Let's Debate
English Street
ES10
TEXT April Zhang ([email protected])
MONDAY FEBRUARY 21, 2011
PHOTO HKET
DESIGN Prudence
Motion: Is Hong Kong ready for universal suffrage?
THE recent death of democracy advocate Szeto Wah has once
again focused our attention on Hong Kong's democratic movement,
for which Szeto was an intrepid fighter. Looking back at a couple
of key highlights over the past few years, we have Chief Executive
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, in 2007, referring to a survey which said,
at that time, that more than half of the citizens of Hong Kong wanted
direct elections by 2012. The current timeline is to allow the 2017
Chief Executive elections and the 2020 Legislative Council elections
to take place by universal suffrage. Since 2017 is only a few years
away, are we as a society truly ready for universal suffrage?
Affirmative #2
Affirmative #1
Yes, we are. We believe that Hong Kong people have always
been ready. Back in 2003, half a million people took to the streets
to demonstrate their will and strength, and dramatically changed the
outcome of one of the Hong Kong government's most controversial
decisions. Once started, the Hong Kong democratic movement has
never wavered. The core of this movement is to achieve universal
suffrage. We believe that government representatives should be
chosen by every member of society. The government should be
answerable to and removable by the people. As said earlier, in
2007 there was already a
majority of people who
wanted direct elections.
With the ongoing
democratic movement
gaining strength in recent
years, the number of people
fi g h t i n g f o r u n iv e r s a l
suffrage has increased.
Oppositional #1
No, we are not ready. The first reason is that democracy has
been sold to Hong Kong citizens as a dose of panacea, which
is believed to be able to cure many social and political diseases.
But the downside of democracy has been largely neglected in the
discussions.
Modern liberal democracy is indeed impossible in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is a place driven by the market, not by the government
and its decisions. This has resulted in a minority of wealthy people
who have a disproportionately large amount of power. For the
majority of the rest, we are burdened by skyrocketing property
prices and ever increasing inflation. The best that universal
suffrage can bring to the average citizen is to allow each of us to
have a say every five years in who we want to 'run' the territory,
which is at best a symbolic token.
Universal suffrage will not re-distribute wealth, nor lower
inflation, nor prohibit the property developers from increasing
property prices. When everything is still subject to the market, it's
really useless to talk about universal suffrage.
Debater's note
Democracy and universal suffrage are interesting issues in Hong
Kong because the territory has never truly been an independent state.
Before it was a colony under British rule. Now, Hong Kong is under
Chinese rule, specifically the 'one country, two systems' framework,
which has been highly criticised. Also, don't forget that in 2047, Hong
Kong will revert entirely over to Mainland Chinese governance.
Don't forget about the press. The reason our opponent was able to
mention the rising inflation rate and high property prices is the press.
The press' voice is the people's voice. In a modern democracy, the
press functions as a watchdog and provides informed and independent
analysis. Thus people can become as well informed as possible through
the media, and therefore can make critical decisions and judgements
which in turn can be expressed through the press, and ultimately
influence the final outcome of government decisions. In Hong Kong,
the press is already performing this critical task. We have the freedom
of speech and therefore we have a forceful press, through which the
government is answerable to the public. We have seen measures being
taken to curtail the skyrocketing property prices and the government
has promised to monitor inflation. Therefore, Hong Kong is ready to
take that step towards full democracy.
Oppositional #2
We disagree about the impartiality as well as the functions of the
press. Our opponent overestimates the forcefulness of the media. In Hong
Kong particularly, the top interest of the press is to make money. In order
to produce sensational stories to generate sales, the press have never been
hesitant to forsake their role of watchdog. A recent case in point is the
Stanley Ho Hung-sun family fiasco that has dominated the front pages of
newspapers and magazines across town. It shows that Hong Kong people
are fundamentally apolitical. They are not really into actively participating
in politics; they would rather use their energy to make money. Hong Kong
people are so dependent upon the system of making money, that they
demand the government
to hand over sweeteners
in its annual budget rather
than seek meaningful
and fundamental political
changes.
Therefore, our society
is not yet ready for
democracy until we start
to care as much about our
leaders as we do our bank
accounts.
Think critically
A critical mind is a questioning mind. Although this
debate is centred around Hong Kong, you are encouraged
to think of countries striving for democracy outside of
Hong Kong. For example, what do you think about the
recent protests in Egypt? Is Egypt ready for democracy?
Can democracy solve Egypt's problems?
1. advocate (n. 擁護者)
2. intrepid (adj. 勇敢的)
3. waver (v. 動搖)
4. panacea (n. 萬靈藥)
5. curtail (v. 減縮)
6. impartiality (n. 公平)
7. forsake (v. 拋棄)
8. fiasco (n. 尷尬的結局)