Citizens

While thinking about the umbrella movement, my recent leisure reading is Simon Schama's Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution.

Believe it or not, I started reading it in the evening when we had tear gas in Admiralty (oh, purely by coincidence), and I'm surprised to learn that I actually finish with this 976-page classic before the movement is over. In fact, as an amateur student of history, the book is quite a challenge, but I am fortunate enough to be able to apply the methods of Masaru Sato (see http://ccszeto.blogspot.hk/2014/07/technique.html) and did some preparatory reading several months ago (see http://ccszeto.blogspot.hk/2014/08/europe.html).

To me, the book is quite interesting after Louise XVI was arrested. Although the personality as well as historical details are remarkably different, I could not help myself from comparing the unfortunate King of France to Puyi (溥儀), the last Emperor of China. Along that line, when I read about Jean-Paul Marat, Georges Danton, and Maximilien Robespierre, the stories of Liao Zhongkai (廖仲愷), Wang Jingwei (汪精衛), and Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) flashed through my mind.

My god. Are we still seeing these people around?

Consequence

There is another reason – a less disturbing but equally important one – to go against civil nomination.

The consideration is simple. Just imagine: If civil nomination becomes a reality and, as it is often proposed, anyone nominated by 0.5% or 1% of all eligible voters could become a candidate, which of the followings would turn up and run for the next CE?

1. someone from the Pigeon Party
2. someone from the Lawyers’ Party
3. the Long Hair
4. the Mad Dog

Yes, all of the above, of course.

And, you see? That’s exactly the problem. With civil nomination, the Third Estate would be fragmented and the chance of winning an election is actually reduced because the clergy and nobility are more organized and their action well coordinated.

Nomination

My point of this lengthy discussion is simple: Even if we take aside the group that is probably paid to join the blue ribbons and some Communists' toadies, people going against the yellow campus is a heterogeneous group. A few are truly against democracy, some do not support universal suffrage, others do not agree with civil nomination, quiet a number just do not think the tactic of Occupying Central is a good move.

What is my stand?

Simple. I am against civil nomination.

And I could summarize my argument as this: If I were in charge of Zhongnanhai, I shall insist to have civil nomination in order to have a better grip on this delinquent southern city.

Why? Because civil nomination is, in reality, a system of open voting. As a factory worker, your manager or boss will come around and say, "Hey man, I nominate Mr Wolf as the next CE. Come, sign on this, you should nominate him as well..."

In that case, I do not only lose the right to vote for the one I prefer. I lose the right to remain silent.

PS. It is important to note that being against civil nomination does not necessarily mean that I support the other aspects mentioned in the first paragraph. However, since I have a dominating reason in this discussion, I could remain comfortably silent on other items.

Definition

Once you recognize universal suffrage does not necessarily require civil nomination, the immediate question that you face is: What is mean by a genuine universal suffrage?

(In other words, for those who put up those attractive banners on Lion Rock or our student hostel, do you know what you are asking for?)

You may say my question is silly. You may not be able to give a cut-and-dry answer in words, but, when you see a system, you could immediately tell whether it is genuine or not.

But, deep in your mind there is probably a presumption: Asking for something genuine from a strong country is no different from asking a habitual liar to tell you the truth: I could tell you are lying because your lips are moving.

As a result, no proposal from the other side is going to be acceptable because, by definition, what they say – or what they could agree upon – is not genuine. Any mutual agreement is, therefore, logically impossible.

Suffrage

You may find it difficult to accept when I said some people do not support point #1.

However, there are several possibilities in this regard:

1. They do not support democracy per se.
2. They do not support universal suffrage (普選).
3. They do not support civil nomination (公民提名).

Let's take aside possibility #1 for the time being. (A serious omission, I dare say.) When the story of Occupy Central first began, the yellow campus was fighting for civil nomination. In fact, it remains the latest stand point of Hong Kong Federation of Students (香港專上學生聯會) and Scholarism (學民思潮). On the other hand, people who put up that remarkable banner on Lion Rock or a similar one outside the hostel of our students are asking for a (genuine) universal suffrage.

However, in the jargon of logics, is civil nomination a necessary condition for universal suffrage? 

Apparently not. Most of the countries that we agree being democratic do not have civil nomination. 

Of course, we have to consider the possibility that in the scenario of Hong Kong (under the substantial influence of several invisible hands), a genuine universal suffrage is only possible when there is civil nomination.

What do you think?

Aim

Following the discussion in the past three days, the inevitable conclusion is: If we are going to support the umbrella movement, it is because the yellow ribbon is pursuing democracy.

Again, to make this argument work, we need to fulfill the following criteria:

1. democracy is a good system
2. the proposed system for CE election is not acceptable (because it is not really democratic)
3. umbrella movement is an effective means of coming up with a better system

On a casual look, the consideration is simple. There seems little dispute for points #1 and #2, and the only sensible reason for not supporting the yellow campus is Occupying Central could hardly achieve the aim of getting a better system. (Or, in a more general term, the risk-to-benefit ratio of this campaign is too high.)

But, hold on. Let's face it. There do exist people (which may have the remote possibility of including some malicious nephrologist) who do not agree with point #1, and many die-hard left-wing supporters don't think #2 is a problem.

Justice

Another major argument for supporting the umbrella movement is the remarkable government and CE we have. Many public policies are unjust and obviously skewed towards the rich and powerful people, and we must stand up and voice out our concern.

I have little doubt about the above phenomenon. However, to go from this statement to supporting the yellow side, there are, theoretically, two possible links:

1. We use the umbrella movement itself to reflect our sentiment and frustration; or
2. we think a truly democratic system is the effective means to achieve a just and harmonious society, and the umbrella movement quests for democracy.

The first link is, unfortunately, a straw man. The movement aims at and originates from the method of nomination and election of our CE in the future. It is not meant for expressing our dissatisfaction with our government - an aim that we have many other ways to achieve.

For example, the regular parade on every First of July.

I shall put the second link aside for the time being.