Man-Ghost Test Package for pan Dem version 1.0
The trend is you want to know who is a Man who is a Ghost against CCP. What happened in this week is a test to Hongkongers about their lines to take for the five to ten years to come. Here comes the question 1.
Question 1. Miss Chan Ran did not deny her being the member of Communist Youth League of China. SACE chose her to be his assistant in the CE-elect office. Is there any problem?
Approaching to the election, the con-SACE (c.f. Pro-establishment) in Hong Kong came to a divide on who should be blamed for the success of SACE. Tang’s Camp and big businesses blamed the Pan Dem played “Blank Vote" strategy, Pan Dem and other Social Movement leaders suspected Radical Left were Commie spies sabotage the Pan Dem lines. Even the self-proclaimed-popular-online Radical Left had their divisions.
Surprisingly, they even had this division in face of their common commie-phobia (CCP!?!). To answer question 1, the latest “Yazhou Zhoukan" (“Asian Weekly") had this “Hong Kong’s witch-hunting air and McCarthyism" (香港獵巫氛圍與麥卡錫主義 in Chinese). MingPao, the magazine’s more popular newspaper sister, covered several comments in support of this line by stating that the membership of Communist Youth League of China is so popular that even a normal secondary students would be one of them. Popular Pan Dem commentator Ivan Choy Chi-keung and Liberal Columnist Leung Man Tao also wrote comments on this line. On the other side, Hong Kong Economic Journal tried to trace the line and pointed out Miss Chan’s relation with other core members in different departments responding to Hong Kong affairs in the Central Government. Mr. Wan Chin, the hardcore spiritual leader of Hong Kong Autonomony Movement, even replied with a wiki page of Nuremburg to cast his doubt to whom still support Miss Chan.
Question 2. Mr Cheng Yiu-tong, the pro-China union leader (yes, there exist such thing) and Executive Council Member, asserted that Hongkongers should not reject the interference of the Central Government with her “goodwill". Should you agree with him?
We did not see how they answer the other two questions yet. Obviously, Mr. Chin, HKEJ and Radical Left would response Question 2 easily with a big NO. Their answer is clear: CCP is not worth a trust so a “goodwill" will never be possible. However, MingPao group and the Pan Dem will have a dilemma: how far you should accept the interference? Even MingPao would always take those 16-words cliché from Basic Law to reinstate the special status of Hong Kong: 一國兩制 港人治港 高度自治 五十年不變 (“One country two system, Hong Kong people rules themselves, high level of autonomony and fifty years of stability"). If they try to give hazy answers, here comes question 3.
Question 3. Mr. Cheng Yiu-tong’s argument, again. Since the bereaucracy of Hong Kong is so huge, the Accountability System should be expended to promote the government policy. Do you agree with him?
Now Ms. Chan is acceptable because she is a low-ranked official, how high would you reject? If Communist Youth League is the weaker version, underground Communist can only be a allegation as well as a conspiracy, then how hard the version would you reject?
Moreover, Question 3 should be further examined because it is exactly the “goodwill" of Beijing government and her interference under “goodwill" that led to this legitimacy crisis.
Why the SACE is so disliked? The legal answer is he was elected by only 1200 people, agreed and allowed with the rule set by Beijing. The realpolitik answer is the appointment rule, set by Beijing, was changed by Beijing at the end.
Why you need the Accountability System? Because the “goodwill" did not allow a wider support Legco to really disapprove the poor policy.
Why you need to “promote" the government policy? Because in the past, the Hong Kong government adopted the bottom-up policy formation even in the AO level. They consulted and amended and lobbied before they passed the promotion issues to the Information Services Department and the revised paper to Legco. Now even Beijing planned for the Hong Kong government: the high speed rail, Article 23 and the likes. So people have to be educated, policies have to be promoted. Top down model or style has its linkage again traced back to CCP.
As frogs in the warm water for too long, all the con-SACE people should ask yourself these three questions. They are not three questions, but one. Fairly speaking, it is not about surrender or not, it is just about how far you take Article 2 and 3 in Basic Law. Should there be any bottom line, this is the one. As Pan Demo had been “Pan" because of their united front for the 2017 universal suffrage, how about the another unstated united front against any common problems?
The National People’s Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this Law.
The executive authorities and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of permanent residents of Hong Kong in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law.