tim's experiment

Well goodness me, some unexpected people have decided that it is time to oppose tyranny. They are being rather selective about it. We are not invited to oppose the nearby regime which tortures and murders its opponents, censors its media and bullies its neighbours. Oh no. We are invited to reject the “tyranny of the minority” which refers to the inconvenient constitutional fact that if all the democrats vote against sham universal suffrage then it will not pass. This piece of oratorical overkill had its first outing from the pen of Sir David Akers-Jones. One tries not to get too “ad hominem” in these matters but I cannot resist the thought that Sir David, after a long and successful career in the administration of colonies, seems to have come by his distaste for tyrannical minorities rather late. The same can be said of the politico who took up the theme and the phrase the following day. This gentleman was a Legco member of the Functional Constituency persuasion. Consequently he has long been a beneficiary of the split voting system, which means that any proposal rejected by the functional constituency group is defeated, even if a clear majority of members have voted for it. This has happened quite often in the past few years and I do not recall the gentleman concerned making any objection.

Anyway the label is misconceived. If the drafters of the Legco voting arrangements had intended amendments to our constitutional arrangements to be decided by a simple majority of members voting then they could have said so. It is common in these matters to require some kind of super-majority, and this in turn inevitably entails the possibility that a proposal supported by a simple majority will not be passed. The reason for arrangements of this kind is to ensure that proposed amendments are supported widely, and not just by a bare majority. The minority who vote against an amendment are not being tyrannical. They are merely exercising the rights conferred on them by the constitution. The fact is that the proposed changes to the CE election arrangements are not widely supported. The only reason they have any hope at all of passing Legco is because of the number of the People’s Puppets who sit in there. If the proposals can’t pass without that much help then their failure is well-deserved.

Of course that will not stop some people blaming the democrats. Indeed there was a fine illustration of the lengths to which the government’s press poodles will go to blame the democrats, in today’s Post. Michael Chugani was complaining about high property prices. These are, apparently, all the democrats fault. The argument goes like this – instead of acting up, throwing fruit and agitating for more democracy the democrats could have been agitating for lower home prices. Therefore it is all their fault. No blame attaches to the responsible minister. No blame attaches to the CE who promised us all cheaper homes if he was elected. No blame attaches to the millionaires who conspire to keep prices high All the blame goes to the democrats. This involves willfully ignoring two inconvenient points. One is that the democrats did not stir up Legco proceedings in the name of more democracy; they were agitating for an adequate and universal old age pension. One can argue over whether high home prices are a more important social issue than poverty among the aged, but the latter is a respectable issue worth complaining about. The second point Mr Chugani has apparently forgotten is that the democrats in Legco have no power. Even if they devoted the entirety of their efforts to complaining about home prices there would be no consequences. Indeed the government will reject any suggestion, however worthy, from the democratic camp precisely because it comes from the democrats, and implementation might earn them political credit.

There is far too much of this partisan crap in the Post these days. Will someone please start a real newspaper in English?