Suzanne Pepper Today, 12:10 PM
Just because Hong Kong’s 18 Distract Councils deal only with the mundane details of neighborhood life doesn’t mean the overarching political tensions between pan-democrats and pro-Beijing loyalists plus their pro-government establishment allies do not signify. The contest between the two now looms over all things to do with government and politics. That includes especially elections, and the District Councils are no exception, especially given their evolving role within Hong Kong’s “organs of political power” (Nov. 10 post ).
Still, the old traditional veneration for social harmony appears … and disappears as needed … exploited by all sides. Everyone likes to say they hate the partisan divisions that are “tearing us apart.” Even Occupy Central leaders are lamenting the current discord. Hence ahead of next Sunday’s District Councils election, the candidates all proclaim their only desire is “to serve.” But true non-partisans no longer exist here, if they ever did, except maybe in the imaginations of non-participants. So everyone declares their desire to serve and at the same time everyone also either declares their partisan loyalties or manages to convey them even when declining to declare affiliations.
In past elections, most of those running as “independents” could be calculated as conservative pro-establishment. This year, several of the younger candidates are also caught up in the contradiction … not declaring, unless asked, that they were Occupy supporters.
Of the three candidates in my constituency, one is the pro-Beijing Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) incumbent. He’s a newcomer to the district that had always voted for a democrat until the last, 2011, election. The former incumbent was mysteriously called to account for misuse of office funds … just as Election Day was approaching and too late to recruit another candidate. The current incumbent’s campaign materials speak only of his service to the district … while copies of the pro-Beijing Ta Kung Pao newspaper, with daily doses of scurrilous articles about pan-democrats, are delivered to our doors free of charge.
Another candidate proclaims himself independent because, says his flier, Hong Kong’s experience during the past year illustrates the “restrictions of political parties.” He’s probably borderline conservative establishment … searching for the illusive “third way.”
The third candidate when asked directly will only say she is “not pro-Beijing.” Her flier explains further that she is “without party, without faction, but for self-determination.” She’s no doubt a new-style young democrat in the Joshua Wong mold because most others don’t use the English term “self-determination” to translate the Chinese phrase for “autonomy”【自主】.
ANTI-OCCUPY
This year, however, the protestations about harmony and service pale beside the Anti-Occupy campaign being waged by the main pro-Beijing political party … the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) … and its FTU ally. Giant headlines and rhetoric to match all proclaim the anti-Occupy Central message and all that Hong Kongers complained about during the protest: 79 days’ of traffic gridlock, declining business receipts, laws and regulations for maintaining public order flouted, Beijing’s authority defied, its universal suffrage framework voted down, citizens consequently deprived by pan-democrats of the chance for a universal suffrage Chief Executive election in 2017, and so on.
Photo exhibitions put up at subway stations and in prominent places around town recalled events in all their most negative aspects. The exhibitions were set up in over a dozen locations for three consecutive weekends ahead of the November 22 poll. Citizens were urged “not to forget the calamity, protect Hong Kong, drive out the dissidents” (Wen Wei Pao, Nov. 1). Danger still lurks but the DAB’s candidates are vigilant. All are pledged to eliminate the four dangers perpetrated by the democratic camp: Occupy Central, filibustering in the Legislative Council, violence on the streets, and black money (Nov. 2: Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Pao).
Whether their voters will be responding to this message … or to the fact that DAB/FTU incumbents now have proven track records as community-level social-service providers …. remains to be seen. Pundits are predicting the latter will guarantee their success at the polls. By extension it will also allow them to exploit their incumbents’ advantage for all its worth by proclaiming the success of their anti-Occupy message.
THE CANDIDATES
After vetting, the total number of validly nominated candidates is 935, vying for 431seats in Hong Kong’s 18 District Councils.* Unlike all the others here, this is a simple election: 431 single-seat constituencies, elected via one-person, one-vote. No proportional representation; the candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins the seat.
Of the 935 nominees, some 480 candidates are pro-Beijing loyalists and their allies. Of those, over 60 have already been elected since their seats are uncontested. Due to the number of uncontested seats, only 867candidates will actually be vying for only 363seats.
In contrast, pan-democrats are fielding a total of 328 candidates, with only three uncontested. Asked why they are allowing their adversaries so many free rides via the uncontested seas, pan-democrats say they lack the resources to compete in more races. The largest, Democratic Party, is fielding 95 candidates, compared to 132 in 2011 when the party suffered big losses.
Adding to their difficulties, of course, is the fragmentation of the democratic camp. The pro-Beijing DAB flagship is fielding 171 candidates and they, too, must share the limelight with many others. These include the FTU, Regina Ip’s New People’s Party, her Civil Force ally, the pro-business Liberal Party, its off-shoot the Business and Professional Alliance, plus multiple other associations and societies. Many of these also field candidates, especially in the suburban New Territories.
But they all follow the golden electoral rules of candidate coordination and not speaking ill of each other, at least not on the campaign trail. “The DAB unites with one heart,” as the party saying goes.
Pan-democrats do try. The long-suffering Joseph Cheng Yu-shek is still acting as candidate coordinator. But that effort, pursued with difficulty from 2003, fell apart during the 2011 District Councils election campaign and the pieces have only been partially put back together. The oldest largest parties have formed a Democratic Coalition for the District Councils Election that agreed to follow the rules of good candidate behavior. These parties include: the Democratic Party, fielding 95 candidates; the Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL) with 26; Civic Party, 25; the Democratic Party off-shoot Neo-democrats, 16; Labour Party, 12.
Altogether, this disciplined pan-democratic force is fielding 213 candidates. But many others have chosen to remain outside the coalition. These include several smaller new groups of young “umbrella warriors” 【傘兵】 from the Occupy movement and others bearing the new “local-ist” Hong Kong city-state message.
Altogether, contesting seats outside the main Democratic Coalition, including old and new groups plus pro-democracy independents: candidates number 115.
According to Ming Pao Daily‘s fact-checkers, these non-coalition candidates are set to split the pro-democracy vote in 46 constituencies. The Democratic Party stands to lose the most with candidates in 31 of these constituencies; the Civic Party in four; Labour Party also four; ADPL seven (Ming Pao, Nov. 3).
Topping out the total number of 935 candidates are over a hundred independents whose leanings remain unclear one way or the other.
STRATEGIES
With its incumbent’s advantage, 28,000+ members, a proven community service track record, well-behaved contingents of candidates … and 2,300 campaign workers neatly organized into five teams to serve the five categories of candidates: youth, women, professionals, incumbents, newcomers … it follows that the pro-Beijing camp also has the clearest election strategy for November 22.
When the DAB paid its duty visit to Beijing following the June 18 defeat of Beijing’s electoral reform mandate, the delegation received an official pep talk and injunction: win five more seats in the 2016 Legislative Council (Legco) election. That would give pro-establishment legislators the two-thirds super-majority they need to pass the Beijing-designed election reform bill over democratic objections.
Consequently, the pro-Beijing loyalist campaign strategy is not just to win as many District Council seats as possible on November 22, in order to build momentum for the more important 2016 Legco contest. They also need to win with the right sort of District Council candidates who can compete for the five “super-seats” in the Legislative Council.
These are the five seats that Albert Ho’s 2010 Legco election reform compromise created. As Democratic Party chairman, he was negotiating on behalf of the entire democratic camp when he accepted the official proposal to reserve five Legco seats for District Councilors. His condition was that although only District Councilors could nominate and be nominated for these five seats, they must be elected by a territory-wide constituency of all voters (Nov. 10 post).
Pan-democrats won three of the five seats in the 2012 Legco election. Hence the pro-Beijing strategy of targeting those three democratic incumbents while also trying to increase the roster of friendly District Councilors with territory-wide name recognition. They would have the best chance of successfully competing with pan-democrats for those seats in next year’s Legco election.
In this respect, at least, the DAB is at a disadvantage because it has few such big-name District Councilors with wider appeal. Of the two pro-Beijing legislators occupying those seats, one is now DAB chair; the other is retiring.
The super-seat democratic incumbents are Albert Ho; Frederick Fung Kin-kee of the ADPL; and the Democratic Party’s James To Kun-sun. All are vulnerable but none more so than the beleaguered Albert Ho. He is also being opposed, with typical pan-democratic bravado, by three other democrats who are using him as a foil
http://chinaelectionsblog.net/hkfocus/?p=1444
