Last year on 1 July, I wrote a post about an anniversary not worth celebrating. This year, as 1 July approaches, I decided to write another post on the same topic, and I hope to continue writing an annual article on this topic until 2017.
“Why 2017?” you may ask.
In an anniversary not worth celebrating, I refer 1 July, the so-called Handover Anniversary Day, as “a day of demonstration” not “a day of celebration”.
Since the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China on 1 July 1997, there had been marches organised annually by some pro-democratic organisations demanding democracy and other political concerns.
From the day of the Handover, China has promised Hong Kong democracy in 2017, when Hong Kong people will be allowed to elect their leader, i.e. the Chief Executive, through universal suffrage…
image from South China Morning Post
…only if the promise is to be delivered.
Time flies like a bird. 2017 is approaching. China is running out of time to figure out how this promise is to be delivered without losing much of its sovereignty over Hong Kong.
China promised Hong Kong that the Chinese government will allow universal suffrage for the 2017 Chief Executive Election.
For any clear-headed Hong Kong resident, this sounds too good to be true.
“What is the catch?” one may ask.
“Is the promise ever going to be fulfilled?” many wonder. More importantly, if so, “How?”
Here is how…
Recently, some senior officials from the Chinese government stressed that,
the method for universal suffrage of the Chief Executive should conform to the Basic Law and Hong Kong’s actual situation, also, the Chief Executive to be elected must be a person who loves the country and Hong Kong.
On top of that, the current Chief Executive C.Y. Leung, recently aggravated the public anger by pointing out that the phrase of “international standards” of universal suffrage, by which he was referring to the idea of “public nomination”, does not conform to the Basic Law.
Wow. I must say. This is a case of using the most ambiguous language to set out the most clearest intention.
Basically, all it means is that, the idea of civil nomination is, by all means, rejected.
Hong Kong’s long-anticipated democracy is likely to be in a form without real democratic procedures.
Now you can see why 1 July has been, for 17 years, a day of demonstration, rather than a day of celebration.
image from: happieraboard
“But you are welcome to choose whatever I put on the table, son.” said the Mother, “When you grow up, on my watch, you can choose to marry Sandy, Candy or Mandy, but not that Suzie, who is always against me. Here is your freedom of choice. Take it or leave it.”
Universal suffrage is a rather broad topic. In the Oxford dictionary, universal suffrage is defined as “the right of almost all adults to vote in political elections”.
From my point of view, committing a logical fallacy seems to be China’s strategy to tackle this political dispute with Hong Kong.
In philosophical logic, the concept of the Fallacies of Definition refers to a flaw in reasoning in the dealing with the logic of the meaning of language. When a definition is too broad, it loses its meaning, and creates room for the misuse of language.
Taking the advantage of the ambiguity over the definition of abstract concepts, sneaky politicians are often guilty of using obscure language to promote confusion and to distort the truth. The so-called “democratic system” proposed by China, on the surface, seems to be “technically” correct, as it fulfills the definition of universal suffrage, however, any clear-headed person on earth would obviously realise this is simply a play on words in politics.
It may be a promise of universal suffrage, but it is not a promise of true democracy.
This is the ugly truth of a deceptive promise.
1 July, the Handover day, yes, the day when a city’s fate was handed over.
It is an anniversary not worth celebrating. Do you agree?