Social governance

More than 70% of voters voted for public opinion representatives, affirming the value of speaking out within the system. The dust of the election has settled, and the factional struggle has not ceased. The militant faction is clamoring for supervision and rectification, and the establishment faction is also seeking a comeback. Multiple forces are waiting for the opportunity to move. Regional issues must balance the interests of all parties and not waste time on ideological disputes. The democrats have taken the lead in district councils, and some are worried that the culture of protest will bring down district administration. In fact, political party rotation is nothing new in grassroots parliaments, and it is not difficult for the civil affairs system to follow the book. Conservatism and progress are eternal themes. It would not be a bad thing if the district councils, with unprecedented recognition, could correct the shortcomings of the system and implement regional empowerment.

The new District Council is about to enter the election period. Almost all seats are elected by one person, one vote. Many parties are looking forward to earth-shaking results. Although district councils are only a nominal advisory organization for local decision-making, district councilors play an important political role. They not only determine one-tenth of the special committee members, but also dominate six seats in the Legislative Council. Political issues are popping up everywhere, and voters expect their representatives to reflect their political demands. Recent meetings have been the first to bear the brunt of political statements. The politicization of grassroots democracy is a general trend and will be embedded in the genes of the parliamentary system in the future.

The storm over the legislative amendments has appealed to the international community for help. The new hope is that the United States will pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, verify Hong Kong's degree of autonomy every year, and consider whether to sanction officials and change the treatment of an independent customs territory, thereby promoting "soliciting speculation." Since the case of Ho Chi Ping and Meng Wanzhou, Hong Kong has quietly been involved in the whirlpool of great power competition. It has been accused of covering up illegal transactions for North Korea, being involved in the Iranian oil tanker incident, and being suspected of exporting military technology. This "Hong Kong card" is playing out. . The chaos in Hong Kong is a game between multiple forces. It is difficult for "speculators" to reach the point where both sides will be destroyed, but the scars left behind will never be erased. It now appears that there are signs of a decline in democracy, sounding the alarm for civilized society.

The intimidation is endless and continues to escalate under the banner of civil disobedience. The non-violent resistance advocated by Gandhi did not take place in Hong Kong, but instead became divided. This may be a tragic footnote for the 150th anniversary of his birth. One extreme is waiting for the People's Liberation Army to enter the city, let the central government take over Hong Kong, and expel foreign judges; the other extreme calls for the establishment of a provisional parliament, the organization of civil self-defense forces, and "not cutting off seats even if nuclear bombs are dropped." The two camps grew further and further apart, eventually becoming a tug of war with no winner.

"This is criminality, pure and simple." was the then British Prime Minister Cameron's evaluation of the London riots in 2016. The police killed a young man suspected of being armed with a gun, triggering a demonstration movement against violent law enforcement. In just six days, it spread to more than 5,000 cases of robbery, arson, and assault on police officers, making it the most serious conflict between police and citizens in the UK in recent years. Many media outlets, like Cameron, have condemned violence, but their words have also been criticized because criminal acts may be superficial, but the motives may not be pure. The neglect of pursuing the truth cannot help resolve the deep-seated contradictions behind the crimes.

The Hong Kong Academy of Politics and Administration, which was founded two years ago, is about to graduate its second class of students. They set their own topics for the policy study unit, which involve politics, economics and people's livelihood, and there are many social problems that need to be solved. In last week's report, someone raised a big problem that Hong Kong has to face: how to relieve people's doubts about Article 23 of the Basic Law. On the one hand, legislating for Article 23 and implementing double universal suffrage are also constitutional responsibilities that must be resolved eventually; on the other hand, the concept and meaning of some treasonous acts are unclear, and there is a risk of accidentally falling into the legal net, making it difficult to let down our guard. Whenever there are policies involving the Mainland, the issue of trust will become the focus. This was true then, and it is true now. How easy is it to relieve doubts?

Who would have thought that the sudden Fugitive Offenders Ordinance would develop into a deadlock that would tear apart society? One side adheres to the principle of justice and hopes to bring absconding offenders to justice; the other side is concerned about the protection of personal safety and does not want to dismantle the firewall between the two places. The bill needs to be reviewed before the Legislative Council adjourns in July. Now that the government has enough votes and a firm stance, there is no doubt that the revised script will be passed and it will enter the countdown stage. However, the public opinion mobilized through signatures, rallies and marches is not easy to resolve, and the social atmosphere is restless. After this battle, the mutual trust between the government and the people urgently needs to be repaired.

Nativism spreads by taking advantage of the conflicts between the mainland and Hong Kong, impacting Hong Kong's political landscape. Democratic Ideas publishes the "One Country, Two Systems Index" every six months. The latest round has observed a significant decline in non-establishment supporters, society is showing signs of de-radicalization, and moderate politics is growing. Opponents firmly believe that even if radicalism ebbs, it will make a comeback if the situation changes in the future. They even use the excuse that the survey results only reflect the illusion that citizens are "moderate". If it is not due to a change in public sentiment and non-establishment factions turning to moderates and establishment factions, can the "indifferent theory" and "scorched earth theory" alone be enough to explain it?