believe that there is such a thing as "clean-politics"? If one looks at the backgrounds of elected officials in the US and members of parliament in UK, one can without too much difficulty spot the intricate connections between members. Naturally, it will be the same in Hong Kong. However, if given a choice to choose between a CEO with strong affiliations to the mega tycoons of Hong Kong, and a candidate hand-picked by China, I would rather gamble on the latter. 

My reason is this: It is simply unrealistic to expect the former to govern to the benefits of Hong Kong, when their hands are tied due to their intricate connections with the mega tycoons. On the other hand, the latter candidate may well be another 689, whose political ambitions are explicit, and simply regards governing Hong Kong as just another stepping stone to the top. But if it is the case that this individual really intends to to make it to the top, they still need to do a job that is satisfactory for the majority of the HK population, from all sectors of society, from grass-roots to the top class. And whether their 'report' is satisfactory is still largely dependent on the people who voted them in, in the first place. 
They are picked by China, but chosen by Hong Kong.

Lastly, I want to point to an issue that seems easily over-looked. Since when did Hong Kong ever have democracy? Hong Kong was given up to the British after the Opium War, by the then Chinese Government. The subsequent governors of Hong Kong were appointed by the Queen. In comparison, regardless of how one reads the political reform proposal, what was on offer was a very minor, but significant step towards Hong Kong having democracy. 

Hong Kong has many social issues to solve at the moment. Rising property prices, inflation, domination of the economy by a selected few and so on. Democracy is of the least importance in relation to the listed concerns. 

In spirit, democracy is by the people, for the people. But this ideal goal can only truly be achieved, when the people actually care about the society they live in. I don't mean 'caring' by shouting a few slogans for democracy, but to have a genuine concern in the daily lives of those less well off. Democracy requires minimal cooperation within society in order to function. Using the US as an example again, the people can have very split opinions on who should be elected as president, they can even debate whether the results are "fair". But what is most important that, when all has been said and done, they are willing to accept the authority of the elected president, regardless of their own personal dispositions. But given the current state of affairs, where relationships can be broken by a mere difference of opinion, where policies are blocked for the sake of blocking, is democracy really a good solution at all?  

本篇文章已被 willyho 於 Jan 16 2016, 16:53 編輯過

Very solid arguments Willy. I think that the biggest controversies lie in the degree of variation in the definitions of democracy and the uncertainty of the unforeseen.

First let me touch on the Electoral College issue in the US. It is highly debatable as to how ‘fair’ the system is. The fundamental itself was reasonable: if everyone’s vote is given the same weight, then the candidates’ campaign efforts would be to focus on places with the highest population – NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston etc., leaving the voices and concerns of the smaller states unheard.  However, with the current system where the ‘winner takes all’ electoral college votes from one state with majority of the votes, candidates don’t even bother campaigning in large states where the population is solidly supporting one side (CA, IL, TX, NY), and focus all attentions and effort on the ‘swing states’.  And in the end, it is essentially the same as the ‘swinging states’ determining the election outcome, and if you are on the minority side in a large state, you’re pretty much SOL (sorry for the slang) – your vote doesn’t matter, really.

Let’s go back to the original topic (and going off on a tangent a little bit).  I found myself nodding while reading your post and just wanted to add my two cents on this.  To dive deeper on the negative sentiments, I'd like to explore the possibility that the controversies outlined above be driven by the psychology of changes - that perhaps people like to get complacent in the current state and avoid changes.  I don't know the science behind it but I find that many people feel stressful and anxious towards changes, and tend to think negatively and even become resistant to them.  While some people are able to weigh the pros and cons and embrace changes with a positive and an open attitude, I wouldn’t assume that is how majority of people are. That is probably the best explanation I can think of in addressing your observations on the "double standard" towards democracy. (favored a queen-appointed governor of HK, but opposed the idea of CE candidates nominated by China) The matter seemed less negative and concerning when they were living with it, than having the ability to ponder about it.

本篇文章已被 Pearltea 於 Jan 17 2016, 04:52 編輯過

As highlighted in bold, what people don't seem to understand is that the point of democracy is to elect a government that responds to the needs of society. Right now, Hong Kong is basically held to ransom by the property tycoons and those who claim "ancestral lands". Yet instead of wanting to change, people complain to the government. Yet when the government does make changes, people complain because they feel the government hasn't done enough. Pretty much "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Furthermore, do people actually want real change, or do they simply want a scapegoat? If people just want a scapegoat, then why bother electing one? Just think of the attacks that have been aimed at C.Y. Leung, how many of those critics are talking anything of substance regarding policies (i.e C.Y's job performance) as opposed to relentless personal attacks? If something is gained, then something is lost. 

Going off on tangent, I want to add a few speculations of my own regarding the psychology of people in HK. Looking back throughout history, people in Hong Kong never really had to make a decision that dictated their future. From British colonial rule to returning to China, Hong Kong is like a servant (to put it politely) who switched bosses. People were simply told what to do. The idea of having to think through a decision and the possible consequences seemed so distant and tiring simply never came to mind. Hence to introduce democracy is to introduce a sense of doubt that people never really had to deal with. Hong Kong has it all regarding material goods. The newest gadgets, the newest fashion, you name it, they'll probably have it. Yet it is this false sense of prosperity that stagnates the mind. Hong Kong is known as a "shopping heaven" to foreigners, in other words a glorified shopping centre. Sure there is the financial infrastructure and so on, but for how long is this a unique strength as China develops economically? Or rather, why go to Hong Kong, what are the reasons for a tourist to go to Hong Kong, aside from as a transfer point? 

Hong Kong people have a reputation of being fast-thinkers, yet is this always a good thing? It is one thing to make a decision quickly to not loose an opportunity, but it is another to consider that decision with thorough care, taking into account all the possible long-term implications that can be conceived, given the facts available at the time. 

What Hong Kong does have, given its history is adaptability. It is this ability to adapt to completely different cultures and values that makes Hong Kong unique and stand out from the crowd. But when you have politicians looking to foreign powers to resolve domestic issues, when you have groups of people choosing to discriminate against another group who basically share the same history and culture, it's called tragicomedy. 


(On a side note I chose my username based on the fictional character 楊威利 from 銀河英雄傳說 as to how it is interpreted in English is of course a different matter）

The matter seemed less negative and concerning because it was less negative and concerning. How so? Because "the matter" was never about democracy after all.

Under the facade of what appears to be double standard, there was really just a single standard: people want a prosperous society where things are easy for them. The problem is that they have confused correlation with causation, they think that because HK thrived during the era of queen-appointed governors and fell during the era of China nominated CE's, the former political paradigm must be superior to the latter. Therefore they could have fond memories about the British-ruled past and yet demand direct elections now. It only make sense when what they want is not really democracy, but they think "democracy" (in their definition -- more direct elections) could get them what they want.

In regards to change: people don't just avoid change, they avoid change under specific circumstances. Under some other circumstances, they could turn into risk-taking change-seekers. The psychology here could be summarized by the prospect theory, which in short states that people tend to be complacent in the prospect of gains, and take risks in the prospect of losses. This is well illustrated in politics, for example, if we look at the winning US presidential campaign slogans during times of recession:

1976
"Not Just Peanuts" – Jimmy Carter
"A Leader, For a Change" – Jimmy Carter

1992
"For People, for a Change" – Bill Clinton
"It's the economy, stupid" – Bill Clinton
"It's Time to Change America" – Bill Clinton

2008
"Yes We Can" – Barack Obama
"Change We Can Believe In." Also, simply: "Change." –Barack Obama
"Change We Need." and "Change." – Barack Obama
"Hope" – Barack Obama

And compare them with the winning slogans during more optimistic years:

1984
"It's Morning Again in America" – Ronald Reagan

1988
"Kinder, Gentler Nation"– George Bush

1996
"Building a bridge to the twenty-first century" – Bill Clinton

2000
"Compassionate Conservatism" – George W Bush

(Source: Wikipedia)

People in HK are showing a similar mentality, and in this sense they are completely justified in demanding change now rather than demanding change during the most prosperous years during British-rule. The problem is, under HK's current predicament, it appears that "the change they're looking for (more direct elections free from Central govt. influence)" and "the change they're capable to achieve (what they're being offered)" and "the change that will get them what they really want (a truly effective, determined, visionary, and democratic leadership)" are three very different things. This is due to a severe divide in basic political values and perspectives, which is in itself the result of HK's economic segregation and stagnated development, and to a lesser extend the result of ideological conflict between the Chinese model and western liberal democracy.

It is human nature to take what we used to get as something for granted, but unfortunately that is not in the nature of objective realities. This is where the "tragicomedy" (as mentioned by willyho) came from: the political narrative in this city has become overwhelmingly about "the resources / prosperity / freedom has been deprived from us by the mainlanders / HK govt. / Central govt." rather than "what should we do to become competitive again". The people in HK has to face the cruel reality that their economic prosperity and all its associated advantages are not innate characteristics of the city, but the result of opportunities brought by historical coincidences, which are going away and not turning back.

Again, using my standards on good governance, HK's current leadership is neither very effective (capable of following the path they set), determined (has the will to pursue difficult paths), visionary (able to find the right path towards a goal), nor democratic (setting up goals based on the people's needs). I believe any political movements seeking positive change in HK should focus more on ways to build the aforementioned qualities, rather than rolling in the mire of hollow assumptions like democracy through more direct elections, or returning to prosperity through de-chinalization. Obviously, there is still a long way to go.

本篇文章已被 徐元直 於 Jan 18 2016, 19:44 編輯過

Appreciate your comment and proposing "Prospect Theory" (read more and found it pretty helpful for my work!).  I think the "complacent in the prospect of gains, and take risks in the prospect of losses" explanation also depends on the 'perceived probability' - or perceived Expected Value.

There was an experiment that invited people to play a small gambling game - with $100 and a fair coin.  You pick the outcome of the coin and I'll flip.  If you are right, I'll give you $100, otherwise you'll give me $100.  Most people refused to play. However, the expected value of the outcome is exactly the same as not playing. But people saw this more of a potential loss than gain and became aversion to the risk. Then in the recent madness of the Powerball jackpot, where many non-regular lottery buyers bought tickets (635M tickets sold vs 320M population!), the potential amount seemed to distort how people evaluate the probability of winning and potential winners, the EV of the risk.  I think the risk action could be driven by biased where people tend to perceive probability differently (as well as the examples in the Prospect Theory post) based on the amount being gambled and the 'potential'gain/loss. While the action could be different depending on the scenario, but I agree that people do seem to settle for a potential gain with certainty and gamble against a 'guaranteed' loss.

Back to the topic again (I'm often off topic!).  I think people are demanding changes, but many seem to be skeptical towards the effectiveness of changes. If the change that people consider 'ideal' and demand for is to revert back to the old policies during days when HK enjoyed decades of prosperity, then not only it is not going to happen, but also might not necessarily be the most effective approach given the situation today (in fact economic problems started to surface long before the handover). What also worked in the old days were partnership, collaboration, support, and unity, which seem to be opportunities to work on today, but are being quickly opposed and dismissed.  The partisan agenda today does little to provide unity, but continues to widen differences on key issues and pull people further apart. 

本篇文章已被 Pearltea 於 Jan 19 2016, 03:19 編輯過