Incoming HK Chief Executive's trust deficit accelerates

Can Hong Kong citizens trust him?

CY Leung apologises for illegal structures

Wealthy property surveyor Leung Chun-ying is due to take office, mired in controversy, as Hong Kong’s next chief executive on July 1.  


The Chinese-language Ming Pao Daily reported last week that Leung’s residence on Victoria Peak, the lofty enclave for the rich, powerful and famous, featured an illegal glass canopy extension. That caused Buildings Department inspectors to check more closely, tallying five more instances of illegal structures on the property.  


Extensions to property in Hong Kong are a big deal, partly because rapacious landlords erect them on the top of their buildings for extra revenue. They are often illegal, unsafe, unsanitary and occasionally downright dangerous. 

The campaign of Henry Tang Ying-yen, Leung’s main rival for the chief executive job, collapsed when it was discovered he had a 2,400 square foot illegal basement under his Kowloon Tong house. Tang first denied it, then blamed his wife for building it. CY Leung had publicly declared during the campaigning that he had no illegal structures at his home.

Conducting a media pack through his HK$500 million residence, Leung explained that he bought the twin property 10 years ago and had an ‘authorized person’ inspect it for compliance with buildings regulations. He promised to rectify the infringements immediately. 

Albert Ho Chun-yan, Democratic Party chairman and the third man on the CE ballot in March, was incensed and will seek a judicial review or court petition to nullify the results of the small-circle CE election. “We are taking this matter to court because Hong Kong people need a credible chief executive” declared Albert who participated in the election to challenge the legitimacy of the electoral college.

The media circus has hired cranes stationed outside CY Leung’s residence just as they did outside Henry Tang’s Kowloon Tong quarters in February. There is live TV coverage and commentary.

Leung talks the talk

“There is only one law for all in Hong Kong, rich or poor,” Leung stated on ‘Newsline,’ the ATV interview program hosted by Michael Chugani last Sunday. He made the comment in the context that the same rule should apply to himself and to the New Territories villagers who claim they should be exempt.

Leung has the ability to say the right things even when caught with his pants down. In politics that is a rare gift. Comparisons with the ‘Teflon president’ Bill Clinton, who could look people in the eye and lie with a straight face, are not amiss. 

Allegations of being a closet communist, of urging riot police action on the 2003 public rally against a draconian security bill, of taking instructions from the ‘united front’ plotters at the China Liaison Office and now of violating the buildings code, all seem to slide off without sticking. 

Leung rarely gets flustered in public. He takes it all in stride like a hardened politician. He will not be scuppered.  He puts on the long-suffering look of the misunderstood. Colleagues who have worked for decades with him have difficulty penetrating his inscrutable personality. Nobody really ‘knows’ him. The old establishment of senior civil servants, property tycoons and university academics have major reservations. 

Public trust is surprisingly absent for a man who diligently tours depressed neighborhoods, avoids hobnobbing with the tycoons and projects himself a champion of the poor. There is something about CY Leung which invokes deep-seated mistrust.

Leung has apologised three times within the past five days at the various forums and meetings his team has organised. His latest apology was “I am disappointed in myself over this incident. I have let down my friends and the public. I am sorry”.

Tardiness after Henry Tang fiasco?

What rankles about Leung’s illegal extension discovery is that Henry Tang was felled by extensive media disclosure of similar unauthorized structures over which Henry remained silent as his government declared it would demolish all such extensions. 

Tang was then second in command in the Donald Tsang administration. Henry typically stuck his wife with it. She is now the subject of Buildings Department and legal investigations.

Leung had plenty of warning and ample time to rectify his illegal structures away from public glare. Why did it need a report by Ming Pao Daily, the same paper which broke the Henry Tang story, for him to act? Was it gross negligence, poor judgment or arrogance?

As a property surveyor himself, CY Leung has even less excuse for being unaware of what contravenes building regulations. Questions are being asked about the professional advice he received. Some point to that as disturbing evidence of his inability to find competent advisors.

His choice of outsiders inexperienced in administration or policy-making, to head up several bureaus in the incoming government has raised eyebrows among independent and pro-Beijing legislators.

Democrats bay for resignation

Several pro-Beijing compatriots voiced their disappointment and displeasure at this unwelcome tarnishing of the incoming chief executive’s reputation. After the humiliation of Beijing’s first choice for chief executive, the compatriots were relieved to have Leung slide into position by default. He was embraced as one of them who made good on his own.

Tsang Yok-sing, president of the Legislative Council, characterized the illegal structures as “serious negligence” on a radio talk program but did not think it was a deliberate cover-up. 

Chan Yuen-han, head of the Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), demanded a full explanation. The FTU had cast its vote for Leung in the ‘small-circle’ election for the chief executive.

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, an unsuccessful contender for the CE nomination, declared “integrity matters for those running for public office, therefore the illegal structure row is a serious problem”.

The democrats predictably held a protest march calling for Leung’s resignation saying he is “morally bankrupt”.

Fast-track ploy defeated in Legco

The attempt to fast-track the incoming administration’s restructuring bill ahead of the 10 pending bills and 17 resolutions was defeated in Legco by one vote. Of the 54 legislators in the chamber, 27 voted for, 25 against. The motion needed 28 votes to be carried. The government was too casual in assuming it easily held the majority in Legco. Chief secretary Stephen Lam’s jaw dropped when the vote-count was announced.

The president abstained from voting to maintain his impartiality. Regina Ip abstained ‘on principle’. Two pro-government legislators were absent.

That unexpected setback means the full complement of three top officials, two deputy secretaries and 14 bureaus in Leung’s administrative revamp (which will cost the government HK$60 million more per annum), will not be in place July 1 when it takes office.

What is particularly embarrassing about this is that President Hu Jintau will be in Hong Kong on that date to commemorate 15 years of the resumption of Chinese sovereignty. It is an altogether inauspicious start for the new chief executive.

Security bill rears its ugly head

It is widely suspected that Beijing’s support for CY Leung in the CE election, after Henry Tang self-destructed, included an obligation to pass the reviled Article 23 security legislation during the next five-year term. CY Leung has denied that Article 23 is a priority for his administration.

CY's 689 votes at the CE election adds to Article 23?

In 2017 the chief executive is to be universally elected. Given Hong Kong’s instinctive suspicion of the real intent of Article 23, it is unlikely that any popularly elected leader can endorse it. If the security bill is not enacted during the next term, it will be near impossible to embed it in the statutes thereafter.

Many independent and pan-democratic legislators fear that Leung’s strongman leadership style, evidenced by his aggressive push for quick approval of his massive reorganization of the government machinery, will similarly railroad the Article 23 bill when he feels it opportune to do so.

After 180,000 Hong Kong residents turned up for the June 4 vigil in Victoria Park for the 1989 student massacre in Tiananmen and a mass march June 10 over the suspicious suicide of Tiananmen dissident Li Wangyang at a hospital in Hunan, the public mood is outrage at the Communist Party’s callous disregard for human rights.

Ambrose Lee Sin-kwong, the outgoing secretary for security, last week made the loony claim that Hong Kong people “owe the central government a constitutional responsibility” to enact the national security legislation. 

That sounded like Hong Kong should show its gratitude to Beijing for the right to exist, by passing a bad law designed not to defend national security but to allow government to curtail treasured rights of free expression, assembly and press, allow home raids without warrant and imprison journalists for disclosure of undefined ‘state secrets’. 

The Singapore Straits Times’ China correspondent Ching Cheong was jailed for three years in 2005 for disclosing ‘state secrets’ and spying for Taiwan. None of the allegations were proven. He was also the subject of a false smear campaign by the authorities for allegedly keeping a mistress. Ching Cheong was a vice editorial manager on the communist paper Wen Wei Pao in Hong Kong. He resigned in protest with 40 others after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. 

China already has responsibility for external defense and international relations under the Basic Law. Article 23 is not a vital defense against attack by foreign forces. It is to shackle internal challenges to the creeping pro-mainland takeover of Hong Kong’s legislature, governance, academic institutions, police and justice systems. 

James To Kun-sun, chairman of the Legco security panel and a democratic lawmaker, said Article 23 should not be voted on until Hong Kong moved to universal suffrage. When all legislators are elected by the people, they are unlikely to pass bad laws which undermine fundamental freedoms and human rights.

The worry now is whether Hong Kong’s new chief executive will connive with Beijing to remove the territory’s last remaining freedoms and rule of law. Can Hong Kong people trust Leung Chun-ying?

ENDS

No honeymoon for HK chief executive-elect who takes office 1st July

Henry Tang outs CY Leung on 2003 Article 23 protest - State secret revealed live on TV

The Cosa Nostra has a drop-dead principle of “Omerta” – under no circumstances – even threat of death, can a member squeal on the brotherhood. Too many dead bodies, too many factions, too much money, hundreds of lucrative franchises at stake for drugs, money-laundering, arms trafficking, white slavery plus strategic agents planted in police forces and parliaments everywhere.

The obsessively opaque Chinese Communist Party has a similar unforgiving code on State Secrets. The very survival of the party depends on it.

Zhao Ziyang the party secretary-general during the 1989 Tian’anmen crisis was sacked for dissenting on sending tanks to roll over the students. His bigger crime was letting the students know that Old Deng had returned from retirement to take charge and unleash the killing machines.

Zhao had disclosed a State Secret as he tearfully urged the students to vacate the square to avert the impending massacre. “I have come too late” was his lament. Zhao Ziyang was expelled from the party, held under house arrest till death and denied a state funeral.

Henry Tang reveals a State Secret. And goes on vacation

Henry Tang wagged an accusatory finger at CY Leung at the final debate between the CE contenders, for urging riot police action to stop the 2003 public march of over half a million residents against the Article 23 Security Bill. 

Not only did Henry disclose a State Secret - he did so on prime-time TV to a stunned Hong Kong audience.

“I heard what you said with my own ears” thundered Tang, for once transcending his silly public grin. He was genuinely angry and indignant. That sealed his fate with the party bosses in Beijing – and added credence to persistent rumours of CY Leung’s underground communist status and jackboot tendencies.



CY Leung denied that he urged truncheons, tear gas, pepper-spray or water cannons be used on the marchers. Confident that executive council minutes only record points of agreed action and not verbatim accounts, CY even pledged to release relevant minutes to “clear the allegations”.



Tellingly, no one else from that fateful executive council meeting stood up for CY Leung or contradicted Henry Tang.


Tang’s disclosure also panicked Madam Regina Ip, another future CE hopeful, who was secretary for security then and has as much to hide about that shameful incident. She was in charge of the uniformed services waiting for the green light. 


The trouble with Article 23


The Article 23 provisions, which resulted in the biggest demonstration in modern Hong Kong history, would have allowed the banning of any organization banned by Beijing - such as Falun Gong for instance - without the HK government having to conduct an independent investigation. It would have allowed the police to conduct warrantless searches at any time, anywhere, of anybody. A sedition provision would give the government power to decide what constitutes provocative speech - written, spoken or delivered on the Internet. It would be a crime to listen to such speech and fail to report it.


Those subject to the law would have been citizens and all permanent residents - no matter where they reside, in or out of the territory. It would have included people who visited or transited through Hong Kong as well. Those violating Article 23 were potentially subject to life in prison.



Henry Tang must thank fate for being a HK citizen under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle. No gang of secret police kicked down his doors to whisk him away in the dead of night to an undisclosed location to be beaten into signing a ‘confession’ or fed mercury-laced food to kill him slowly. His wife and children are not under constant surveillance. No security cameras spy on him. No police thugs squat in unmarked cars both ends of his street. He cannot be ‘disappeared’. In fact the man is leaving for a vacation break in a huff.



Chief Executive-elect dashes to Central Liaison Office



Perhaps decades of regular visits and coaching at the Central Liaison Office have become a fixed routine for CY Leung. His dash there the day after his selection, went down like a lead balloon. It was unseemly and undignified for Hong Kong’s next leader to be running to shadowy minders at the CLO.



He forgot that he was now the leader-elect of Hong Kong. If the Central Liaison Office folk want to see him, surely they can book an appointment at his office? Was he there to thank them for stealing the election for him? Was he grateful they pressured the Select Committee probing his West Kowloon Centre project indiscretion to delay till after 25th March?



Citizens were left wondering whether CY Leung was their chief executive-elect or Beijing’s under-cover mole. The radio waves, talk shows and press were electrified with denunciations. One columnist in the South China Morning Post warned of the ‘long nightmare’ ahead.



Obligation to pass Article 23?



Of all the priorities on the plate of the incoming chief executive, CY unwisely resurrected the dreaded Article 23 to the top of his agenda. He pledged to consult widely for consensus. The message Hong Kong citizens delivered so unequivocally on 1st July 2003 seems not to have registered.



CY risks provoking a Hong Kong already suspicious, wary and angry at the stage-managed, small-circle election and the blatant interference of the Central Liaison Office apparatchiks. They do not trust him or them. The consensus he will find on Article 23 is that Hong Kong citizens do not want it.



They may be denied universal franchise and have unwanted leaders imposed on them but Hong Kong citizens have shown they will stand up for their first world freedoms.



Article 23 has little relevance for security in the territory. External defence and international relations are mandates of the PRC. Article 23 has all the tools for clamping down on rights and freedoms which distinguish the city from the rest of China and much of Asia.



Chinese scholar Wong Yiu-chong analysed the attempt to insert Article 23 into HK’s Basic Law in the Asia Perspective Journal (Kyungnam University, South Korea) as the “Leninist integration” strategy of steady absorption.



Starting with the lowest approval rating



CY Leung will start his term with the lowest votes for any chief executive over the past three Election Committee cycles and the lowest approval ratings for an incoming chief executive. His approval rating at 35% is less than half what his predecessors Tung Chee-hwa and Donald Tsang started with.



Citizens of Hong Kong indicated their rejection of the farcical CE election exercise and all three candidates, by casting a whopping 55% blank protest vote in the mock election organized by the HKU Public Opinion Poll over the two days preceding the Election Committee voting. Those who picked from the three tallied 17.8% for CY Leung, 16.3% Henry Tang and 11.4% Albert Ho.



Despite the online voting computers being hacked and disabled, 223,000 people from all walks of life switched to the inconvenience of queuing to cast paper votes at 15 stations set up for the purpose. The organizers had only expected about 50,000 participants even for the online exercise! That should give the Beijing bosses pause for thought on how deep feelings run in HK.



CY has to be cognizant of the extremely weak position he is starting from. He has already stumbled badly even before he takes office. He cannot be seen as a stooge of the Central Liaison Office. Whether he is a closet communist is beside the point. That is his problem - not Hong Kong’s.



CY Leung will have no ‘honeymoon’ allowance. He has to grow into a true leader of 7 million pro-active citizens quickly or find it impossible to govern. He is too sharp and too diligent to fail so obviously. He may yet prove his critics wrong. The only trajectory available to him is up!



ENDS

HK's chief executive selection reverts to two-horse race

CY Leung to be next chief executive?
A semblance of order has returned to the chief executive selection process after Beijing's original man, Henry Tang, made himself un-selectable. Two more hopefuls almost joined the race. That would have made the circus spin out of control.


The selection criteria requires the winning candidate to secure at least 601 votes from the electoral college of 1,200. Too many contenders would have endangered that outcome.


Tsang Yok-sing, president of the Legislative Council, pulled out just before nominations closed. He was advised to do so. The DAB had 'reserved' a block of 140 votes pending his decision. 


Regina Ip failed to aggregate the minimum 150 nominations from tycoons, functional constituencies and the DAB - Beijing's largest above-ground representatives in LegCo. The baggage she carries made the puppeteers nervous. No nod for her.


This was a moment of truth for the former secretary for security who fancied herself the most competent chief executive choice. The DAB has not forgiven her ingratitude after being gifted its support in the 2008 HK Island constituency election. The professional constituencies showed her the door. 


Tycoons want Henry to stay. Citizens say nay
It was a disastrous few weeks for Henry Tang. Despite negative feedback from daily press, disillusioned supporters and the polls, candidate Tang carries on like nothing happened. Neither shame nor rejection has reached him. 


The 18 Feb edition of The Economist has him as the "sort of amiable, vaguely trustworthy duffer..." which sums up Henry.


At the first debate held 3 March featuring the three CE hopefuls at City University before a 500-strong audience of the public and environmental activists, the post-debate votes re-confirmed Henry Tang's rejection - he got 2 percent whereas CY Leung received sixty-three percent while Albert Ho of the Democratic Party had 23 percent. 


Everyone knows that the Democratic Party is unacceptable to Beijing. Albert Ho had earlier jokingly told the Financial Times of London that if he ever got selected by the 1,200 electoral college, it would be finally revealed that he is a mole of the Communist Party! 


It will be a huge relief for Hong Kong to be spared being bossed by Henry Tang. China has to whisper to the selectors so he does not. It cannot risk another massive street march like the 2003 outrage which felled Tung Chee-hwa and Regina Ip for defying HK citizens in attempting to pass into legislation the Article 23 Security Bill.


It proved then that using a rubber-stamp legislature to enforce Beijing's diktat is not the way to rule. HK citizens are acutely aware of their rights and will face down any government that schemes to whittle away its existing freedoms of assembly, protest and press. So long as HK is denied universal franchise, its citizens will remain suspicious and super-vigilant.


Public unforgiving of govt-tycoon collusion
There is a sea-change in public attitudes to the privileged elites. Their ability to flout rules which ordinary citizens have to live by, is being aggressively challenged. 


The widening wealth gap, unaffordable housing, lack of a safety net for the poorest and enormous budget surpluses not being used to solve systemic problems, all rankle badly. They speak of an administration badly out of touch with the people it rules.


The rough treatment incumbent chief executive Donald Tsang got in the press and in LegCo for consorting with tycoons aboard luxury yachts and private jets, and accepting a penthouse below market rent for retirement, was a signal lesson for legislators, civil servants and the next chief executive. 


The simmering resentment against big business-government collusion has erupted too strongly for a return to 'business as usual'.


The 'two systems' are irreconcilable
Although Henry's extra-marital dalliances and illegal property extensions seem trivial by China benchmarks, the furious public response starkly etched the gulf separating Hong Kong and mainland attitudes to public officials and their conduct. 


Leaders and party functionaries in China wield enormous clout. Citizens fear their ability to abuse power arbitrarily. Offending even a minor apparatchik can be costly to self and family. Terror rules. 


Challenging injustices can be risky to life and limb as the villagers of Wukan discovered when they protested the illegal sale of their lands by party officials. Their protest committee was detained and their leader beaten to death in prison.


In Hong Kong, civil servants are expected to be polite, helpful and correct in the discharge of their duties and responsibilities. Hong Kong citizens do not fear civil or uniformed public servants. There is mutual respect. Society operates efficiently without the need to bribe or beg public officials. 


HK residents are confident their courts and legal system will protect their fundamental rights. They do not expect to be kidnapped by their government in the dead of night or be beaten to sign fictitious confessions in prison. They expect their police to be law abiding and not thugs in uniform.


CY Leung right man at the right time?
Hong Kong lost 15 years through incompetent leaders appointed by Beijing. Tung Chee-hwa was a washout and Donald Tsang a nervous schoolboy waiting to be scolded on 'work-report' trips to Beijing. He will be thrashed royally this time round.


Neither had the charisma, conviction nor confidence to drive policies forward to make HK a better place for its residents. Henry Tang if selected, would stretch that to 20 years of treading water. 


The scandals which crushed Tang's CE ambition and ruined Tsang's legacy, did enormous good in surfacing fundamental issues about purpose of government and public accountability of officials.


CY Leung has conducted a measured and dignified campaign so far. He has invested serious time visiting the grass-roots to appreciate the needs of the neglected sectors of HK society. 


He is thoughtful, does his homework and crafts programs which he should now be articulating more forcefully. It is these very qualities which make the tycoons nervous. 


CY Leung does not need to keep proving his loyalty to Beijing - a constant distraction which drained Donald Tsang. If anyone can speak for HK and be heard in Beijing, CY can. 


No time to waste
Budget surpluses are there to be deployed judiciously for social good and equitable economic growth. That is a principle the property and construction tycoons vehemently oppose. They would rather pour concrete for highways, runways, railways and bridges at huge expense whether needed or not, or detrimental to environment and public health. 


It is the public purse the tycoons scheme to stream for decades into their pockets with the collusion of government. It is time for Hong Kong to plot a new course. The cosy government-big business nexus has to be curbed. A fairer distribution of opportunity and access has to include a broader swathe of small entrepreneurs and medium sized businesses. 


Housing affordability for the poor and the middle class has to be addressed. It is just too fundamental to be neglected any longer. What about the decade-long dodge on improving air quality and reducing traffic pollution? What about effective fair competition rules to bust cartels? 


What about the wasteful Trade Development Corporation which is uneconomic and heavily subsidized, running trade exhibitions which the HK private sector is fully competent to manage without subsidies? 


If CY does address these long-neglected issues in a forthright way, he can reinvigorate Hong Kong and gain the respect of its business sector and residents. He has to carry a big stick to get the civil service moving. They are masters at forming committees to 'study' issues and waste time as a tactic for inaction. 


He must find a competent and respected chief secretary to replace the woefully inadequate and inarticulate Stephen Lam. CY will need an effective civil service overlord who can make things happen and is not the classic time-server and pen-pusher.


There are also too many consultants feeding at the trough. It will be useful to make all their reports open to public scrutiny. Why should consultant reports on public projects remain government secrets? How many of these consultants are proxies for big business interests? CY has to hack through all that fast. 


The next chief executive has his work cut out for him. If he gets his act together fast he can re-energize Hong Kong. He may even get re-elected by a landslide through universal franchise in 2017. The one mistake he should not make is to revive the Article 23 Security Bill which HK citizens unequivocally rejected in 2003.


ENDS

Beijing needs to clean-up after Henry Tang's repeat indiscretions

Goodbye Henry. My turn now.

Media exposes Henry Tang's illegal underground structures
The media scrum was unprecedented. Cameramen perched atop six cranes hired for the purpose to beam live footage of Henry Tang's twin properties in Kowloon Tong on primetime TV newscasts. 
You could have easily assumed a millionaire family was mass-murdered or a special forces raid was in progress against a terrorist bomb-making cell.


It was all far more trivial. Five buildings department inspectors were confirming the vast illegal structure constructed without planning permission under candidate Tang's twin luxury homes. He had not declared this despite an executive order to Exco members. When caught after denials and evasions, he blamed it all on his wife.

Henry's wine cellar
below swimming pool


Henry Tang should withdraw from the chief executive race or be ordered to do so. The bosses in Beijing know he has lost public trust. He has used his long-suffering wife twice to take the heat off him. He has no moral authority to lead Hong Kong.

Beijing’s carefully choreographed opera for the quasi-election process has collapsed so fast and so critically close to the end-game. There is barely ten days left for the HK-Macau Affairs Office to quick-fix this crisis. The puppeteer has to pull the strings for the DAB, the HK Federation of Trade Unions and other allies to cast their nominations and votes to a revised script. But for which candidate?

The business lobby within the 1,200 electoral college is stymied. Tycoons do not want CY Leung but voting for the third candidate Albert Ho of the Democratic Party is a waste as Beijing won’t even allow leading Democrats travel access into the mainland!

Beijing’s mantra of “preserving the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong” - which they adopted as the narrative from the British administration, is lacking a stage prop. The CE quasi-election is in real danger of degenerating into pure farce.

Regina Ip’s golden moment? Regina Ip, infamous for trying to ram through the flawed Article 23 Security Bill in 2003, as secretary for security, now leads the New People’s Party. She was elected to the Legislative Council in 2008. She declared her interest to run for chief executive before but withdrew when she could not secure the minimal 150 nominations.

Regina hopes the business lobby may swing behind her as the de-facto alternative to CY Leung. Despite a supportive response from her party caucus last night, she is still dithering, unsure if at this late stage she can secure 150 nominations or have time to pitch for votes from the Election Committee. She will need momentum which only a nod from Beijing can energize. She is viewed a ‘neutral’ candidate not beholden either to the business lobby or the leftists. She is well regarded by civil servants who fear the whip of CY Leung.


Regina Ip at the start of the CE race described both Henry Tang and CY Leung as lacking the necessary "leadership qualities, competence and stamina" for the top job. She had received feelers from both camps for the position of chief secretary in the civil service. She declared she would not serve in an administration of either candidate.

Why not CY Leung?  
The government’s leak of the 10-year old conflict of interest issue on the West Kowloon Arts Centre design selection apart, CY Leung has conducted a dignified campaign on his own. No one in the HK administration has explained why it was necessary to exhume this 10-year old case at this time. It could have just ignored the East Week report instead of responding to it in the middle of the CE race.
 
CY is neither a stooge of the business lobby nor leftwing ideologues, although his strident anti-British sentiment is well known. Beijing has long identified him as a patriot in HK. He was given very senior responsibility in drafting the Basic Law and as convenor of the post-1997 Exco since.

He knows how the HK government operates and why it has been dysfunctional the last 14 years. He understands the festering issues left unresolved and sympathizes with the bottom rung of society. He knows the tricks of the property lobby only too well and they fear him for that. He has been consistently preferred by a wide margin on all the public polls.

Perhaps it is in CY’s consistently independent streak that Beijing has misgivings. The minders at the HK-Macau Affairs Office and the Central Government Liaison Office are relaxed about the vacuity of candidate Tang. He just coasts along and is happy to follow any path shown. Candidate CY Leung has a mind of his own. He thinks. Such men are dangerous?

ENDS

Who's Afraid of CY Leung?

CY is not Regina Ip's favourite person

An Establishment conspiracy?
A grim-faced CY Leung stares out of the front page of the South China Morning Post on Friday. The HK government had confirmed his conflict of interest omission on a jury panel selecting designs for an arts centre hub project 10 years ago. The company involved was disqualified when it was discovered that CY Leung was an advisor through his firm DTZ Holdings.

The incident was re-surfaced by East Week magazine of the Sing Tao News media group. Charles Ho, chairman of the group had gone on TV recently to question CY Leung's credentials for the CE position after CY accused the newspaper of conducting a smear campaign against him. CY Leung was a board member of the Sing Tao News but resigned after the falling out.

Was CE race slipping away from Henry Tang? It looked like a shoo-in for Tang when Hong Kong's tycoons closed ranks to declare support for his 2012 chief executive bid. The selection by the 1,200 Election Commission is due on 25 March. The third CE of Hong Kong will take office 1st July 2012 when incumbent Donald Tsang's second term expires.

Henry just doesn't convince

 Hong Kong's big-business power brokers seem genuinely panicked about the prospect of CY Leung becoming the HKSAR boss. They took time off from their busy schedules to rally for Henry at the HK Convention & Exhibition Centre before Christmas last year. Li Ka Shing (chairman, Hutchison Whampoa), Allan Zeman (chairman, Ocean Park & Father of Lan Kwai Fong) and David KP Li (chairman, Bank of East Asia) were some of the territory's icons who endorsed him. David K P Li has also taken on the onerous task of managing Tang’s election campaign.

Despite this formidable line-up of oligarchs, candidate Tang has been trailing badly in public opinion polls. The 16-19 January poll by Dr Robert Chung of HKU on a sample of 1,022 respondents, recorded 29.7% in favour of Henry Tang, 42.9% for CY Leung and 9.1% for Albert Ho, chairman of the Democratic Party. That is a gap of 13.2% in favour of CY Leung between the two front runners. It has been a similar story on other polls too.

Can CY get 150 nominations to contest?
Despite his lead in the opinion polls, CY Leung has only about 50 of his pledged candidates in the Election Committee. How he is going to secure the requisite 150 nominations is a moot point. Both Henry Tang and the Democratic camp have in excess of 200 pledged candidates each.

The nomination window opens on Valentine's Day 14 Feb and closes on 29 Feb. Tang has avoided a public debate with the other contenders so far. He says he will wait for the official nominations to be tabled before that.

Beijing has not indicated its preference between the two 'approved' candidates. That keeps the party faithful in limbo and anxious. They do not want to jump the gun. They are trained to wait for the whisper. CY is widely regarded the preferred choice among hardcore leftists in Hong Kong. They are very comfortable with him.  

The DAB (Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong) is the largest pro-Beijing party in the Legislative Council and has 147 seats on the 1,200 Election Committee which will select the chief executive. Party chairman Tam Yiu-chung has hinted the party may leave the vote to individual choice as there is no internal consensus to block-vote for either candidate and no pressure from Beijing to do so.

One intriguing option for CY Leung is to court the Democratic camp to shift their 'surplus' nominations to enable him to meet the 150 threshold. There are hints that feelers have been put out to that end. This poses Machiavellian opportunity and ideological conflict for both the Democratic camp and CY.

China defines CE criteria
Director Wang Guangya who heads the Hong Kong-Macau Affairs Office, reports directly to the State Council, China's cabinet. On a visit to Hong Kong in June 2011 to address the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (HKFTU) Wang listed three criteria for the future chief executive: demonstrated love of China and Hong Kong, competence in governance and "a high degree of acceptance among the general public, who should feel that the person elected is not bad".

That has given added symbolic significance to the public polling activity of the Hong Kong and Baptist Universities. Independent polling and disclosure of public views on government does not sit comfortably with the Communist Party. Even consumer marketing surveys in China have to obtain special permits and be approved by the authorities.

So director Wang's listing of popularity and respect as a criteria for the HKSAR chief executive is very progressive thinking for the most important job in Hong Kong - whose 7 million residents are excluded from participation.

Addressing a visiting delegation of HKSAR university students in Beijing last year, Wang roundly criticised the timidity of the British-trained administration, stating that they "still don't know how to be a boss and how to be a master". He observed that they are now in charge but unable to take bold initiatives.

That was the clearest indication yet that the PRC is unimpressed by the HKSAR’s first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa and incumbent Donald Tsang, who between them wasted 14 years through lack of effective leadership on an array of issues like public housing, air pollution, social safety net for the poorest and relief for a middle class squeezed by inflation and runaway property prices.

But the trio now standing for CE do not seem to be right either. Candidate Tang looks weak and ineffectual. Candidate CY Leung scares tycoons and ordinary folk alike. Candidate Albert Ho is unacceptable to Beijing.

Despite running record budget surpluses, the administration seems bereft of problem-solving ideas or the will to shunt the property cartel aside. The collusion between the construction lobby and the administration has created questionable infrastructure schemes to pour more concrete on a third runway, reclaim land from the sea and build long bridges and railway connections to the mainland.

The claimed job-creation effects of these schemes has little relevance for Hong Kong residents. It will only mean more mainland and Third World labour being shipped in. It will certainly enrich the local construction industry and related professional firms - all of whom have well entrenched networks within the administration.

Vision, leadership and a genuine connect with society is absent and HK citizens are fed up. The crying needs of society seem not to excite urgent focus or action. The dramatic and sudden HK$6,000 handout to every HK resident in the 2011 budget was the high-water-mark of societal thinking in the Donald Tsang administration. It was a gesture copied from the Macau SAR where casino income was cascading into government coffers.

Director Wang is right on this count.  

Pollsters under fire
Both universities and the professors who supervise the surveys have come under attack from the leftist Chinese language newspapers Ta Kung Pau, Wen Wei Pau and the English language China Daily.

Dr Zhao Xinshu of Baptist University released his survey showing Henry Tang reducing CY Leung's lead before the full sampling data was processed. It was premature and academically unsound. Dr Zhao quit on 6 Feb, the day the Baptist University released its 12 page investigation report.

The head of Baptist University has resisted further investigations, warning of unleashing “white terror” a loaded reference to the worst excesses of the Cultural Revolution. There is serious concern about academic freedoms eroding in HK.

Hao Tiechuan, director of publicity, culture and sport at the Central Government Liaison Office in Hong Kong (the former Xinhua News Agency renamed in 2000) took particular objection to one of  Hong Kong University's recent surveys which noted that more residents identified themselves primarily as HK citizens first rather than as citizens of China.

Dr Chung who heads the Public Opinion Poll (POP) at HKU has been tracking this particular sentiment for 12 years. He says respondents' identification preferences go up and down, influenced by positive events like the Beijing Olympics and declines on criticism from Chinese officials and China's abuse of dissidents at home.

Dr Robert Chung stands his ground against "Cultural Revolution-style" criticism. He has invited the left wing newspapers and other critics to a dialogue to answer any question on his survey methodology. Chung says so far no one from the Liaison Office, the mainland press or the university authorities have contacted him.

Meanwhile, Chung has devised a 'civic referendum' to enable members of the public to indicate their preferred CE candidate on 23 March, two days before the 25 March Election Committee voting. He says eligible voters will be able to access a polling station and participate online and through mobile phones. He would not seek funding from the university, the HK government or political parties. He hopes the HK$500,000 needed for this project will come from public donations.

ENDS

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