I like elections.
Don’t take me wrong. I do not like to take part in elections. I just like to watch elections. There is nothing funning about this. It is just like many football fans who have
never run in a football field, or even have never kick a real football.
I am particularly interested in
elections of the medical profession. This
interest was cultivated when I worked as an MO the first few days. I was approached by my senior with an entry
form for the HKMA and then a ballot paper to vote for him for the position as
an office bearer (I remember what post, but I am not going to disclose here). It was only after 2 months that I realized I
had to pay an entry fee for becoming a HKMA member. The department secretary told me and chased me
for the payment that had been advanced. Then
I came across several books from Jeffrey Archer on election of Members of
Parliament of the UK. They were not
political analyses, but were stories on how the characters ran for the
elections and the strategies and tricks behind. Of course these were Jeffery Archer and were
over-simplified and far-fetched as usual. But they were interesting.
To go for an election is to win
in the election, you might think. But
there is only one winner, or a fixed number of winners, for a particular
election. There ought to be other
reasons behind some of the candidates. Some
might run to get more public exposure, and at the same time to gain some
experience, so as to prepare for the next round. Some might act as spoilers, either with or
without insights. So basically you can
safely conclude that candidates are for winning, for themselves or for others;
now or in the future; in the elections concerned or in other arenas.
The straight-forward way to win
is to get more votes. This has been
achieved via different ways: radiating your personal charisma, standing firm on
your visions and views, making bare promises, beating your opponents in public
debates, telling every voters that they are right, providing tangible or
intangible benefits (or both), appearing with your spouse; and strangely,
organizing campaign concerts with pop stars and much shouting and screaming. A more straight-forward way to some is to
minimize votes to opponents. Some might
pray for bad weather on voting days so that not-so-die-hard fans of their
opponents would stay at home. Smearing
is quite effective. Scandals work
better. Planting spoilers is another tradition
way. In small area elections, like
District Council Elections where voters are in the range of 1000, it is
reported in newspaper that spoilers can be inexpensive costing only $100,000
each. Of course spoilers can be free of
charge provided that they can be convinced of being supported and having the
chance to win.
A surer way to win is to
eliminate your opponents. In some
I-don’t-know-more-or-less civilized places, this is achieved by physically
eliminating them with bullets. In Hong
Kong, it seems that scandals, or better named them “black materials”, work
better. Recently, a new move was
introduced. The original plan was to ask
potential candidates of the September Legislative Council Elections to sign a
new form, a supplement to the standard declaration, to acknowledge three parts
of the Basic Law that state Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China. This move highlighted that a relatively new
ideology of “Hong Kong Independence” is against the Basic Law. It turned out that a potential candidate,
LEUNG Tin Kei, did sign the form and declared that he would abide by the Basic
Law. However, he was still disqualified
by the returning officer.
While it will be the court to
decide whether such disqualification is legitimate if there is a election
petition, I cannot stop myself from forming college-standard common-sense
opinions. First, I disagree with many
and think that the returning officer did have the power to disqualify a
candidate. Therefore there is no place
for seeking of Basic Law interpretation. The rules are clear. The returning officer has the power. However, it is how the power was exercised
that matters. The returning officer
needed to justify her act and that the justification should satisfy logic and
common sense. I can think of a
not-very-good example. An officer of the
Airport Security Unit can prevent a person from entering the airport, no matter
what that person declares, if he is of the opinion that the person might pose a
threat to the safety of the airport. Whether
the officer has abused his power is upon his justification. The burden of proof is on him. Of course LEUNG was not said to endanger the
Legco. He was decided not meeting the requirements
to be a candidate. But as a result, he
did miss his plane.
So it is up to the returning
officer to justify herself. Relevant
considerations would include: How diligent had she collected and processed
information on LEUNG? Had she taken a
deposition from LEUNG? Had LEUNG been
given a chance to defend himself? What
further action could LEUNG take if he were given a second chance, provided that
he had signed the additional form and made declarations? What if LEUNG had really given up his original
ideology? When would he be eligible
again? Taken the serious consequences in
mind (that LEUNG would miss the chance for election and that there might be an
election petition), how sure was the returning officer that LEUNG had not
genuinely changed his stance? What
standard of proof should apply? Should
she be sure beyond reasonable doubt, or she could base her decision on a
balance of probability?
Elections are interesting,
provided that you are not taking part in them, particularly that you are not
barred from taking part in them. And, they
are interesting provided that you can detach yourself from consideration of any
consequence of the elections. Just don’t
think about: What next?
(Source: HKMA News August 2016)
