Article 23 Security Bill slithers below the pretend CE election

Tycoons' favourite vs Public's choice

What is the agenda of Hong Kong’s 2012 Chief Executive?

Henry Tang has the property tycoons raising toasts to his imminent coronation. CY Leung seems to be blocked out by the moneyed elite. Henry invested in PR minders who conjured the non-slogan “We are Tomorrow” not because he was in danger of being rejected but to gain traction on public polls where C Y Leung is enjoying a massive lead.
 
There is greater public support for the candidate the tycoons do not like. The pretend election is already a farce even before it starts. Beijing has so far not overtly declared its preference. It initially found the idea of a competitive ‘election’ of two approved candidates a good diversion from an otherwise even sillier exercise.

Tang’s PR advisors have scheduled a series of photo-ops with actors, chambers of commerce, his alma mater and other friendlies to get him onto the front pages of press and TV news broadcasts. C Y has been doing the rounds of ‘ordinary’ people.

No clear platform from either candidate

Neither candidate is able to articulate a coherent agenda as CE when “elected” by a college of 1,200 functional constituency representatives and pro-Beijing compatriots. That is no surprise as they don’t answer to the people they are supposed to rule. Their agenda will come in a sealed brown envelope from Beijing.

Both candidates reported to the Beijing Liaison Office in the middle of their ‘campaigns’. This was monitored by HK press and widely reported. Tang said he would go if invited and did - a day after he said there was no reason for him to visit the Liaison Office. C Y said it was quite routine and that he had been there many times over the years.

Headmaster sits at Beijing Liaison Office

If HK residents needed any reminder of where power really resides in the SAR, that was it: both CE aspirants seeking approval, providing clarifications and receiving instructions from the Beijing Liaison Office. The headmaster sits there, not in Government House.

The views of 7 million Hong Kong citizens are irrelevant to this closed door, small circle exercise in annointing Beijing’s appointee.

As Beijing has delayed selection of the CE by universal suffrage till 2017, it is watching the process of the people’s will being expressed in opinion polls with some curiosity, alarm and bewilderment. It is said that Communist regimes would rather not rig elections but prefer to ensure their outcomes in advance. Russia was caught with Putin’s ‘United Russia’ ruling party agents rifling the ballot box recently. The mistake lay in getting caught.

Vote-rigging at recent District Board elections

In the District Board elections of November, there were numerous cases of vote-rigging and voter identity falsification, hinting at well organized fraud. There is suspicion that the opaque “underground fronts” may have contributed expertise. Discovery of this activity has made the agents and their sponsors uncomfortable as the HK judicial system has the power to put these criminals in the dock with potentially damaging public disclosures.

The HK administration is leaning backwards. HK press is watching the investigative process unfold with keen interest. The Democratic Party says it has received 800 reports of suspicious voter registration. The Independent Commission Against Corruption has arrested 22 people for corrupt conduct and charged six so far.

HK residents are generally sanguine about matters which are the purview of the civil service, the police and the courts. They trust their institutions of governance. They do not expect to be cheated and lied to. If their trust is betrayed, they can turn surprisingly hostile, as Tung Chee-hwa, the first CE and Regina Ip, then Secretary for Security, discovered when they tried to ram the flawed Article 23 Security Bill into law in 2003.

Time for mandatory voter registration

Because of this relaxed trust in the institutions of government, HK residents do not compulsively register to vote or exercise their right to vote. Societies of free speech, free press and respect for human rights are very fertile grounds for a committed band of organizers to take control by sheer default.

When well funded and driven by dedicated organizers sent from the mainland for ‘united front’ work (as it is euphemistically called) HK faces the prospect of its schools, volunteer groups, youth organizations, charity societies, university bodies, worker unions, District Boards and Legislative Council being taken over by elected, hardworking cadres.

It will be in the interest of the Hong Kong SAR to introduce legislation to make it mandatory for all eligible residents to register and vote in local elections so the community is not politically hijacked by default. This should become a primary objective of the next administration as HK moves to elect its 2017 CE by universal suffrage.

Along with that, legislation should also be introduced for political parties to declare their sources of funding. It will be of interest to know how much money is being channelled to which political party and proxies from which sponsor. It is up to HK citizens to then decide who to vote for.

Under normal circumstances this would be relevant and vital information. However there is considerable fear that retribution will be visited on businessmen and other donors to Democratic parties, so the administration would rather close an eye on the subject. 

Jimmy Lai’s donations to the Democratic & Civic Parties over the years raised considerable noise from the compatriots. The sponsorship from across the border to pro-Beijing parties and front organizations passes without comment.

Whither Article 23 Security Bill?

Buried in all the pseudo-election distraction is the ominous Article 23 Security Bill. If the SAR Legislature does not pass this into law within the life of the 2012 administration, it will be near impossible to pull the trick after 2017. 

There is no public discussion about it. There are fitful rumours about its revival and sundry ‘patriots’ lament its absence. The Macau SAR passed its Security Bill without fuss in 2009. There is agitation on the streets of Macau now for greater democracy - perhaps too late.

Neither Henry Tang nor C Y Leung has declared a clear position on it. When asked, they waffle. Given the unequivocal Hong Kong rejection (in 2003) of an alignment to mainland style criminalization of freedoms of assembly, expression, press and guaranteed human rights, no candidate for CE in 2017 would be elected if his platform compromised the freedoms and rights HK people take for granted.

Chessboard re-arranged. Stephen Lam promoted to Queen

It is not mere coincidence that Secretary for Constitutional & Mainland Affairs, Stephen Lam Sui-lung, was selected ahead of more suitable policy secretaries, to replace Henry Tang as Chief Secretary to the HKSAR Government. He is a critical piece on the chessboard.

Lam, the most unpopular
Chief Secretary since 1997

In defending Lam’s appointment as Chief Secretary with the lowest public approval rating of any since 1997, Donald Tsang suggested that Lam’s love of Hong Kong is beyond question even if Hong Kong citizens rate him low. Stephen Lam is surprisingly elevated to the most powerful position in HK’s civil service and nobody has explained why. It is a strategically calibrated move.

Lam distinguished himself in his previous position for attempting - without public  consultation - to push a rule that a Legislative Council (LegCo) seat falling vacant due to resignation or death of a sitting member will be immediately replaced, without a by-election, by the candidate who secured the next highest number of votes in the last election!

This situation was forced by the Democrats resigning their seats to protest the continued stalling by the administration for full direct elections by 2012. About half the current LegCo seats are held by nominated ‘Functional Constituency’ representatives from corporate and other entities, many regarded ‘rotten boroughs’ created to stack the pro-Beijing deck.

It is not fanciful to expect the 2012 CE to be tasked with passing the Article 23 into law. Stephen Lam will have a key role there. He will be the lightning rod to draw and earth the disgust of citizens.

The planned next phase of Article 23 is the clear and present danger to Hong Kong.

ENDS

Newspaper managers marking time to Gold Rolex?

Outfit previously called 'newspaper' 

needs to transition fast or be buried

Old business model was license to print money

Newspapers rode the wave of annual demographic growth, rising literacy and consumer affluence for 200 years. Since WWII the explosion of advertising in the USA made the metropolitan newspapers rely heavily on advertisers for revenues. That was replicated in other developed and developing markets.

Publishers discovered that under-pricing copy sales boosted circulation growth and magnified advertising income.

Circulation increase became a key metric to leverage advertising rates. It generated disproportionate advertising revenue leverage against the cost of the copy sales growth. This was a bonanza that allowed newspapers net profit margins of 20-25% for decades.

It was too good to last. The Internet disrupted the paid news model and severed generational renewal. Losing audience and revenue, print is in terminal decline.

Internet & demographic switch kill the biz model

The demographic engine for metropolitan newspapers died sometime after the mid-90s. Gen Y & Z are “Digital Natives” who rely totally on laptops, smart-phones and tablet screens to receive news alerts FREE.

There is no renewal of youth readership in print. The ageing profiles of existing newspaper readers are unattractive to brands looking for next generation shoppers.

Advertisers and their agencies are squeezing newspapers for heavy discounts while they divert budgets to digital channels and social media to reach youth.

Today’s youth have to be met through their preferred media, which is not print. Mobile, Online and Social Media platforms are the challenge for 21C marketing.

Press responds with desperate measures (all fail)

Desperate newspaper publishers shifted focus from serious issue-driven journalism to crime, sex and celebrity gossip. Voyeuristic gratification became the publishing mission.

Capsule reporting and racy tabloid formats were designed to cater to distracted youth and time-impoverished middle-class professionals. That gained ‘flip-through, throw-away’ interest which did not impress brands. They were shy of sharing that content environment.

FREE tabloids were distributed on trains, buses and at shopping malls in the hope that copies sprayed liberally would attract advertising revenues sufficient for survival.

The youth spend their time on digital and mobile platforms. The professionals have little time to sit with newspapers but ample digital access to news of all categories.

Eager advertisers are chasing both groups through Cyberspace in continuing experimentation of methods, formats and channels. Generic press does not figure in their calculations of future marketing.

Quality press brands enjoy residual commercial support as they still wield influence over national politics and corporate business. Margins are thin and getting thinner. Staff lay-offs have reached their limit. There is little room left for internal cost reduction. There is no revenue growth. Ageing readers are going blind and dying literally.

FREE tabloids are struggling to keep their noses above water. Advertising rates are low and in many cases uneconomic. Publishers can live on hope and hype for only so long.

The days of 25% net profit margins are gone. The dominant concern is survival.

What options for newspapers beyond print?

Newspapers are a medium of broad reach for which advertisers are charged 100% even when a specific marketing target comprises only 15% of that reach - potential buyers for BMW cars or holidaymakers to New Zealand for example. That is unsustainable.

Online, mobile and social media platforms allow for targeting, connecting and interacting with individuals who fit specific target definitions. Advertisers are looking for ‘engagement’. Brands want to dialogue and sustain a lifetime relationship.

Strong newspapers enjoy incredibly powerful brand equity compared to other businesses. That strength can be multiplied through online, mobile and social networks to serve appropriate content, connect communities and facilitate access to searchable archives.

Content created with deep domain expertise has inherent value to communities. They will pay for useful information, convenience and access ‘on-the-go’. That re-defines the value of content beyond news and advertising dependency.

It requires database-driven, content-format-technology-channel-organization structure alignments to converge and connect consumers seamlessly across a range of personal devices.

Digital channels are opportunities to project the powerful print brand into all networks and platforms in Cyberspace. It enables entirely new revenue opportunities for different kinds of service. Content is the glue which holds communities of interest. Services that enhance community experience can be built and grown around that central idea.

The organization previously called ‘newspaper’, needs to nurture and facilitate multiple community touch-points. It is anchored in content but creates value well beyond it.

Is it prudent to re-shape the existing business structure and model? Or replace it altogether? Can the transition be managed without fatal dislocation? Can the managers and staff cope with such radical change? How can successful transitioning be mapped?

ENDS