Individuality, Minority, and Majority

The adage that “the Chinese voters do not vote” is spreading like a pandemic in this world. I don’t know if the swine flu in 2009 (a highest phase pandemic according to the World Health Organization) could infect more Chinese world-widely than this adage.

This week, the results of the special election held in Hong Kong came out and made the lowest turn-out rate in Hong Kong history, less than 18 percent. Someone might take objection: it is because of the boycott led by the Hong Kong government. Sustained, but it only upholds that adage, doesn’t it? This awkward self-disruptiveness orchestrated by the Hong Kong administration could be revealed from the news No softballs for Henry Tang [Chief Secretary] at school meeting:

The school teacher said: “The by-election was legal. As teachers, we promote civic education at school and encourage students to register as voters once they turn 18. But you, the chief executive and the politically accountable officials did not vote … All the teachers and students sitting here want this ([she] raises sign reading ‘I want the right to elect the chief executive!’)”
Mr. Tang replied: “I very much agree with your slogan and this is exactly what will happen in 2017. And about the question of voting, civic responsibility is important in every election, but in Hong Kong there is no compulsory voting. Civic responsibility is about a person making a decision after thinking independently. It is not about blindly following others.”

From Mr. Tang’s context, it appears that he concurs on the importance of individuality. Granted, yet he probably already undermined his own individuality for his “blindly following others” – his superior’s no-vote decision. However, individuality should not be taken to impede voters to vote; instead it should encourage voters to vote; because, by voting, voters can assure their liberty to be individuals. Liberty is one of human unalienable rights according to the American Declaration of Independence. Furthermore: “Individuality is the aim of political liberty. By leaving to the citizen as much freedom of action and of being, as comports with order and the rights of others, the institutions render him truly a freeman. He is left to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner.” (James Cooper, 1789 – 1851)

Before this election, one of the Hong Kong officials said that the power of this administration is from the central government of China. Bully for you, but it only affirms that the officials of Hong Kong are the vassals of the Chinese Communist Empire, doesn’t it? If the power is not from the voters – the people in Hong Kong, why bother to poll elections then? No wonder the reason that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong gave for no-vote decision is: it is a waste of public funding. Based on the fact that he is selected by his lord, the true reason of his no-vote decision is because the voters in Hong Kong are powerless, doesn’t it? What a cynic he is! “What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” (Oscar Wilde, 1854 – 1900) Yes, in any measures, the pro-democratic voters are minority in Hong Kong, yet they are on the right side of history. Henry Thoreau (1817 – 1862) said: “Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.”[Note 1]

Now, this Chief Executive of Hong Kong is challenging pro-democratic parties to take a debate. He acted so pompous as if he had the truth in his hand. He is ready and cannot wait to impose his agenda “that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” (James Madison 1751 – 1836, the Father of the Constitution in America, his presidency, 1809 – 1817) So what will he sell to the people in Hong Kong in his proposed debate for his lord? Let’s face it: what the pro-democratic parties want is this vassal cannot give; he cannot give because his lord does not give him. What this vassal wants merely is a mission accomplishment for his lord, will the pro-democratic parties help him to fulfill? Please don’t tell me: “His proposal is the best one he could offer in regarding to his position”. Please don’t tell me: “The people in Hong Kong are much luckier than the people in China in regarding to suffrage”. For me it likes to say: “The condition in a ‘horse jail’ is much better than in a ‘human jail’[Note 2] and he tried his best to put the people in Hong Kong into ‘horse jail’, while the people in China are still in ‘human jail’”. My question is: why cannot the people in Hong Kong get their freedom like the people in Taiwan have, so this “horse jail” would be unnecessary in Hong Kong?

Note 1: In the age of Thoreau’s, American suffrage was with many restrictions, such as, white man with property, poll tax, and literacy test, etc. Not every American can vote. Grant (1822 – 1885, his presidency, 1869 – 1877) was not eligible to vote in 1860, because he was not living longer enough in Illinois then. Also, in America, the election day is set on Tuesday, because, in the past, Sunday is for religion, Monday is for remote voters to travel, so that they can cast their votes on Tuesday.

Note 2: Both “horse jail” and “human jail” are the terms in movie Gone with the Wind, 1939. In the movie, a rich man was taken as prisoner of war, but he bribed jail keepers to stay out of jail because “human jail” was inhumane, instead he stayed with horses in this satiric “horse jail” for a better treatment.