Ho Lok-sang says criticisms of the central government are unfair given its many successes and the failures of governments in other countries

It is unfortunate that there is so much inconsistency and self-righteousness in the "pan-democrat" camp. While I accept that many sincerely hope for a more democratic Hong Kong abiding by the principle of procedural justice and the rule of law, the conduct of their leaders tells a different story.

Consider, for example, the comments of Civic Party leader Alan Leong, who wrote in a recent article: "The release in June last year of the white paper, 'The Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region' is equivalent to declaring that the central government will no longer restrain itself. It will exercise all the power it has, and any barrier between the two systems will be removed." After expressing his disappointment that some expectations had not been realized, Leong added: "There is never the most crooked; there is only the more crooked."

Consider also the comments of Chan Kin-man, an associate professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He wrote: "A dictatorial government persuades Hong Kong people to accept 'one person, one vote'; while democrats prefer the status quo of election by a small elite group. This sounds ridiculous. The central government regards passing the constitutional reform package as a matter of great importance, because it realizes that the Chief Executive needs the blessing of the popular vote in order to face members of the Legislative Council and society. A non-free democracy or pre-screened universal suffrage is the cleverest way for a dictatorial regime to cling to power. China is happy to experiment with this in Hong Kong."

Chan describes the central government as dictatorial and Leong calls the Beijing authorities "crooks". Such harsh language can only destroy trust. The central government is, of course, not perfect. But can they find a perfect government? Is the US government more responsive to people's needs and concerns than the Chinese government? Is the Indian government free from abuses of power? Is the Japanese government free from failings? We can always cite things we are not happy about with any country. The incarceration rate in the US is six times that of China, and for blacks it is many times higher than that of whites. A recent article in Financial Times said: "At 2.3 million, the US prison population is the highest in the world - close to the combined numbers of people locked up by China and Russia, and more than 10 times those of France, Germany and the United Kingdom combined. Think of it as a democratic gulag The US has millions more ex-convicts than it used to, the large majority of whom are routinely screened out by employers." (Feb 23)

People in China today enjoy huge personal freedoms. Children have nine years of free education. Access to healthcare is almost universal. With a few exceptions, mainland people are free to travel in and out of the country and move around freely. In what way does China dictate people's lives? Is the term "dictatorial regime" an overstatement? Is Leong's disrespectful attitude to Beijing really the way a senior counsel and legislator should behave? Leong and many "pan-democrats" were disappointed because their prior expectations were not realized. But their expectations were not based on legally valid promises. The Basic Law did not (nor anyone with the legal authority to do so) promise the 10 year time-frame which Leong alleges was promised. Leong says that some University of Hong Kong students and their publication Undergrad were falsely accused of promoting "Hong Kong independence". But the editor himself admitted he supported "HK independence". The editors of Undergrad even published a book Hong Kong National Theory and a series of articles promoting "HK independence" appeared under the title "Hong Kong people for self-determination".

Similar false accusations were also made by former Civic Party leader Audrey Eu. She wrote: "The design of the political reform package, from the blind vote from 1,200 members of the Nominating Committee (NC) to approve only two to three candidates based on the 50 percent threshold, to designating the candidate with the highest vote to be elected CE - without the majority vote requirement, every step was designed to manipulate who will be elected." Eu says the SAR government's proposal is for a blind vote among members of the NC. Moreover, they are free to approve as many candidates as they like. This clearly counters the allegation that Beijing designs every step so as to manipulate who will be elected. No NC members need to be accountable to Beijing because their votes are blind. Although one can complain about the composition of the NC - and there is room for improvement - Eu's unqualified accusations are unfair.

The world will never be perfect, but it is possible to work for a better world. However, before this can be done some people must learn to be more open-minded.

(HK Edition 04/30/2015 page10)