tim's experiment

Wow, what a lead story on Post Page 3 — the one they call “leading the news” — this morning. Only a corner left for a brawl in the cockpit of an airliner between two pilots. Similar squeeze for 17 people arrested in Malaysia for plotting “terror attacks”. Down the page goes a Xinhua-like piece on plans for “urban clusters” in Central China. Never mind that stuff. Lead dish of the day with the distinctive 60 point all caps headline is “10 pan-democrats indicate they may sign reform petition”. Exciting stuff. Some people might have preferred this as a front page lead, as the only thing the Post could find for that purpose was a story about the increasing use of robots in Guangdong factories. But there was something weird about the 10 pan-democrats story. Total absence of evidence.

Earlier the Post had a story indicating that a nameless individual had decided to collect signatures on a petition urging the pan-dems to vote for the goverment’s election package. Why this person was so shy was not explained. Not did the Post explain why it was willing to run a story on a completely unattributed and uncheckable basis. The latest update shamelessly depended on the same source, variously described as “the person who conceived and drafted the petition”, or “the instigator”. The Instigator, whoever it is, now claims that the petition has had a positive reaction. About 10 “public figures from the pan-Democratic camp” have “indicated their interest in signing” the thing. They also remain nameless. Indeed one must fear that in the end they will remain signatureless as well, since “indicating their interest” sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for “did not say no”.

The reporter, who was not, thank God, one of my students, devoted four paragraphs to the spooky organiser and his anonymous possible supporters, concluding that the split in the pan-democrats had deepened, because Nelson Wong and Alan Leong had expressed different views on the Great Matter when they met on a radio programme. Mr Wong’s reported reasons for wanting to “pocket” what was on offer were not quite the sort of thing advanced by officials. Apparently he said that “Leung has been telling lies every day and he might have a chance of re-election if the reform  is vetoed.” But Wong is in the Democrat Party, Leong in the Civic Party. Why should they be expected to agree?

“The pan-democrats” is a useful label for a group of politicians who have some things in common. But the pan-democrats are not a party or a church. Being shunted into that group by political correspondents does not oblige you to agree with all the other people in the group about everything, or indeed about anything. If someone in the DAB starts agitating for the reform proposals to be rejected, then that will be news. Pan-democrats can think what they like. Of course those who are members of parties may feel obliged or pressured to toe the party line. As our fictional DAB person will. But it is pointless to report that the pan-democrats are split. They are supposed to be split. If they wanted to be a party they would form one.

What really gets my goat is the anonymous signature collector. I realise there are times, especially on the mainland, when a person might wish to express a view anonymously out of concern for his or her personal safety, prospects of staying in work and out of prison, etc. But agitating in Hong Kong for people to support the government line does not come in that category. I also realise that in political plotting there is sometimes a stage in which one does not wish to publicise the preparations. Fair enough. But you cannot have it both ways. If you’re interested in publicity you should show yourself. It is time for this nameless collector of nameless signatures to stand up for what he or her believes in. Otherwise we are free to conclude that the Instigator is a coward, and probably a liar as well. This is politics. They don’t call it “public life” for nothing.