Canada's chastened Liberals

June 29, 2004

Back on June 16th your favourite web site wrote:

"How will this end up; my guess is that many undecided voters are Liberal; they have given Martin's party a good telling off but are not ready to vote them out of office. The Liberals will likely be the largest party in the Parliament. But leading a minority government; assume that the Bloc Quebecois takes 65 (of Quebec's 75 seats); that the NDP takes maybe 23 seats; the Liberals 130 and the Conservatives 90. It will make for an uneasy Parliament; and maybe another early election in say 2006."

So what happened:

I have this great urge to say - told you so !!! The Canadian media really did build up the Conservatives to be more of a threat than they actually were. At heart the people of voter rich Ontario, in particular, are not going to embrace the Conservatives and their pro-Bush leanings.

The Globe and Mail reports that:

"In a stunning turnaround, Paul Martin's Liberals have been handed a substantial minority government in an outcome few had predicted going into tonight's election.

The surprising result was largely decided in seat-rich Ontario, where most voters rejected advances by the Conservatives to gain their support".

It is good to be one of the few !!

This is a good result for Canada; it is a wake up call for Paul Martin; lets hope he has heard the message.

Canada's Election - the safe choice

The Globe and Mail - 23 June 2004

Commentators have wrongly characterized the 2004 general election as dirty, derogatory and demeaning. In fact, it has been one of the most illuminating of recent times. The campaign has reaped a bumper crop of choice for voters. Those Quebeckers steeped in parochialism can opt for their now-permanent party of protest, the Bloc Quebecois. Romantics can throw their lot in with dreamy Jack Layton's New Democrats or, for a change of pace, the blissful future promised by the Greens.

Then there are the two entities with a chance of forming a government: the reformed Conservatives under Stephen Harper and the perennial default choice of Canadian politics, the Liberals, now with Paul Martin at the helm.

For 11 years, the Liberals have governed Canada, and, by and large, they've governed it well. Simply ask yourself a variant of Ronald Reagan's famous question: Are you and your country better off today than you were a decade ago? The answer must be a resounding yes.

A previous generation of governments, Liberal and Tory both, had so abysmally managed our economy that Canada was keeping company with the likes of Belgium and Italy when the Chrétien Liberals came to power in 1993. Today, the Canadian economy is the envy of the industrialized world, providing the foundation for social investment. Did this turnaround occur on the backs of the provinces and other recipients of federal funds? Obviously. Was it justified by the circumstances? Just as obvious.

Nor was finally wrestling the deficit to the ground Mr. Martin's only achievement. Working with the provinces, he also put the Canada Pension Plan on a sound footing. And then, just five years after his shock fiscal therapy, he authored the largest tax cut in Canadian history.

Yet, in other important ways, Mr. Martin and the government he served came up decidedly short. They repeatedly failed to produce a serious effort at health-care reform, preferring to purchase temporary provincial peace rather than tackle the real problems plaguing the system. They lacked the will to confront the running sore of aboriginal policies that never seem to lift aboriginal peoples out of misery. Nor could the party of Lester Pearson muster the intellectual power to put in place a modern foreign policy.

Finally, like most governments long in the tooth, the Liberals grew sloppy, even cavalier, with power and money. And so we were introduced to the concept of friendly dictators, democratic deficits and, ultimately, the sponsorship scandal. The Liberals took ownership of the crisis of public ethics that had propelled them to power in the first place.

That said, the point of the current electoral exercise is not so much to judge the kind of government the Liberals have provided as it is to evaluate the kind they would provide with another mandate.

To put it succinctly, Paul Martin, or whoever is inhabiting his body, has proved a monumental disappointment since becoming Prime Minister six months ago. His pronouncements have displayed all the consistency of Pablum. Intent on winning every vote in the country, he lived in fear of offending someone, somewhere, somehow. On Iraq and Kyoto, he was incomprehensible. On same-sex marriage, he swung both ways. On missile defence co-operation, first he was openly for it, then secretly for it. He had two Supreme Court openings, but boxed himself into a process corner.

He made enemies of the meritorious (witness Stéphane Dion) and promoted the mediocre (come on down, Jean Lapierre). The only difference between his political manipulations and those of his "friendly dictator" predecessor was that the latter didn't leave bloodied fingerprints at the crime scene.

On health care, we have heard much rhetoric. But Mr. Martin's ideas for shortening waiting lists remain fanciful. As a general rule, he has beseeched voters to count on his reputation for solutions rather than proposing any.

But does he deserve to be thrown out?

The country's justified but disproportionate anger over the sponsorship scandal is insufficient cause by itself to impose capital punishment on Mr. Martin's Liberals. The McGuinty budget in Ontario is infuriating but not germane.

The answer to the question of who can best govern Canada requires a close examination not just of the devil you know but of the alternative. Which brings us to Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

The greatest argument in their favour is the time-for-change imperative. All institutions require periodic cleansing to remove sclerotic thinking and allow for renewal. On issues such as health care, Mr. Harper is better positioned to bring new approaches to old problems.

Over the past year, the young Conservative Leader has proved more adept than generally presumed at building bridges, as demonstrated by his role in merging the Alliance and Tories, and finally creating a viable alternative for Canadians. But merged entities take time to gel. And the Conservatives have not had ample time. As we have seen throughout the campaign, the new party speaks with many contradictory voices, a cacophony of confusion that needs to be sorted out.

What of Stephen Harper himself, the man who would be prime minister? We may know Paul Martin all too well, but we hardly know his challenger at all. Some of what we know demands greater explanation, most notably the sentiments contained in the infamous Alberta firewall letter. It was incumbent upon Mr. Harper to provide a greater comfort level rather than respond to challengers with quiet contempt or truculence.

Mr. Harper is an exceedingly intelligent man. But his position on same-sex marriage, for instance, is either dumb or, more probably, disingenuous. However one feels about specific issues, the courts play a legitimate role in Canadian society. After all, it was politicians, not judges, who conceived, wrote and adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Harper's assertion that the judiciary would respect a free vote of the House of Commons, presumably a vote to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, flies in the face of this assigned role. Indeed, Mr. Harper was not such a stout defender of parliamentary supremacy when elected officials voted to restrict third-party advertising during election campaigns. In that instance, he rightly sought Charter relief from Parliament's oppression of free-speech rights.

So what are his principles here? And why won't he tell us whether he would use the notwithstanding clause, a legitimate constitutional tool, on same-sex marriage?

One is left to conclude that the Conservative Leader prefers the 1867 version of our Constitution, with its explicit division of powers between the provinces and Ottawa, to the 1982 version granting rights to individuals and groups and conferring power upon courts to adjudicate these.

For Mr. Harper, checks and balances would come in a different form. He intends to gradually move to an elected Senate without the inconvenience of constitutional negotiation. And, as a proponent of smaller central government, he favours devolving power to the provinces.

It is at this juncture that the right-of-centre Mr. Harper finds common cause with the left-of-centre Bloc Québécois. We worry that Mr. Harper would both weaken the capacity of Ottawa to govern in the name of Canada and that his party's possible alignment with the Bloc in a minority Parliament would give succour to the separatist movement.

Finally, and oddly, Mr. Harper, a graduate of the fiscally dry Reform Party, has put forward a platform that sails too close to the deficit wind for our comfort. A high quality of life can be built only on the foundation of a strong economy, and a strong economy requires governments to provide a stable fiscal environment. The Conservative platform is inadequately prudent in this regard.

And so we find ourselves in the same conundrum as millions of voters. On the one hand, the Liberals are worn and tired and their leader has not lived up to his billing. But he's performed well in previous incarnations.

On the other hand, Stephen Harper, a product of Central Canadian caution and Alberta's can-do frontier mentality, represents genuine change. Yet there are troubling signs that he has not yet matured into a truly national leader.

As with medicine, the most important principle of Canadian politics should be to do no harm. That means don't risk our fiscal health and don't gamble with our national unity.

We wish Mr. Martin had afforded himself the opportunity of an 18-month tryout before going to the polls. Now the voters have the opportunity to impose a probationary period themselves. Whichever party prevails Monday, a minority looks the most likely outcome. We believe Mr. Martin represents the less risky proposition and deserves a second chance to prove himself. We further believe the Conservatives could use more time to pull their new party together and make their positions and predispositions clearer.

Therefore, we urge a Liberal vote Monday -- not because they've earned the right to re-election but because, at the very least, we can count on them to do little harm and, at best, the near-death experience might help the old Paul Martin find himself and lead Canada more confidently into the future.

 

Publishing Sensation

June 25, 2004

This has been a great week in the publishing industry; We have seen Bill Clinton's "My Life" - not so much a show stopper as a door stopper; but better than that a new publication from David Beckham - Penalty Taking for Dummies.

Yes, the same David Beckham that sprayed the ball over the bar against Turkey and blamed the sods (the ground gave way under all that ego !) and then did exactly the same thing against Portugal. And dont forget the missed penalty against the French !

Relive those great moments as step by slippery step Becks takes you through his great penalty moments and how to make sure that you know it is not his fault as he balloons another one over the bar.

A sure fire best seller!
 

England's shoot out curse

June 25, 2004

It was all too predictable. England seem cursed never to win a penalty shoot-out. Lisbon 2004 will be remembered, like St-Etienne 1998, Wembley 1996 and Turin 1990. And I have seen them all.

The English will search for a scape-goat. But it really was their own extreme negativity that cost them the game. A 9-1 formation for the last 30 minutes; the substitution of Gerrard and Scholes. England got what they deserved.

Campbell's 90th minute goal would have been disallowed by 90% of referees; although Ricardo, the drama queen of the night, made little effort to get to the ball. The Sun newspaper lead sits sports coverage with the woeful headine; You Swiss Banker. And helpfully the Sun says that "you can tell bungling ref Meier just what you think of his decision - on his own website. Go to www.ursmeier.ch/referee/ and click on the feedback section. Under “vorname” enter your first name, under “nachname” enter your surname. Then fill in your email address — and let rip. Far be it for me to discourage anyone !

EEC - embarrassing euro calls

June 24 2004

Only one of my four semi final tips is still in the tournament and the quarter finals have not even started, No wonder I do not place bets ! Bye bye Germany, you will not be missed. Spain managed to under-perform even earlier than usual and the Italians are busy blaming everyone except themselves.

Football maths

June 23, 2004

Today's AFP preview of the England versus Portugal quarter final contains the following wonderful football maths from England's Michael Owen.

"Half of me is overjoyed that we're through to the quarter-finals but five per cent of me is disappointed I haven't scored as well," Owen admitted.

Vancouver: summer's night dream

June 19, 2004                                                       

The longest day of the year is this weekend; this picture was taken at about 9.30pm at night as the sun set over English Bay in Vancouver.

Canada's election; a crisis

of leadership

June 16 2004

The trouble with Canada's 28 July federal election is that none of the leaders are either liked or indeed respected. People will grunt that Paul Martin (Liberal) was an ok finance minister; but as a leader he is not well considered.

No one (especially outside Canada) can name the leader of her majesty's loyal opposition; Stephen Harper of the Conservative Party and the NDP are full of bluster but represent little. The resurgence of the Bloc Quebecois is bringing back many of the old separatist fears.

Canadians at heart have always seemed to me to be liberal in outlook and to have progressive social views. They are fiscally responsible; they think budgets should be balanced; they are wary of the USA and believe that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Yet they appear to be seriously considering a vote for Harper's Conservatives despite the fact that he believes none of these things.

There are 308 seats in Canada's parliament; 106 of them are in Ontario. All but three of Ontario's seats were held by the Liberal Party after the 2000 election. Across Ontario polls now suggest that the Liberals may win 55-60 seats. The party leaders will all spend a great deal of time in Ontario over the next 12 days of polling.

The Liberals are clearly worried. The over the top TV commercials portray Canada as a USA puppet; a nation with no protection of minority rights, where a woman has no right to choose, that would have gone to war with Iraq; and that would sacrifice Medicare. Their ads may just be a bit too strident. But many voters are not sure who is the real Stephen Harper.

What is clear is that an unusually large number of voters are still undecided. The TV debates will have done little to help them decide. The moderator was far to generous in allowing all delegates to talk at once; Martin talked mainly to the camera and not to the other leaders; Jack Layton yapped away as though he had been told to talk non stop throughout and Harper just looked a little out of his league.

How will this end up; my guess is that many undecided voters are Liberal; they have given Martin's party a good telling off but are not ready to vote them out of office. The Liberals will likely be the largest party in the Parliament. But leading a minority government; assume that the Bloc Quebecois takes 65 (of Quebec's 75 seats); that the NDP takes maybe 23 seats; the Liberals 130 and the Conservatives 90. It will make for an uneasy Parliament; and maybe another early election in say 2006.

England's nightmare - France 2 England 1

June 13 2004

With a one nil lead after 90 minutes despite a missed penalty by Beckham England contrived to concede two injury time goals from a Zidane free kick and a Zidane penalty.

The free kick, clumsily conceded by Heskey saw Zidane put the ball into the side pf the goal James' should have had covered; but he did not trust his wall and was left flat footed.

Then a crazy backpass attempt left James to bring down Henri and the rest was inevitable.

And Beckham's penalty miss was in the end decisive. It was well hit but at a comfortable height for Barthez. At 2-0 France would have been buried. To be honest it was one of Beckham's few contributions to the game. He was poor as was Owen.

King and Campbell were faultless in defence. They deserved better. And in term of chances and possession the French probably deserved it; they just did not need to be handed the game on a silver platter.

England having done so much that was right may be inconsolable. That may be the end of England's tournament.

Reagan: The consequences of inaction

June 11 2004

It is a little bizarre watching the near deification of Ronald Reagan. Maybe it says a lot about the lack of faith in the current leadership. Maybe people look back nostalgically to a time when they felt better than they do now.

But Reagan's conservatism had many faults. The Iran Contra-gate scandal is a bit one. Less discussed but maybe of greater import was Reagan's almost total inaction on AIDS. In 1981 only 199 cases of AIDS had been reported in the USA. By the time he left office in 1989 more than 46,000 Americans had died. There was a fear and hysteria about AIDS. And the Reagan administration did not want to hear the issues or to offer sympathy or help to a perceived "gay" disease.

Reagan made no mention of the disease until a speech in 1987. And even then it was a weak message that said little about how the disease was transmitted and offered nothing in terms of federal funding for research.

The tone set by Reagan's administration; the lack of action as AIDS became a national and global issue may have cots hundreds of thousands of US lives and maybe millions globally.

She said; they said

June 9 2004

I always get frustrated when people act or behave in a way that seems simply irrational; or when they simply do not seem to understand reason.

Anson Chan is widely admired in Hong Kong and yes, she is also widely admired in the West as well. She is a Chinese; but she understands better than most values of diplomacy and good governance. She understands better than most that people will respond more willingly to a carrot than to a stick.

Time magazine's June 14, 2004 edition has a long and decently balanced (well. I think so; many in China will disagree) article title Hong Kong's defiance. I suspect that this might have been the lead story had Ronnie Reagan not died.

Beijing's response (see below) is exactly the heavy handed brow beating that Ms. Chan is alarmed by. Failing to take a deep breath China Daily lashed out at Ms. Chan saying that  "the way she attempted to seize power was identical to that of the "Gang of Four." The ironies in Beijing's response are all too obvious. The threats are hardly subtle.

Most people in Hong Kong will dismiss all of this as a feather duster fight and will get on with the important business of making money. But the two articles reflect the very polarization that worries Ms. Chan. Let us all hope that calmer, wiser and more conciliatory voices can be heard from Beijing.

Trust Us

BY ANSON CHAN

Hong Kong will soon be celebrating the seventh anniversary of its establishment as a highly autonomous Special Administrative Region of China under the concept of "one country, two systems." Is there much to celebrate?

For the greater part of the past seven years, China's central government has largely left Hong Kong to govern itself. If we have not done a very good job of it, the blame cannot be laid at Beijing's door. Indeed, until recently, the standing and popularity of mainland leaders in the local community had steadily risen. But since the unexpectedly large turnout of demonstrators for democracy last July 1, Beijing's stance toward Hong Kong appears to have hardened. The central government has moved swiftly to lay down the law as far as the elections of the territory's Chief Executive and members of the Legislative Council are concerned. While Beijing has a constitutional right to do so, the manner in which the central government has handled this whole issue, coupled with its public rhetoric and posturing reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution, have left most Hong Kong people puzzled, hurt and frustrated.

I do not doubt that Beijing wants what is best for Hong Kong. In its eyes, stability is key. But the tactics being employed are likely to have the opposite effect. Hong Kong society is now polarized to an extent not seen in recent history. There is growing intolerance of different viewpoints. The recent departure of three popular Hong Kong talk-show hosts in quick succession has raised fears about freedom of expression. In this game of shadow boxing, it is increasingly difficult to pinpoint who are the instigators and who are the innocent bystanders or victims. There's a wide gap in mind-set and values, which only genuine communication and trust can bridge. And bridge it we must if we are to secure our future, with our rights and freedoms intact.

Hong Kong has yet to find an identity that it is comfortable with. Some would have us disown our past. Others seem oblivious to the fact that, while embracing "one country," it is the "two systems" that sets Hong Kong apart from the mainland. The vast majority of Hong Kongers are proud to be Chinese and part of an increasingly strong country seeking to play a bigger role in the international community. At the same time, Hong Kong people treasure the freedoms and rights enshrined in the territory's constitution. And they will fight to protect those rights. This does not mean they love their country less than self-professed patriots do. We yearn mainly for good, strong and transparent governance.

Despite the political gloom, let us not forget that Hong Kong remains a city that works. Our streets are safe; our transport is efficient and runs on time; there is the rule of law, free flow of information, and a level playing field where business can be conducted without hassle. Our people are a sophisticated and pragmatic lot with a good deal of common sense. We wish to continue to make a contribution toward the modernization and prosperity of our country. We have no wish to push for independence nor to destabilize the mainland. We ask our leaders in Beijing to put a little more trust in us. That trust will not be misplaced.

Anson Chan was Chief Secretary in Hong Kong's last British administration and in its first post-handover government

Anson Chan is distorting the truth to vilify Beijing
 

Xu Simin
2004-06-09 06:47
In an article she wrote in the latest issue of Time magazine, Anson Chan, the retired chief secretary, unfairly criticized the way the central government had been dealing with the SAR, likening its behaviour to the malpractices during the "cultural revolution". Speaking in a tone as if she were representing Hong Kong, she called upon the central government to trust Hong Kong people.

Chan's attack on and vilification of the central government are in violation of the facts as well as her own conscience. She is not qualified to represent Hong Kong people whom she was trying to mislead.

On the one hand, Chan admitted in her article that the central authorities were empowered by the Constitution to concern themselves with the methods to select the chief executive and legislators in Hong Kong. At the same time, however, she lashed out at the central government for discharging its right and duty, which had actually been executed in a fair, reasonable and legal way. Her rebuke did not hold water.

Timely interpretation

Hong Kong society has witnessed major disputes surrounding the election methods for the chief executive and legislators in 2007 and beyond, which have brought about unnecessary conflicts and polarization in the community.

After consulting and absorbing opinions from a broad spectrum of society, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) made a timely and authoritative interpretation of the Basic Law and ruling on the SAR's constitutional development.

These moves are conducive to the stable development of the territory's political system along the path of the Basic Law.

The progress may not satisfy the differing demands of Hong Kong people on the pace of democratization, but it tallies with mainstream opinion that values prosperity and stability and stresses the significance of developing a democratic system in a gradual and orderly manner.

The NPCSC interpretation and decision have clarified a host of uncertainties over the issue of constitutional development. They have gone a long way in underpinning the executive-led regime, enabling the SAR to foster social consensus and to hammer out, through rational discussions, a political reform proposal that accords with the actual situation in the community.

Chan's total disregard of facts when she tried to discredit Beijing has once again proven that she is only trying to gain fame for herself with her self-proclaimed title of "Hong Kong's conscience". She is not worthy of this reputation and it is now necessary to remove this pretence of hers.

As a matter of fact, Chan recently expressed disappointment over the NPCSC decision, claiming that it would undermine Hongkongers' confidence in "One Country, Two Systems" and a high degree of autonomy.

Chief Secretary Donald Tsang, who was visiting Zhanjiang at that time, immediately countered that ever since reunification in 1997, Hong Kong people had been enjoying "One Country, Two Systems" and a high degree of autonomy, and the degree had never been crippled.

Business leader Gordon Wu also pointed out that Chan's accusation was totally wrong, and that she was harping on the same old tune in her recent Time magazine article.

In an interview with Newsweek not long before Hong Kong's return to the motherland, Chan claimed to be "Hong Kong's conscience". The magazine put her on the cover, describing her as Hong Kong's "Iron Lady" in a banner headline and calling her a "fighter".

The deeds of this so-called "Hong Kong conscience", who disregards facts and violates conscience, are like the classic story of Hua Pi in "Strange Tales from a Lonely Studio" - full of evil tricks.

Attacks against Beijing

Just before she retired, Chan told reporters, "I have served for more than 38 years in the Civil Service and seven years in the position of chief secretary...I have to leave sooner or later. All feasts must ultimately break up. Therefore I will never make any comments (on the government) from the sideline after I retire."

However, not only did she "make comments from the sideline", she has even smeared and attacked the central government without paying due respect to the facts. Such behaviour contravened not only the tradition of the Hong Kong government, but also her own words. Such flip-flops have manifested that her words are not trustworthy.

Before 1997, the British-Hong Kong government exerted tight control over senior officials. The majority of retired British officials had to return to their homeland, while those left behind were not allowed to comment on politics.

After her retirement, however, Chan has been making increasingly frequent attacks on the SAR and central governments, prejudicing seriously the tradition under which retired civil servants do not intervene in politics.

Aside from pocketing a one-off provident fund of HK$10 million, this retired member of the government's upper echelon continues to receive a monthly pension payment of tens of thousands of dollars. Taxpayers, therefore, have the right to ask Chan to speak from her conscience and on a fairer basis. If she receives the pension payment on the one hand and acts against taxpayers' interests on the other, is she going against her own conscience? This is a question Chan should ask herself.

Chan has accused the central government of dividing the local community to an unprecedented degree and continuously undermining society's tolerance toward different opinions. The fact is, the very party that has been doing that is Chan herself.

As the "pet" of the British, Chan was a key figure in the post-reunification ruling team deployed by Chris Patten, who tried to leave behind British influence within the SAR government. Chan was involved in all the various wrangles, conflicts and dissensions since reunification, directly or indirectly.

In 2000, Robert Chung, director of the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, divulged in two newspapers that the chief executive had put pressure on him through a third party with a view to influencing opinion polls on his popularity.

During the early stage of the episode, Chan called upon Chung to reveal the identity of the man behind the scene. When Andrew Lo Cheung-on was exposed, Chan asserted inside the government that Lu should be dismissed. At that time, an official who was Chan's confidant, frequently passed on to high managements of newspapers information that was unfavourable to Tung, pouring oil on the flames in the first wave of an anti-Tung campaign. The identity of the invisible hand could not be more obvious. Meanwhile, Chan's friends in the political arena circulated the rumour that she might run for the office of the second-term chief executive. This rumour might have had some truth in it.

Later, the political celebrity Allen Lee stressed, on the eve of the election for the second-term chief executive, that Chan stood a chance to become the new chief executive. The result of his remarks was another wave of anti-Tung sentiment.

Facts have shown without ambiguity that this "Hong Kong conscience" is vehemently ambitious, ready to whip up a campaign to topple Tung out of her craven desire for power. The way she attacked and smeared the central government in its handling of the SARS outbreak was similar to what was practised in the "cultural revolution". The way she attempted to seize power was identical to that of the "Gang of Four".

Resistance to co-operation

When she chaired the high-level Guangdong-Hong Kong joint conference, she adopted an attitude of resistance instead of co-operation, about which the public and the business sector had complained all along. While the Guangdong government often prepared proposals for bilateral co-operation, the Hong Kong side had nothing similar to offer. The two parties met only once annually, and the situation dragged on for a few years.

On July 1, 2002, Chan wrote an article in The Financial Times, saying that Hong Kong should not expect Beijing to be its saviour, and that Hong Kong must not become more Chinese in order to receive economic benefits. She was attempting to obstruct the intensification of Guangdong-Hong Kong economic co-operation.

Ronnie Chan, another business leader, once criticized Chan as being one of the persons who knew the least about the motherland, talking only about "Two Systems" and neglecting "One Country". Her attitude had led to the waste of three to four years in collaboration across the border. It was not until four to five years after reunification that the voice of co-operative development became louder. Had this initiative been taken earlier, many of the plans would have materialized by now.

When she was chairman of the Basic Law Promotion Steering Committee, Chan was again criticized by the public for stressing "Two Systems" and disregarding "One Country".

The legislation for Article 23 that began in 2002 was actually proposed soon after reunification. It was Chan who had reservations over the legislation. She engaged in heated debates with Tung over the matter and no consensus was reached, thereby leading to procrastination in the legislation. The "pro-democracy" camp subsequently made use of the economic recession to stage the July 1 demonstration that led to the shelving of the bill.

Chan has no tolerance for different opinions. At meetings of the NPC and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in 1998, I criticized Radio Television Hong Kong, the government-run broadcaster, for over-stressing its editorial independence and specializing in lambasting and opposing the SAR and central governments and the chief executive. I also pointed out that one of its programmes - "Headline News" - was cynical. Being unable to tolerate dissenting opinions, Chan openly criticized my comments as "inappropriate". She said my words would make society believe that somebody was trying to invite the central government to intervene in the SAR's affairs.

Chan has taken society's magnanimity as acquiescence for retired senior officials to break the tradition of not commenting on government policies. She is coming forward more frequently to attack and smear the SAR and central governments. That her excessive behaviour has sparked a strong backlash from the community is a matter of course.

I am hereby giving Chan a piece of advice: your pretence cannot cover up your evil tricks. The self-styled "Conscience of Hong Kong" should be ashamed of herself.

The author is a former standing member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. The article was published in Wen Wei Po yesterday.

HK Edition 06/09/2004 page2)

European Championship predictions

June 9 2004

The European Football Championships kick off in Portugal on Friday. Expect the usual bouts of insane thuggery off the pitch and plenty of skull duggery on the pitch.

The urge to make predictions is too strong; so here are the quarter final line ups:

Spain vs England; Italy vs Czech Republic; France vs Portugal and Germany vs Sweden.

The semi finals will be:

Spain vs Italy and France vs Germany. (sorry England!)

And France will beat Spain in the final; not because the French are the better team; just because the Spanish never quite do what they should (just like the Armada!).

The final is on Sunday 4th July.

PLA stamps its authority on Hong Kong

June 8 2004

With sensitive timing, immediately after the Tiananmen commemorations, the Hong Kong government has stooped to a new low in its groveling to Beijing.

The PLA, those same people who massacred 3,000 people in Tiananmen Square fifteen years ago, are now being celebrated in a new issue of postage stamps from Hong Kong Post.

The website eulogises an army that has won "the hearts of Hong Kong people." Just a gentle reminder of who is in charge before the 1 July 2004 handover holiday and the pro-change and pro-democracy march that will take place that day.

From the Hong Kong Post website:

"The People's Liberation Army Forces, Hong Kong" Special Stamps
Issue Date: 30 June 2004

The People’s Liberation Army Forces arrived in Hong Kong at zero hour on 1 July 1997. Known as the PLA (HK), their primary responsibility is for the defence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

For the past seven years, the PLA (HK) has performed its defence responsibility admirably, effectively upholding the principle of “one country, two systems” and winning the hearts of Hong Kong people by their community spirit.

Hongkong Post pays tribute to the PLA (HK) with the issue of six new stamps featuring the various faces of the Forces:

Tiananmen's message

June 4 2004

Fifteen years ago tonight the Chinese authorities released troops and tanks to crush the student protests in Tiananmen Square. Reliable estimates (The Red Cross) are that 3,000 Chinese died that night at the hands of their own people.

But the issues that the students were protesting are even more valid now than in 1989. The real issue was corruption; and the students argued that government corruption could only be curtailed through establishing democratic institutions. The students request was that the Communist party would open a public dialogue to discuss reform. Fifteen years later there are no independent checks in China; the party is policed by the party.

What was the Party fearful of? The answer became clearer with the oppression of Falun Gong. The Party fears the ability of other groups to organise.

And herein lies the message. When forced to choose between the secure future of the Communist Party and the best interests of the nation the party will choose itself every time.

For the rest of the world, after brief shock and bland statements, it was back to the business of making money from and in China. Morality and human rights come second and third to money making.

"China Daily"  has mainland and Hong Kong English language editions. Neither mentions the events of 15 years ago in today's editions. Known dissidents are placed under house arrest. Universities are being monitored and foreign news tv broadcasts restricted (satellite maintenance was the usual hotel excuse). But these events must not and cannot be ignored.

“Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood” (Lu Xun).  

Jasper Becker was fired by the South China Morning Post for writing a little too truthfully about China. He is now China correspondent for the UK's Independent Newspaper. His commentary on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre can be found at:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=527995

Why democracy matters

June 2 2004.

This week Iraq is now within less than a month of having a new Iraqi government, this week a new Indian government starts work, this week where we pay homage to those who fought to free Europe from tyranny on the D-Day beaches and this week where we remember the Chinese students who died in Tiananmen Square fifteen years ago.

Nooraine Fazal provides below a very thoughtful and optimistic inside view of the Congress Party's shock political win.

A simple letter in Newsweek summons up simple truths that we should not lose site of:

"We are not tyrannical imperialists but people who thoughtfully commit our men to defend freedom. Dissent is not traitorous but a valuable part of that freedom. It is our obligation as part of a free and democratic society to express our doubts about the decisions of our leaders and to deeply examine the purpose of committing young men and women to war.

India Votes - a fractured verdict?

Nooraine Fazal provides an insider's account of democracy at work in India.

June 2, 2004.

Vajpayee resigns

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (headed a ruling coalition of 20+ parties called the NDA)  on 13^th May 2004 in a televised address to the nation. “Elections to the 14th Lok Sabha (Indian Parliament) are over. The voters have given their verdict. I accept the verdict"….”it is always with the will of the people that governments have been formed--and changed (in India). "This power of democracy is a matter of pride for our country, something which we must always cherish, preserve and further strengthen."

AMEN!! I said  to Vajpayee’s words!!

On a personal note….

I had returned home to India after twelve years of “self exile”. The main reasons I had returned  were I believed parts of India were “shining” thanks largely to the economic reforms unleashed by the Congress in 1991 (subsequent governments built on them); in the face of national bankruptcy. Yes, I guess you could call me one of  the fortunate “urban elite” for whom India could be a land of tremendous opportunity. And yet, my optimism was tempered with fear.

I believed that India was at the cross roads and needed to choose the type of India it wanted to be (I returned because I wanted to participate in that decision) – the India I want - a secular developed liberal democracy; confident of its standing globally or one which I thought it was developing into thanks to the BJP’s (leading partner of the NDA – the ruling coalition over the past six year) divisive politics - an inward looking Hindu Nationalist country; where economic reforms benefit primarily the middle class & the rich.

I sat there glued to the TV (with mixed feelings best described as  1/3 disbelief, 1/3 jubilant and 1/3 worried) as the results poured in across the country. Yes the seemingly impossible was happening - the NDA coalition which called the election early because it was confident of a victory had lost. I don’t believe even the President of the Congress party – Sonia Gandhi, really thought this was possible until well after the last vote was cast!

As it sunk in, Robert asked me: “How it happened? What is the message & how does it impact the neighbors & the US”? As someone who watched  & sometimes contributed (by way of constructive? feedback) the development of rascott.com from its infancy into an excellent personal web site; I decided to take up the opportunity. This is a first for me – an attempt to write something beyond a sales proposal!! So here goes with part one … 

So what happened? What’s the message?

At a macro level …..

1) The numbers indicate a fractured verdict with no clear winner  – the “winning” coalition - congress (INC) and its allies received 34.60%; the losers & the main opposition BJP and its allies 35.25% and others (primarily the Left / Communists, Independents and regional parties from the most populous state in India – UP) 27.69%.

2) The % of vote share for the two national parties the ruling BJP and the main opposition Congress has fallen by 1.5% since the 1999 national election (this despite claims by the foreign media about “Gandhi’s congress sweeping India”!!) The gainers were regional parties and the Communists (best performance since independence; be in two border states of West Bengal & Kerela). Interestingly of the votes the BJP lost; only .1% of that vote was gained by the Congress

For a graphical representation on the final tally  refer to http://specials.rediff.com/election/poll04results.htm

For % of vote share (and an alphabet soup for anyone without a Phd in Indian politics!) for various political parties http://www.rediff.com/election/ls04detail.htm#cong

Why this result? The message from the Indian electorate!

1)     It indicates that basic local issues (the necessities of roti, kapda, makan – Hindustani for bread, clothes & house & sadak, pani – roads, water) take precedence over national ones such as peace with Pakistan & China;  prospect of peace in Kashmir; the “feel good factor” – the 5-8%+ GDP growth rate and India thrashing Pakistan at cricket!! )

2)     The Indian voter voted against perceived misgovernance across the length & breadth of the country – the so called “anti incumbency” factor! This was demonstrated in almost every state; including two states my home state of Karnataka and neighboring state of Andhra Pradesh which were known to be models of good governance in urban India. Exceptions to this were four (of 28) which held state level elections recently (BJP won three of four and therefore called a national election eight months ahead of time) where the honeymoon continued; the “Bimaru” (economically backward) state of  Bihar were muscle power and the alliances struck by the ruling RJD ruled supreme and West Bengal were the communists are deeply rooted in the system. This has been the case time and again in the hope that the Indian political parties will learn – alas their memory is short! Perhaps this time……?!

3)     The Indian voter voted for more reforms, not less! Although the rhetoric of the communists would have you believe otherwise – even in the state of West Bengal were the Commies are the ruling party; they  have embraced both privatization and foreign investment; including prohibiting labour strikes in the “strategic” IT sector (New Labour take note)!

4)     Largely rejected the divisive politics of the BJP. The two major events which have made the headlines internationally include the destruction of a mosque in Ayodya (they believe it was the birthplace of Lord Ram), the state of UP in 1991 and the Gujarat riots in 2002 which saw the BJP government actively getting involved in ethnically cleansing 1000s of Muslims. To add insult to injury none of the accused have been booked by the Gujarat High court,  (the Supreme Court is fighting this one) as yet.

At a lower but equally significant level people who saw each other as Indians first, rather than Hindu or Muslim or any of the other many religions practiced in India; people who celebrated each others festivals with equal gusto are now increasingly defining themselves as Hindu or Muslim or….first; Indian second. Debates about why a Muslim man is allowed four wives and not a Hindu; are increasingly common. (Most men I know think one wife is plenty; but hey what do I know?!) India does not have a common civil law  … but that’s a topic for another day!

BJP lost a good chunk of their parliamentary seats in the state of Gujarat; despite winning the state elections after the riots. The star or should I say the villain of the show – Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat (who in my view should be  tried in an international court of law ) is fighting to retain his chair, post the national elections.   

That said the BJP held on to most of their other voter base in the Hindi Heartland

(by way of personal background ……I like to consider myself as a “citizen of the world”….I am  born to a Muslim family whose ancestors are from Gujarat, Rajasthan and a region which is now a part of Pakistan)

5)     the Muslim vote (dare I say “vote bank”!)… related to point 4. The BJP particularly Vajpayee realized this perhaps a bit late in the day. Majority of the time the Muslim vote determines who the winner is. You start with a negative 14% if the Muslims do not want you in office. Well guess they didn’t want the BJP!!

6)     Sonia Gandhi’s foreigner issue –  well, not really an election issue. This despite the BJP’s attempts to turn this election into a presidential one; pitting the Indian born statesman (er yes the same one who admitted to have commenced the recent peace process in Kashmir on a personal whim!! That said I do believe that he is the one person who could have brought peace to the sub continent) – Vajpayee against the Italian born widow of Rajiv Gandhi (former PM of India); a political novice in comparison. “The poet vs the news reader”!! The pluralities of Indian politics defeated that strategy.

Reasons for this (a) she didn’t project herself as the prime ministerial candidate for the congress (b)  Indians believe that once a woman marries into a household she becomes a part of that household including adopting the nationality (c) to a lesser extent; but a factor all the same – not everyone is aware of her foreign origin (d) most people, even those opposed to the concept of a dynasty ruling India or a person of foreign origin have developed a (grudging in some cases!) respect for her hard work & determination in the face of adversity; including the assassination of her husband and mother in law.

Note - There is some (muted) debate whether a person of foreign origin is allowed to hold elected office in India. On the face of it there appears to be nothing in the Indian constitution which prohibits it; however there apparently is a clause about reciprocity of rights which may prevent ……

7)     The “Amma” factor – i.e. Indira Gandhi (The former prime minister. The Iron Lady of the sub continent! Sonia Gandhi’s mother in law) who at one stage was synonymous with the Congress hand (party symbol). The Congress starts any election with minimum 10% vote in their kitty.

Although the foreign media attributed the Congress victory to the entry of Priyanka & Rahul Gandhi (Indira Gandhi’s grand children) into active politics; I don’t believe there is enough data to back this up; given that they restricted their campaign to a few constituencies in state of UP. The Congress’s tally in fact went down marginally in UP in comparison to the previous elections

8)     Alliance management – despite the BJP’s self proclaimed success in managing a coalition; they lost a key ally in  DMK in the state of Tamil Nadu months before the election. Guess how many seats the Congress, DMK and their allies won in Tamil Nadu? You got it -  39 out of 39!! This state alone could have swung the election in favour of the BJP!! Btw Congress had accused the DMK of being involved in / being sympathetic towards the LTTE; a terrorist outfit believed to be behind Rajiv Gandhi’s assignation! As they say “politics is the art of the impossible”!

9)     India “Shining” or not – the BJP’s arrogant campaign highlighted to the have-nots just how deep the divide is. Telling 300 million people who live below the poverty line that they are shining is not a brilliant idea!!  Contrast this with the Congress’s “ Congress ka haath  aam admi ka saath”; i.e. “Congress’s hand is with the common man”.

Ultimately India is still a country were the poor outnumber the rich; the rural population the urban. The BJP could not see beyond the urban elite. Perhaps the glare of India shining blinded them temporarily!! Mind you a good proportion of the urban population in the major metros of Delhi, Mumbai / Bombay, Calcutta, Chennai / Madras and to a lesser extent my home city Bangalore voted for Congress and its allies.

In conclusion I don’t believe it was a fractured verdict! I believe the message from the Indian electorate is loud & clear - that we need more reform; not less – both economic AND POLITICAL. We can’t have one without the other; if we are to ensure that the benefits of “development” are to spread across the socio-economic sections of India. Failing which the Indian electorate; particularly the rural and economically disadvantaged population will continue to vote out governments across the political and ideological spectrum, for their misgovernance and corruption.

Nooraine Fazal, June 2004

Pattaya Today revisited

June 2 2004,

A visit to the wonderfully written Pattaya Today newspaper is always a good reminder that life is full of more drama than any soap opera will ever be !

It is called Pattaya Today but is only published every two weeks; Pattaya Fortnightly would be more honest. But it is 20 baht well spent.

Some gems from the current edition:

British and Hong Kong passport holder David Viner, 57, who lives in a 400 baht guest house in Jomtien, has not paid his rent to Mrs. Sommai Dohnayburi, but claims that he was one of the first 400 owners of a Thailand Elite card. (More on the Elite cards when I want to have a real vent !).

A twenty year old khatoey who tried to engage a Bahraini tourist in "horizontal leisure pursuits but apparently without success. What happened next is difficult to know for sure." The tourist alleges his wallet was taken. The khatoey says that the tourist became abusive and that he/she tried to tell him that his denial could be more courteous "when declining a perfectly reasonable offer of entertainment" The wallet was not found.

A German resident who has not got the knack for home decoration. Joern Knaak, 55, had to be hospitalized after injuring himself with a circular saw. His Thai wife said that he went berserk in their flat.

A monk that was arrested for improper behaviour. "Very drunk and unable to stand up." I guess he will try to kick that habit !

Closure of the Holding Club after tourist police went to check for vulgar shows that might be in progress. Among equipment seized were darts and a small dart board and bananas, "although their role on stage has not been made plain".

A 46 year old German man who walks around Soi 8 completely naked; apparently for hours on end He is presumably looking to see which pool chair he left his towel on !