(First published in the South China Morning Post on 17 November 2005)
Democrats at risk if they twice reject political bill
Extremely right is extremely wrong, the pro-democracy camp must understand.
The recently unveiled constitutional reform package is probably the only offer to which Beijing has acquiesced. Before the reform bill goes to the Legislative Council, the pro-democracy camp is calling on the public to march on December 4 in a fight for universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008. This will be like trying to get water from a stone.
The democrats' high-profile objection is beyond comprehension. They should gather and appreciate public opinion rather than insisting on their "truth". Bringing district councillors into Legco and enlarging the Election Committee for the chief executive is the maximum available. Now, the prevailing wind is set by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen (not Tung Chee-hwa) and his proposal enjoys public support.
The democrats should be more discerning about their actions. Resorting to rascality or acting against voters' wishes may pose the risk that they gradually lose political capital. If the bill cannot be passed, not only will constitutional development remain where it is, but the infant faith between the mainland and Hong Kong will go down the drain. To attain universal suffrage, Hong Kong must gain Beijing's trust, step by step.
Asking for gold on the first day means full democratisation will not be available at all. Beware - political development before 1997 involved the relationship between the Crown and the colony, and the same applies with Beijing now. Mr Tsang's administration may only look like it is sitting on thorns. Remember that the Basic Law vests Mr Tsang with a treasured sword - he can dissolve Legco after an important bill is rejected twice. Legislators judged not to be speaking for voters will definitely be kicked out. Democrats who resign will not be able to return easily.
Moreover, rejection of a "non-representative" Legco would not be a vote of no-confidence in Mr Tsang. Thus, he does not need to retreat. However, in light of public requests, the government should perhaps take another step towards the democracy goal in its sixth report, although a concrete timetable is not a must.
Democrats must wake up to the fact that political reform is different from Article 23. They cannot take it for granted that they will be re-elected after resigning. Hong Kong people are tired of political shows without concrete counter-proposals that are applicable in the existing framework.
=====================
(First published in the South China Morning Post on 14 February 2005)
Hong Kong needs bilingual system for schools
I refer to the consultation paper on the medium of instruction for secondary schools detailing the proposed mechanism for them to switch between English (EMI) and Chinese (CMI). Has this proposal become the latest policy blunder of the Tung administration?
Besides, does this classification exercise fit the global trend in the 21st century?
Many "international" Hongkongers would agree that the government has been moving towards "political correctness" since the handover. It might intend to introduce the second round of "language reunification" after the one six years ago, just as a railwayman switches points. I am not saying mother-tongue education is wrong because it is "politically correct". Instead, I am asking whether a strict dividing line between two mediums of instruction is an up-to-date education policy for Hong Kong, which aspires to be a world-class city.
Hong Kong is no longer a colony, but English still shares 50 per cent of the cake here, not to mention intensified globalisation. For Hong Kong people, using English today is not a symbol of loyalty to Her Majesty, but a sign of being a global citizen.
Regarding the chief executive's aspiration to put Hong Kong atop the list of cosmopolitan cities, would we be committing suicide by tightening the present policy? Our advanced English standard or bilingual ability to a large extent explains why Hong Kong can be Asia's hub. Given complaints about the deteriorating English of the younger generations and a constantly decreasing English pass rate since the mandatory introduction of mother-tongue teaching in hundreds of secondary schools, another switch is likely to be more detrimental to Hong Kong's international status, tertiary education and even socially in the long term. Hong Kong would risk becoming just another city in China. By then, "Who needs Hong Kong?" will be a good question.
True, the government promised sufficient support for the teaching of English in CMI schools. Do we see any positive effects in the past couple of years on students in CMI schools other than their performing a bit better in Chinese subjects? What we may lose is our ability to communicate academically with the international community. On the other hand, it is definitely not a simple task replacing the traditional prestigious EMI schools with the newly nurtured CMI schools. This would further divide schools. And would the government be shamefaced if it became known that some mainland schools are developing EMI education?
To foster a pool of intellectuals for the 21st century, the government is urged to abolish this obsolete classification exercise and formulate a policy of bilingual education. An up-to-date policy for Hong Kong is BMI (bilingual medium of instruction), with more flexibility granted to individual schools according to students' and parents' desires. I suggest all schools teach every subject bilingually and all textbooks and public exam papers present bilingual text on the same page. To achieve this "50-English 50-Chinese" policy, students may be required to answer half of exam questions in English and half in Chinese. This is a win-win game for all in this globalising century.
=====================
(First published in the South China Morning Post on 1 April 2003)
Public has joined hand together for a "Clean Hong Kong"
The waves of SARS infections could be a good lesson for the community - the catalyst for what is initially low-level social cohesion. It has brought all of us together in defence of our place.
Apart from the fact that almost everyone in Hong Kong wears a mask, we have all joined hands to conquer the coronavirus by keeping every corner clean and hygienic. I believe these developments have truly activated the "Clean Hong Kong" campaign. Because the problem we are fighting is related to people's lives, we do not see many political struggles among the parties and the government.
It is not the time to blame the administration, but to stand up against the disease.
====================
(First published in The Standard on 14 February 2003)
Pass mark for Article 23
rethink, but only just
Please do not set too high a standard for the Hong Kong government. The administration seems to have got a ``pass'' mark in processing Article 23. The concessions over this piece of legislation announced recently are indeed a great step towards what an accountable government should be.
The various amendments, including abolishing the offences of possessing seditious publications and misprision, narrowing the scopes of some criminal terms and so on, can, to a certain extent, allay part of the major concerns from many sectors. Of these proposals, a bonus should be given for the idea that persons accused of offences under national security laws could opt for trial by jury.
This signifies that our judiciary is the ultimate and reliable defender of our civil liberties, which also aligns with relevant provisions regarding the preservation of human rights and freedoms in the Basic Law.
But what the government has done is somewhat less than a ``super-pass''. Can officials open an ear to heed more public opinion? There is still room for further clarification. For instance, how the government can prove intention to incite others to commit national security offences; what the definitions of a subordinate relationship and damaging disclosure of official secrets are, etc. Not only that, in the context of `unauthorised access to protected information', does the government intend to leave a tail behind the words, ``such as''? What criteria will the Security Secretary take into account when deciding whether a local group should be proscribed?
When it comes to the white bill-blue bill debate, this is not the most important as the colour lies in the format only. Instead, it is a must that the government get it right to regain confidence from the public.
One way to achieve this is, before passing the draft to Legco, conduct a second-round of public consultation to allow wider discussion in our community. If the government does not depend on Beijing, why does it not postpone the legislation for a month or two?
However, this time it has shown some progress. Maybe we should give it a stair to walk down the stage.
