Mauro Gia Samonte
Of what use is democracy if it is not for the poor?
– President Ferdinand E. Marcos
WITH that as guidepost, President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared martial law on Sept. 22, 1972 and thereby, set the Philippines on a path of development in all sectors never before seen in the country’s history. But the Aquinos had been intransigent in their obsession to damn the strongman till kingdom come and come 1986, succeeded in getting the United States underhandedly managed the EDSA People Power revolt that catapulted Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr.’s widow, Corazon “Cory,” to the presidency. Since then, galunggong (blue mackarel scad) was never the same low-priced viand again for the Filipino poor.
It is to Hong Kong’s credit that unlike the Philippines, which must succumb to the pro-democracy movement launched by Cory to unseat Marcos, it clung on to Beijing in dealing with the pro-democracy campaign against it similarly underhandedly managed by what the media had termed “the US Black Hand.” The eventual passage by the China’s National People’s Congress of the National Security Law for Hong Kong had a way of nailing the coffin of the city’s pro-democracy protests. And Beijing’s proposal now of electoral reform for Hong Kong is tantamount to digging the grave in which to inter the pro-democracy protests for good.
The Hong Kong electoral reform is still being deliberated by the National People’s Congress, but its announcement days ago already imparted a message of a done deal. That’s how things are done in a party anyway. The nitty-gritty of legislative proposals undergo scrutiny by committees so that once those proposals are finally submitted for deliberation, the process becomes simply ministerial, and whenever an announcement is made, it is virtually an imprimatur of the law.
At any rate, the eventual passage of the Electoral Reform Law for Hong Kong appears a necessity for bringing right into the city the overall fruits of the anti-poverty program of China. I wrote a few columns ago that China now prides itself in having lifted above the poverty line 70 percent of its population, or 770 million. Question is, can Hong Kong’s poor do the same without a shake-up of its electoral system? It is said, for instance, that the social welfare sector of the powerful Election Committee that elects Hong Kong’s Chief Executive is made up of anti-establishment elements, i.e., anti-Beijing. How do you expect these elements to carry out Beijing’s anti-poverty programs when they are motivated more by politics than the social welfare concern they should represent? Remember, Hong Kong is not like Mainland China, where President Xi Jinping’s socialism with Chinese characteristics is in full throttle, precisely why the ranks of Chinese poor are thinning rapidly. China has made the United Nations-prescribed timetable for beating poverty 10 years earlier.
In other words, what the United Nations has set to be achieved still in 2030, China has already achieved in 2020.
With the exception of Hong Kong of course.
Though as a matter of policy, the Chinese line in the territory is “one country, two systems,” it is only an admission that Hong Kong remains, in great measure, a capitalist enclave and afflicted with all the ills that bedevil a capitalist society.
We should recall that as a result of the imperialist aggression against China in the 1800s, Hong Kong was ceded to Britain and returned to China only in 1997. The return was made with the condition that Hong Kong’s capitalist system would be maintained. That condition was met with the “one country, two systems” policy.
The riots that wracked the city last year made it evident that US manipulators set to bring down the Chinese system won’t stop at doing their tricks. Evidence surfaced that those riots were organized by the US consul in Hong Kong in cahoots with a group of Hong Kong youth. As China put down the students’ pro-democracy protests at Tiananmen Square in 1989, so does it intend to bring down all semblances of it in Hong Kong in the long haul.
To repeat, the passage of the National Security Law did a lot in putting down the pro-democracy violence. The proposed electoral reform in Hong Kong could stabilize things for good in the territory.
The political set-up in Hong Kong is so complicated that it is not very easy to grasp how this strategy will work.
Actually, under normal circumstances, China could just call in the military to put things under control in Hong Kong. But it does not do so. Rather it amazes for the forbearance it manifests in respecting the terms of the return of Hong Kong from Britain — that is, administering the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region through constitutional processes. If electoral reform can stabilize things in Hong Kong, why go through the military way. Hong Kong is Beijing’s baby after all that must be saved from harm.
In the words of Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Huang Xi Lian, the Hong Kong electoral reform “will contribute to the gradual development of a democratic system which is suitable for the actual situation in Hong Kong, which not only reflects the balanced participation of all walks of life in Hong Kong but also enhances the overall interests of Hong Kong society and the well-being of the general public.”
Source：Manila Times 13-03-2021