Chapter 65 Why did "Report No. 5" abort?

In December 2005, after 18 months of public consultation, the Hong Kong government finally came up with a "Proposal for Hong Kong's Political Reform", which was later called the "No. 5 Report", and submitted it to the Legislative Council for deliberation .Although the "No. 5 Report" was finally released, most citizens believed that it was a "political reform plan" that was popular among the people. Among the diverse opinions, "the government has found the most appropriate balance point, giving full play to regional The broad public opinion base of the members has injected a relatively high level of democracy into the methods for selecting the chief executive and the Legislative Council, allowing the electoral system to take a substantial step towards the ultimate goal of universal suffrage in Hong Kong." However, this is not the case. I know how many people have devoted their efforts to the "No. 5 Report". Due to the forcible obstruction of opposition lawmakers, they insisted on bundling the plan that is not the 2007-2008 election, that is, the "schedule" for universal suffrage in the "No. 5 Report". "Report No. 5" should be implemented together, otherwise the proposal would not be approved by raising hands, and the result would be the abort of "Report No. 5".Many citizens in Hong Kong from top to bottom feel "distressed" by this result, but the Legislative Council has a total of 60 members, and the "No. 5 Report" must be approved by more than 2/3 of the members. Tickets are not good, and they will all be stillborn.

On December 22, that is, in the early morning of the second day after the hasty end of the Legislative Council, Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang immediately held a press conference. Still can't completely conceal the "regret and disappointment" in my heart.According to the Chief Executive's idea, the "No. 5 Report" was a "Christmas gift he hoped to give to the people of Hong Kong" after he took office, but now his wish has come to nothing. "Hong Kong simply missed an opportunity for a great leap forward in political development." Why did the "wish" of Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang "fall through"?Is it really because his ideas are not based on the "common heart" of Hong Kong society and the fundamental interests of all Hong Kong people?Is it not yet ripe?neither.

After the "No. 5 Report" was stranded, Hong Kong's Chief Secretary for Administration, Hui Shiren, who operated the "report" from beginning to end until it was perfected and released, expressed his heartfelt sorrow at the press conference of the "Hong Kong Constitutional Development Task Force" held on the same day. Said: "This day is the darkest day in the history of Hong Kong democracy," he "slammed many pan-democrats" should bear historical responsibility for the miscarriage of "No. 5 Report", and strongly criticized 24 votes against it three times Members of the Council disregarded public opinion and ignored the principle of gradual and orderly development of democracy in the Basic Law; these 24 negative votes determined that the election of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in Hong Kong in 2007/08 could only stand still, and the development of the political system could only stagnate; The veto plan by these 24 MPs made it impossible to expand the democratic component of the Legislative Council and its chief executive election—"Opposition members have exerted their ability to exert pressure on the SAR government and achieved their goals..."

Hong Kong citizens have been discussing and condemning the miscarriage of the "No. 5 Report" for a long time.An old man posted a post on a Hong Kong website saying: "The No. 5 report" was aborted. I think it's a pity. Why didn't the members of the Legislative Council grasp the progress of democracy in Hong Kong?I'm in my sixties now, and I'm going to pass 70 soon. If I miss this opportunity, I don't know how long I will get it. Can I wait to get it?A gentleman surnamed Chung pointed out: It doesn’t matter whether Hong Kong’s democracy has progressed or not. I think the most important thing for Hong Kong is stability, a good economy, and less political disputes. Yes, the benefits are long-term." Didn't the "vote counter" on the wall of the Hong Kong Legislative Council clearly show that "the result of the vote" did not exceed 2/3? "Votes" determine everything, and "power" is ultimately reflected in the number of "votes". Who cares whether such "power" truly reflects public opinion, and whether it is 100% consistent with "fairness"?

The "vote counting machine" of the Hong Kong Legislative Council contains too many things. There are contests, skills, and sometimes even providence and fortune in winning or losing.Who is in charge of Hong Kong?In whose hands is the fate of Hong Kong people in their hands?they themselves?Well, after all, they are themselves. After passing the Legislative Council this time, I passed by Central again, and then walked under the Legislative Council building, and looked up at the blindfolded Greek goddess with a sword in her left hand and a scale in her right hand on the top of the building. Things, of course, can also be said to be more things. What are these "things"?It doesn't help if you can't make it clear for a while.