Posts
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
POLITICAL CHANGES CLOUD THE FUTURE
By Chris Yeung
Hong Kong cycling gold medalist Wong Kam-po was both disappointed and puzzled when he made a last-minute appeal for support from city lawmakers on behalf of the government’s planned bid to host the 2023 Asian Games. He had expected pro-democracy parties to oppose the bid—not worth the high cost, in their view—but he thought parties that backed the government would go along with the plan.
They didn’t. At a public hearing held by a Legislative Council (Legco) panel in late November, Wong said, “I have assumed from the beginning…that the League of Social Democrats (LSD) and the Democratic Party (DP) will oppose it. [But] the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has turned out to be the first to say no. It’s very strange and sad.”
The Asian Games cycling champion was referring to swift action by the DAB, widely considered the major pro-establishment party, to publicly oppose the bid just days after the government began a 10-week public consultation period in October. Soon after, the democratic parties joined in opposition as predicted, citing the estimated HK$54 billion (US$7 billion) cost as a major reason for disapproval.
Although public opinion remained divided as the consultation period ended, the Hong Kong Executive Council (cabinet) chaired by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen decided to go ahead anyway and will ask Legco to finance the bid. Yet the DAB didn’t back down. Vice Chairman Ip Kwok-him said his party will take public opinion into account before deciding how to vote on the funding bill. In an early test, the DAB joined the pan-democratic parties to oppose the Asian Games plan in a non-binding vote of a key Legco committee.
The DAB Changes Tactics
The marked change of tactics—putting public opinion above political loyalty to the Tsang administration—suggests a profound change in the city’s political scene following the passage of an election reform resolution last summer, which will set for rules for voting in 2012. It became law only because the Democrat Party held direct talks with officials representing Beijing and crafted a compromise which many other pro-democrats opposed and which, in fact, caused several Democrats to quit the party. That passage, in important ways, heralds possible changes in the city’s political scene and raises questions about the future.
The questions include:
Will the Democratic Party remain the flagship of pan-democratic forces which often oppose the government? Or will it join—at least partially—the political establishment? Future DP positions will significantly impact other pan-democrats and broader political alignments within Hong Kong.
Second, will the DAB revise its strategy, or least the image it projects, of being the most loyal of establishment forces and instead try to lure voters from the center of the political spectrum—now that the Democratic Party seems to be moving towards a moderate role?
Third, will the election reform package, known as the “district council model,” become the catalyst for change and, if so, how?
Fourth, what will passage of that bill mean to Donald Tsang and his administration during its final two years in office?
Last but not least, what new game plan, if any, does Beijing have for Hong Kong as the city takes a small but important step in 2012 toward a presumed universal suffrage voting system, perhaps in 2017 for chief executive and in 2020 for all Legco seats?
There is no doubt that the role of the Democratic Party has been crucial – and controversial – in the electoral reform saga. Holding the most seats in Legco, the party’s support for the government blueprint, revised by the deal it hammered out with Beijing, ensured its passage. Negotiations over the controversial terms marked the first time the Democrats, whose core leaders are still banned from visiting China, sat down and talked with Beijing officials.
The Democrats’ switch to a “negotiated democracy” approach has caused much speculation among political analysts and within overall pan-democratic ranks about whether it will now move closer to the establishment side. One leading pro-democracy figure, Legco member Alan Leong Kah-kit, wrote in November that it caused pan-democrats to split into three streams. His Civic Party, he insisted, still adheres to a “rational line.” The Democratic Party, Leong said, has switched to an “establishment line,” while the smaller LSD has grown more radical.
Worried about losing some long-time supporters, the Democrats were quick to restate their role as an opposition force immediately after the reform blueprint was passed. But this did not prevent a split. Andrew Cheng Kar-foo, a founding member and legislator, quit the party because he rejected the electoral package’s terms. About 16 members from the reformist faction, also disappointed by their party’s stance, in October formed a new political group based in local district constituencies and call themselves NeoDemocrats. Hours before the Democratic Party held an annual general meeting on December 18, the NeoDemocrats and 14 other members of the reformist faction resigned en masse.
Faced with two sets of elections in the near future—for the 18 district councils in 2011 and the Legco in 2012—the Democrats seem unlikely to depart significantly from their basic position as an opposition force for that would risk losing their steady, long-time supporters. But the departure of the young reformist members will deepen the mainstream faction’s sense of crisis and enhance its sense of vigilance about not getting too close to the establishment, or be seen as doing so. Yet members know well that most Hong Kong people want dialogue, not perennial confrontation, with Beijing on crucial issues like universal suffrage. This will be a serious dilemma for the party leaders.
Leadership Changes, Delayed Talks
But 2012 will bring leadership changes to the governments of both Hong Kong and China, and this could well make substantive talks about Hong Kong’s arrangements for elections after 2012 almost impossible until those changes occur. Although relations frozen by 1989’s Tiananmen Square crackdown are slowly thawing, with both Beijing and the Democrats having shown a willingness to deal with each other, however slowly and gradually, there is not much chance of major political breakthroughs during the next two years. For example, Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan in December has merely repeated his hope that a formal channel of communication between Beijing and the pan-democrats can be set up no later than 2012.
One reason is a deep-rooted and lingering popular distrust of dealing with the Communists. Thus the Democratic Party’s decision to hold serious talks with Beijing cadres sharply divided the pan-democratic camp and its supporters. However, recent opinion polls show the Democrats’ popularity rating has risen slightly, matching public support for the electoral compromise they made possible; most people apparently favor an end to confrontation. This year’s district council elections will be the first real test of whether the DP’s revised approach towards Beijing can pay off at the polls.
Though some political analysts see the Democratic Party’s action as a classic united front success for Beijing, the DP’s strategy has caused jitters within Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing camp. Always worried about possible conspiracy, the pro-Beijing hard-liners have warned their allies against letting themselves be “cheated” by the Democrats. They fear their supporters may shift allegiance to the Democrats now that they are mending fences with China.
If anything, the DAB’s firm opposition to the Asian Games bid illustrates this anxiety about a changing political landscape. When it comes to an issue on which there is no clear Beijing policy, the DAB now appears bent on siding with the majority of people—even if that means opposing the Hong Kong government. Even after the central government said it would support a Hong Kong bid for the games, DAB leaders repeated their opposition.
Contentious Issues Ahead
The Asian Games tussle is but one example of things to come as political parties look forward to the scheduled 2011 and 2012 elections. Though many details about out how to implement the new electoral blueprint will cause fierce debate when Legco drafts a final bill, its passage is expected. Contentious issues include who is eligible to run for five new Legco seats that will represent district council constituencies; how many nominating votes a would-be candidate needs from the current 405 elected district council members (10 or 15?) and whether there should be one territory-wide constituency for these new seats, or five separate ones. Under the framework electoral resolution passed by Legco in June, nearly all Hong Kong voters can cast ballots for these five new seats. (Excluded will be the 200,000 voters from special interest groups who select 30 legislators in what are called functional constituencies.) Another five new seats will be chosen by popular vote in existing geographical constituencies, meaning that 40 of an expanded Legco’s 70 members will in effect be chosen by democratic means.
According to an election bill introduced in mid-December, which is expected to be passed into law in the legislative session that ends in mid-July, the five new seats representing the district councils will be chosen by a proportional representation system in a single constituency of some 3.2 million voters covering all of Hong Kong. As a result, the five winners could well get hundreds of thousands of votes apiece, something not possible in smaller geographical constituencies, causing some analysts to call them “super-legislators”. And some predict these winners – with a much stronger elected mandate - could pose a political challenge to the next chief executive, who will be chosen by majority vote of only 1,200 members of an election committee, many of them carefully vetted by the Beijing and Hong Kong governments.
Not surprisingly, the guessing game has begun about who might become “super-legislators.” Although major parties like the DAB and DP have an advantage because they are strong in the districts, popular political figures—notably minister-turned-legislator Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and some prominent business leaders—could emerge as strong contenders in a territory-wide poll.
The more radical LSD has announced its intention to boycott these elections, but all other major political parties are formulating their strategies for seeking the new seats. This contest could well aggravate an earlier split between the Democrats and the Civic Party that was later worsened when they opposed each other on the electoral reform proposal. On the other hand, it might also compel them to join forces in a Hong Kong-wide election to avoid a situation in which they might both lose.
Because final terms of the 2012 election bill are not yet drafted, it is difficult to predict what campaign strategies the two leading pan-democratic parties might choose. But their damaged relationship isn’t likely to mend anytime soon. Despite persistent calls for pan-democrats to form a grand coalition, such a united front looks unlikely before 2017 when the chief executive could be elected by universal suffrage. Until then, the pan-democratic camp will remain fragmented and fraught with discord on various political and policy issues. Only when electoral arrangements for post-2012 voting and a universal suffrage election of the chief executive are on the agenda will they have incentive enough to consider joining forces.
No Gains for Beijing’s Friends
Meantime, a sense of bitterness among the establishment parties became clear when it emerged that the Beijing-Democrats compromise did not bring the pro-government side any benefits. The DAB, for example, hasn’t gained in public opinion surveys since the electoral reform was approved. Following a major setback in the 2008 Legco elections, the pro-business Liberal Party was already sometimes ridiculed as being “half-dead”. Suffering from the exodus of four core leaders in recent times, the Liberals’ future grew even more uncertain when Michael Tien Puk-sun, a wealthy businessman who was tipped to become a party leader, quit in November. The next month he became a vice chairman of Regina Ip’s just-launched New People’s Party, which she will chair. This party, which has about 70 founding members, will follow a center-right line in social, economic and political policies, and will target middle class voters. Meantime, former Liberal Party chairman James Tien Pei-chun (Michael’s brother), who resigned after the party’s 2008 electoral defeat, was given its newly-created title of honorary chairman. His former deputy, Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, who also left the Liberals in 2008, will run for the post of vice chairman. Their political comeback is seen as a desperate move by the Liberals to survive the next two sets of elections. However, given their depleted strength, the party seems unlikely to regain its former place in the political landscape. The question Beijing and the local business sector must face is how business interests can be represented in future Legislative Councils when all seats are returned by universal suffrage.
Because an earlier and somewhat similar effort at electoral reform failed in 2005, to the dismay of both the Hong Kong and Chinese governments, Beijing should feel relieved by passage of the 2012 version. Presumably, it agreed to modest concessions—under pressure from pan-democrats and others who want improved governance—to avoid a second failure. Otherwise, its chosen chief executive, Donald Tsang, might well have faced public pressure to stand down in mid-term, just as his predecessor was forced to do over a different issue. Intentionally or inadvertently, Beijing’s surprise green-light to the package has divided the pan-democratic camp, with the Democrats portrayed as politicians with whom Beijing can do business and most others, such as the Civic Party and the LSD, considered the die-hard opposition.
Even one long-time pro-Beijing figure has said privately that he remains baffled by Beijing’s decision because the Democrat-initiated reform includes direct election for five additional Legco seats, something Beijing normally doesn’t favor. The political ramifications of the emergence of five “super-legislators” could also be profound. The political gains of the reform bill compromise, nevertheless, are clear. The Tsang administration has regained some lost popularity and the pan-democratic camp is in disarray, at least temporarily. Given a choice, however, Beijing would prefer an even more fragmented pan-democratic camp it could ignore completely, allowing more room for its own political maneuvering as both the central and Hong Kong governments acquire new leaders. It remains to be seen whether Beijing’s blessing of the 2012 electoral reforms signifies a major change of tactics, if not strategy, towards Hong Kong. The style and policies of Vice President Xi Jinping, who will succeed President Hu Jintao in 2012, and Wang Guangya, a career diplomat who recently took over the central government’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, are still anybody’s guess.
It is clear, however, Beijing is not prepared to begin talks anytime soon about post-2012 electoral reforms or a specific roadmap to universal suffrage. Top on its Hong Kong agenda during the next two years are a string of five elections. They include voting in 2011 for district councils and selecting the 1,200-member committee that will choose the next chief executive; and in 2012 selecting local delegates to the National People’s Congress in Beijing, choosing a new Hong Kong chief executive and filling all 70 seats of the Legislative Council.
On its face, passage of electoral reform in 2010 has not brought seismic change to Hong Kong’s political landscape. The political divide between pro-establishment and pan-democratic forces remains sharp and clear. The Tsang administration still faces recurring troubles in governance. Meantime, Beijing is continuing the proactive, more visible political approach it adopted following the 500,000-strong protest rally which shook its complacency on July 1, 2003.
Change, however, is in the air.
Chris Yeung is News Director of the Hong Kong Economic Journal. The article does not reflect the views of that organization.
Hong Kong cycling gold medalist Wong Kam-po was both disappointed and puzzled when he made a last-minute appeal for support from city lawmakers on behalf of the government’s planned bid to host the 2023 Asian Games. He had expected pro-democracy parties to oppose the bid—not worth the high cost, in their view—but he thought parties that backed the government would go along with the plan.
They didn’t. At a public hearing held by a Legislative Council (Legco) panel in late November, Wong said, “I have assumed from the beginning…that the League of Social Democrats (LSD) and the Democratic Party (DP) will oppose it. [But] the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has turned out to be the first to say no. It’s very strange and sad.”
The Asian Games cycling champion was referring to swift action by the DAB, widely considered the major pro-establishment party, to publicly oppose the bid just days after the government began a 10-week public consultation period in October. Soon after, the democratic parties joined in opposition as predicted, citing the estimated HK$54 billion (US$7 billion) cost as a major reason for disapproval.
Although public opinion remained divided as the consultation period ended, the Hong Kong Executive Council (cabinet) chaired by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen decided to go ahead anyway and will ask Legco to finance the bid. Yet the DAB didn’t back down. Vice Chairman Ip Kwok-him said his party will take public opinion into account before deciding how to vote on the funding bill. In an early test, the DAB joined the pan-democratic parties to oppose the Asian Games plan in a non-binding vote of a key Legco committee.
The DAB Changes Tactics
The marked change of tactics—putting public opinion above political loyalty to the Tsang administration—suggests a profound change in the city’s political scene following the passage of an election reform resolution last summer, which will set for rules for voting in 2012. It became law only because the Democrat Party held direct talks with officials representing Beijing and crafted a compromise which many other pro-democrats opposed and which, in fact, caused several Democrats to quit the party. That passage, in important ways, heralds possible changes in the city’s political scene and raises questions about the future.
The questions include:
Will the Democratic Party remain the flagship of pan-democratic forces which often oppose the government? Or will it join—at least partially—the political establishment? Future DP positions will significantly impact other pan-democrats and broader political alignments within Hong Kong.
Second, will the DAB revise its strategy, or least the image it projects, of being the most loyal of establishment forces and instead try to lure voters from the center of the political spectrum—now that the Democratic Party seems to be moving towards a moderate role?
Third, will the election reform package, known as the “district council model,” become the catalyst for change and, if so, how?
Fourth, what will passage of that bill mean to Donald Tsang and his administration during its final two years in office?
Last but not least, what new game plan, if any, does Beijing have for Hong Kong as the city takes a small but important step in 2012 toward a presumed universal suffrage voting system, perhaps in 2017 for chief executive and in 2020 for all Legco seats?
There is no doubt that the role of the Democratic Party has been crucial – and controversial – in the electoral reform saga. Holding the most seats in Legco, the party’s support for the government blueprint, revised by the deal it hammered out with Beijing, ensured its passage. Negotiations over the controversial terms marked the first time the Democrats, whose core leaders are still banned from visiting China, sat down and talked with Beijing officials.
The Democrats’ switch to a “negotiated democracy” approach has caused much speculation among political analysts and within overall pan-democratic ranks about whether it will now move closer to the establishment side. One leading pro-democracy figure, Legco member Alan Leong Kah-kit, wrote in November that it caused pan-democrats to split into three streams. His Civic Party, he insisted, still adheres to a “rational line.” The Democratic Party, Leong said, has switched to an “establishment line,” while the smaller LSD has grown more radical.
Worried about losing some long-time supporters, the Democrats were quick to restate their role as an opposition force immediately after the reform blueprint was passed. But this did not prevent a split. Andrew Cheng Kar-foo, a founding member and legislator, quit the party because he rejected the electoral package’s terms. About 16 members from the reformist faction, also disappointed by their party’s stance, in October formed a new political group based in local district constituencies and call themselves NeoDemocrats. Hours before the Democratic Party held an annual general meeting on December 18, the NeoDemocrats and 14 other members of the reformist faction resigned en masse.
Faced with two sets of elections in the near future—for the 18 district councils in 2011 and the Legco in 2012—the Democrats seem unlikely to depart significantly from their basic position as an opposition force for that would risk losing their steady, long-time supporters. But the departure of the young reformist members will deepen the mainstream faction’s sense of crisis and enhance its sense of vigilance about not getting too close to the establishment, or be seen as doing so. Yet members know well that most Hong Kong people want dialogue, not perennial confrontation, with Beijing on crucial issues like universal suffrage. This will be a serious dilemma for the party leaders.
Leadership Changes, Delayed Talks
But 2012 will bring leadership changes to the governments of both Hong Kong and China, and this could well make substantive talks about Hong Kong’s arrangements for elections after 2012 almost impossible until those changes occur. Although relations frozen by 1989’s Tiananmen Square crackdown are slowly thawing, with both Beijing and the Democrats having shown a willingness to deal with each other, however slowly and gradually, there is not much chance of major political breakthroughs during the next two years. For example, Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan in December has merely repeated his hope that a formal channel of communication between Beijing and the pan-democrats can be set up no later than 2012.
One reason is a deep-rooted and lingering popular distrust of dealing with the Communists. Thus the Democratic Party’s decision to hold serious talks with Beijing cadres sharply divided the pan-democratic camp and its supporters. However, recent opinion polls show the Democrats’ popularity rating has risen slightly, matching public support for the electoral compromise they made possible; most people apparently favor an end to confrontation. This year’s district council elections will be the first real test of whether the DP’s revised approach towards Beijing can pay off at the polls.
Though some political analysts see the Democratic Party’s action as a classic united front success for Beijing, the DP’s strategy has caused jitters within Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing camp. Always worried about possible conspiracy, the pro-Beijing hard-liners have warned their allies against letting themselves be “cheated” by the Democrats. They fear their supporters may shift allegiance to the Democrats now that they are mending fences with China.
If anything, the DAB’s firm opposition to the Asian Games bid illustrates this anxiety about a changing political landscape. When it comes to an issue on which there is no clear Beijing policy, the DAB now appears bent on siding with the majority of people—even if that means opposing the Hong Kong government. Even after the central government said it would support a Hong Kong bid for the games, DAB leaders repeated their opposition.
Contentious Issues Ahead
The Asian Games tussle is but one example of things to come as political parties look forward to the scheduled 2011 and 2012 elections. Though many details about out how to implement the new electoral blueprint will cause fierce debate when Legco drafts a final bill, its passage is expected. Contentious issues include who is eligible to run for five new Legco seats that will represent district council constituencies; how many nominating votes a would-be candidate needs from the current 405 elected district council members (10 or 15?) and whether there should be one territory-wide constituency for these new seats, or five separate ones. Under the framework electoral resolution passed by Legco in June, nearly all Hong Kong voters can cast ballots for these five new seats. (Excluded will be the 200,000 voters from special interest groups who select 30 legislators in what are called functional constituencies.) Another five new seats will be chosen by popular vote in existing geographical constituencies, meaning that 40 of an expanded Legco’s 70 members will in effect be chosen by democratic means.
According to an election bill introduced in mid-December, which is expected to be passed into law in the legislative session that ends in mid-July, the five new seats representing the district councils will be chosen by a proportional representation system in a single constituency of some 3.2 million voters covering all of Hong Kong. As a result, the five winners could well get hundreds of thousands of votes apiece, something not possible in smaller geographical constituencies, causing some analysts to call them “super-legislators”. And some predict these winners – with a much stronger elected mandate - could pose a political challenge to the next chief executive, who will be chosen by majority vote of only 1,200 members of an election committee, many of them carefully vetted by the Beijing and Hong Kong governments.
Not surprisingly, the guessing game has begun about who might become “super-legislators.” Although major parties like the DAB and DP have an advantage because they are strong in the districts, popular political figures—notably minister-turned-legislator Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and some prominent business leaders—could emerge as strong contenders in a territory-wide poll.
The more radical LSD has announced its intention to boycott these elections, but all other major political parties are formulating their strategies for seeking the new seats. This contest could well aggravate an earlier split between the Democrats and the Civic Party that was later worsened when they opposed each other on the electoral reform proposal. On the other hand, it might also compel them to join forces in a Hong Kong-wide election to avoid a situation in which they might both lose.
Because final terms of the 2012 election bill are not yet drafted, it is difficult to predict what campaign strategies the two leading pan-democratic parties might choose. But their damaged relationship isn’t likely to mend anytime soon. Despite persistent calls for pan-democrats to form a grand coalition, such a united front looks unlikely before 2017 when the chief executive could be elected by universal suffrage. Until then, the pan-democratic camp will remain fragmented and fraught with discord on various political and policy issues. Only when electoral arrangements for post-2012 voting and a universal suffrage election of the chief executive are on the agenda will they have incentive enough to consider joining forces.
No Gains for Beijing’s Friends
Meantime, a sense of bitterness among the establishment parties became clear when it emerged that the Beijing-Democrats compromise did not bring the pro-government side any benefits. The DAB, for example, hasn’t gained in public opinion surveys since the electoral reform was approved. Following a major setback in the 2008 Legco elections, the pro-business Liberal Party was already sometimes ridiculed as being “half-dead”. Suffering from the exodus of four core leaders in recent times, the Liberals’ future grew even more uncertain when Michael Tien Puk-sun, a wealthy businessman who was tipped to become a party leader, quit in November. The next month he became a vice chairman of Regina Ip’s just-launched New People’s Party, which she will chair. This party, which has about 70 founding members, will follow a center-right line in social, economic and political policies, and will target middle class voters. Meantime, former Liberal Party chairman James Tien Pei-chun (Michael’s brother), who resigned after the party’s 2008 electoral defeat, was given its newly-created title of honorary chairman. His former deputy, Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee, who also left the Liberals in 2008, will run for the post of vice chairman. Their political comeback is seen as a desperate move by the Liberals to survive the next two sets of elections. However, given their depleted strength, the party seems unlikely to regain its former place in the political landscape. The question Beijing and the local business sector must face is how business interests can be represented in future Legislative Councils when all seats are returned by universal suffrage.
Because an earlier and somewhat similar effort at electoral reform failed in 2005, to the dismay of both the Hong Kong and Chinese governments, Beijing should feel relieved by passage of the 2012 version. Presumably, it agreed to modest concessions—under pressure from pan-democrats and others who want improved governance—to avoid a second failure. Otherwise, its chosen chief executive, Donald Tsang, might well have faced public pressure to stand down in mid-term, just as his predecessor was forced to do over a different issue. Intentionally or inadvertently, Beijing’s surprise green-light to the package has divided the pan-democratic camp, with the Democrats portrayed as politicians with whom Beijing can do business and most others, such as the Civic Party and the LSD, considered the die-hard opposition.
Even one long-time pro-Beijing figure has said privately that he remains baffled by Beijing’s decision because the Democrat-initiated reform includes direct election for five additional Legco seats, something Beijing normally doesn’t favor. The political ramifications of the emergence of five “super-legislators” could also be profound. The political gains of the reform bill compromise, nevertheless, are clear. The Tsang administration has regained some lost popularity and the pan-democratic camp is in disarray, at least temporarily. Given a choice, however, Beijing would prefer an even more fragmented pan-democratic camp it could ignore completely, allowing more room for its own political maneuvering as both the central and Hong Kong governments acquire new leaders. It remains to be seen whether Beijing’s blessing of the 2012 electoral reforms signifies a major change of tactics, if not strategy, towards Hong Kong. The style and policies of Vice President Xi Jinping, who will succeed President Hu Jintao in 2012, and Wang Guangya, a career diplomat who recently took over the central government’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, are still anybody’s guess.
It is clear, however, Beijing is not prepared to begin talks anytime soon about post-2012 electoral reforms or a specific roadmap to universal suffrage. Top on its Hong Kong agenda during the next two years are a string of five elections. They include voting in 2011 for district councils and selecting the 1,200-member committee that will choose the next chief executive; and in 2012 selecting local delegates to the National People’s Congress in Beijing, choosing a new Hong Kong chief executive and filling all 70 seats of the Legislative Council.
On its face, passage of electoral reform in 2010 has not brought seismic change to Hong Kong’s political landscape. The political divide between pro-establishment and pan-democratic forces remains sharp and clear. The Tsang administration still faces recurring troubles in governance. Meantime, Beijing is continuing the proactive, more visible political approach it adopted following the 500,000-strong protest rally which shook its complacency on July 1, 2003.
Change, however, is in the air.
Chris Yeung is News Director of the Hong Kong Economic Journal. The article does not reflect the views of that organization.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Classic Wedding Grown
CONTACT PERSON:
HAZEL YU
RM103 Golden Plaza Prince Edward Hong Kong,
Hazel049@yahoo.com.HK,
Tel:+852 92553912
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
2012 Republican presidential candidates all have flaws
Washington Post Staff Writer
Mitt Romney can't win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
As governor of Massachusetts, he signed health-care legislation that has considerable similarities to the proposal President Obama championed - the one Republicans have fought tooth and nail
That's an emerging bit of conventional wisdom about the slow-forming GOP race. And it's right - except that it omits one very important fact: All - that's A-L-L - of the Republicans considering runs for the nomination carry at least one major flaw that could keep them from victory.
"So far, the Republican field looks conventional and flawed," said Mark McKinnon, who was an adviser to President George W. Bush. "To beat Obama, the GOP is going to have to come up with a ticket that is fresh, exciting, unconventional and free of major flaws."
Let's take a look at the Achilles' heel of some of the best-known candidates:
l Haley Barbour: The Mississippi governor virtually invented lobbying - not exactly the ideal background in a very anti-Washington Republican electorate. And his Southern roots - and the gaffe he committed late last year when he seemed to suggest that the civil rights movement wasn't a big deal where he grew up - might not play well in the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary, the first two nominating contests of 2012.
l Mitch Daniels: The Indiana governor drew widespread criticism among the party base when he suggested that the next president would need to call a "truce" on social issues until the country moved beyond its current economic woes. Social conservatives dominate the Iowa caucuses and the South Carolina primary - and they won't forget Daniels's truce talk anytime soon.
l John Thune: The senator from South Dakota - like many of his Republican Senate colleagues - voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program in late 2008. Many conservatives view the vote as a sort of scarlet letter, a massive government bailout that is anathema to their limited-government philosophy.
l Newt Gingrich: The former House speaker's appeals to social conservatives in places such as Iowa and South Carolina could be complicated by his very public personal life: He has been married three times.
l Sarah Palin: The former Alaska governor has done next to nothing to build a national political organization or demonstate the ability - or willingness - to grow beyond her committed social conservative base.
l Jon Huntsman: His serving in the Obama administration - albeit as the ambassador to China - won't go down well with many Republican primary voters who detest the current occupant of the White House. And Huntsman's public endorsement of cap-and-trade legislation puts him out of step with most in his party.
l Tim Pawlenty: The former Minnesota governor's biggest problem is a lack of pizazz. Can a candidate who is relatively unknown outside his home state of Minnesota and whose best trait is his "niceness" rise to the top of such a crowded field?
l Mike Huckabee: Huckabee's record as governor of Arkansas - particularly his decision to commute the sentence of Maurice Clemmons, who went on to murder four police offers in Washington state - is ripe for a deep opposition-research dive. And Huckabee's record on taxes as governor isn't likely to look much better in the eyes of many Republicans.
Curt Anderson, a GOP consultant who worked with Romney in 2008 but is now unaligned, argued that the candidates' pasts won't win or lose them the nomination.
"The answer to the riddle lies in the future, not the past," he said. "Who can capture the imagination of Republican primary voters? That is the question."
Monday, January 31, 2011
Amin deserves credit - Besigye
By Tabu Butagira (email the author)
Posted Monday, January 31 2011 at 00:00
Arua
Dr Kizza Besigye has said former President Idi Amin might have been illiterate but must be commended for setting up infrastructure that has stood the test of time.
Addressing a well-attended rally in Arua on Saturday, the IPC presidential flag-bearer said Amin developed West Nile—something President Museveni has failed to do.
“Many people have been saying that Amin was not educated, but what Amin built can still be seen,” said Dr Besigye. “We have Muni National Teachers College, which is one of the biggest in the country. Where is Museveni’s college in West Nile?”
Amin, who ruled Uganda from 1971 to 1979, was born in West Nile and never completed primary school education. He died in August 2003 and was buried in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he had fled into exile. Speaking to a charged crowd, Dr Besigye said had it not been for President Museveni’s inflexibility,
Amin’s remains would have been returned to Uganda.
The IPC candidate promised to upgrade Arua airfield to an international airport, pay thousands of ex-servicemen in the country their due arrears and build silos in each region to stabilise prices of farm commodities during surplus and offer food supplies in the event of scarcity.
There was drama prior to the rally when supporters of the ruling NRM party, reportedly rallied by Arua Resident District Commissioner, retired Maj. Ibrahim Abiriga, slaughtered a number of cows at Kamure Park for people to feast on so they would not turn up for the opposition gathering.
That did not happen. At about 4pm when word spread of Dr Besigye’s arrival, people poured on the streets clogging the Rhino Camp-Avenue Road junction and shopkeepers hurriedly locked their wares and joined in the trudge to Arua Hill grounds. The crowd chanted, “Anya emi eza oyee”, a Lugbara equivalent of “We have eaten your meat for nothing”, apparently referring to meat pieces distributed by Mr Abiriga.
Earlier in the day, a single-cabin pick up vehicle, carrying about a dozen people who appeared intoxicated with alcohol, circled the town streets with the passengers clad in yellow T-shirts shouting “No change, Museveni pakalast”.
The tension provoked a heavy police deployment amid fears of likely clash between the rival supporters. Law enforcers recalled all their patrol pick-up vehicles in the region’s eight districts and anti-riot police in full body armour and brandishing other crowd control gear, made rounds at high speed in the town – charged to nip in the bud any trouble. But all ended peacefully, although Mr Abiriga who drove briefly to the Pakwach highway round-about next to the rally ground, had to dash away in the face of a sea of opposition people.
“I was a political commissar of the NRM when Maj. Abiriga was still in Arua Park (in downtown Kampala),” Dr Besigye said of the man made an RDC three years ago. “I was Museveni’s doctor in the bush and I know him both inside and the outside. No one knows him more than I do.” He added: “No one should intimidate you, be firm and change is definitely coming. Anyone who stands in the way of change will be rolled over.”
‘Marginalisation’
Dr Besigye juggled his words between empathy for West Nile people, who he said the government had deliberately marginalised by denying them good jobs, bitumen roads and electricity, and promises of better education, quality healthcare and irrigation for all year-round productive, mechanised agriculture.
Dr Besigye had a headache after the crowd’s disapproval forced him to introduce incumbent Arua Municipality MP, Akbar Godi, who appeared more popular than FDC’s official flag bearer, Ms Amina Atako.
Former Buganda Katikkiro, Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere was at hand at the Arua rally to drum up support for Dr Besigye by promising Arua people that the Baganda will this time round vote against President Museveni whom he said had deprived the kingdom and impoverished Ugandans “so he would bribe them for votes when he becomes unpopular”.
Candidate Besigye, who is ending his one-week tour of West Nile, is expected to address marathon rallies in Nebbi and Zombo districts today and tomorrow.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Museveni opposes UN on Ivory Coast polls
Posted Monday, January 24 2011 at 21:01
President Museveni has described as “simplistic” the UN’s recognition of Alassane Outtara as winner of Ivory Coast’s disputed presidential ballot and instead called for an independent investigation.
State House called this newspaper yesterday (Jan. 24) to say Mr Museveni prefers the African Union sets up an ad hoc committee to find out how the conduct and results of the vote have generated a difference of opinion.
“There is need for a serious approach that involves investigating the (electoral) process, including registration of voters and who voted,” presidential Spokesman Tamale Mirundi said, quoting Mr Museveni.
“There should be investigations, not just declaring who has won. No, no, no!”
The West African country held a presidential re-run vote on November 28 in which the international community says Mr Outtara defeated incumbent Laurent Gbagbo.
They have since asked Mr Gbagbo, who controls much of the government, to hand power over to his bitter rival while the UN and other western nations have accredited diplomats appointed by Mr Outtara.
“Uganda differs with the UN and international community on Ivory Coast,” Mr Tamale said, “If elections are contested, you just don’t declare one candidate a winner. You must investigate thoroughly what went wrong.”
Separately, West Africa’s economic bloc, ECOWAS, is considering military action to depose adamant Gbagbo.
It has also emerged that Mr Museveni and his host, Mr Jacob Juma, during a meeting in South Africa last Friday, agreed to push for an independent continental inquiry into the Ivory Coast elections.
“The two leaders condemned what they termed as a simplistic approach by the international community to address the Ivory Coast problem,” an official privy to the discussions in South Africa, said.
As it turns out, former South African President Thabo Mbeki was shoved aside as a mediator and replaced with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga because he favoured independent investigation much to the chagrin on the international community.
Political executives of the African Union will during their sitting on January 31 to February 1, due in Addis Ababa, seek to harmonise the disparate positions to extricate the conflict-prone Ivory Coast from the present quagmire.
Yesterday, Spokesman Tamale said Mr Museveni and Mr Zuma prefer an alternative approach because “each country has a Constitution and framework within which to solve internal problems”.
“So it is not up to the UN or international community to recognise this or that winner; the matter must be investigated,” he said.
In just under a month, Ugandans will go to the polls to choose a new president, Members of Parliament and other local government leaders and Mr Museveni, winner of two disputed previous elections, is a candidate.
His key opponent and Inter-Party Cooperation (IPC) flag bearer, Dr Kizza Besigye, has made clear he is setting his own vote tally centre and will announce the results after the February 18 vote.
President Museveni has warned Dr Besigye will be taking a “short cut” to Luriza prison if he dared to announce the results. Mr Tamale yesterday said the opposition leader’s insistence could create an impasse akin to the one prevailing in Ivory Coast, explaining why efforts are being made to stop him in his tracks.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Head of Besigye’s security held
Lira/Kampala
The Police yesterday arrested IPC presidential candidate Kizza Besigye’s head of security in connection with Wednesday’s fracas between NRM and opposition supporters in Aloi Sub-county, Alebtong District.
Inspector of Police Charles Tumuramye, who intervened and saved the situation from turning bloody when the clash took place, was picked from Erute North Constituency where he was overseeing Dr Besigye’s security and taken to Lira Police Station for interrogation.
Arrest
Mr Tumuramye was arrested by a police team led by the Regional Police Commander for Central North, Mr Raymond Otim. Police spokesperson Judith Nabakooba said yesterday that Mr Tumuramye, who was still under police detention by press time yesterday, will be charged with assault because he led “a group of IPC supporters to beat their NRM counterparts.”
“He was not supposed to do that,” Ms Nabakooba said, adding, “he has been arrested and many other police officers on Dr Besigye’s campaign trail will also be arrested after investigations are complete. He is the one who led the group.” But other sources yesterday credited Mr Tumuramye with acting
professionally since he stopped the two groups who were baying for each other’s blood from causing further injury to themselves.
On Wednesday, as supporters of Dr Besigye in Lira were preparing to receive their candidate, they were tipped-off that NRM officials from Kampala were in Aloi Sub-county allegedly dishing out cash to residents, asking them not to attend Dr Besigye’s rallies.
The gentleman who tipped-off the opposition supporters first offered to take journalists on the IPC campaign trail to the Aloi Sub-county where each resident who agreed not to attend Dr Besigye’s rallies was allegedly, given Shs10,000.
It was during this process that the anxious NRM officials attacked the journalists. Matters quickly got out of hand when Dr Besigye’s supporters joined the fray.
Mr Francis Owino, the NRM chairman for Aloi Sub-county, and Michael Kamurizi, a Red Pepper journalist, were among those who sustained serious injuries in the ensuing melee. The spokesperson of President Museveni’s campaign team, Mr Ofwono Opondo, admitted on Wednesday that NRM members were distributing money but said it was meant to facilitate their mobilisation work.
Ms Nabakooba said yesterday that the police will not investigate the source of the money because its primary target is to get those who got involved in the chaos. “We understand that money was meant to facilitate NRM mobilisers and we are not interested in that.” Ms Nabakooba said.
It is illegal under Section 62 of the Presidential Elections Act for candidates and their agents to provide money, gifts or other considerations to a voter with the intention of inducing that person into voting for a particular candidate.
The Police yesterday arrested IPC presidential candidate Kizza Besigye’s head of security in connection with Wednesday’s fracas between NRM and opposition supporters in Aloi Sub-county, Alebtong District.
Inspector of Police Charles Tumuramye, who intervened and saved the situation from turning bloody when the clash took place, was picked from Erute North Constituency where he was overseeing Dr Besigye’s security and taken to Lira Police Station for interrogation.
Arrest
Mr Tumuramye was arrested by a police team led by the Regional Police Commander for Central North, Mr Raymond Otim. Police spokesperson Judith Nabakooba said yesterday that Mr Tumuramye, who was still under police detention by press time yesterday, will be charged with assault because he led “a group of IPC supporters to beat their NRM counterparts.”
“He was not supposed to do that,” Ms Nabakooba said, adding, “he has been arrested and many other police officers on Dr Besigye’s campaign trail will also be arrested after investigations are complete. He is the one who led the group.” But other sources yesterday credited Mr Tumuramye with acting
professionally since he stopped the two groups who were baying for each other’s blood from causing further injury to themselves.
On Wednesday, as supporters of Dr Besigye in Lira were preparing to receive their candidate, they were tipped-off that NRM officials from Kampala were in Aloi Sub-county allegedly dishing out cash to residents, asking them not to attend Dr Besigye’s rallies.
The gentleman who tipped-off the opposition supporters first offered to take journalists on the IPC campaign trail to the Aloi Sub-county where each resident who agreed not to attend Dr Besigye’s rallies was allegedly, given Shs10,000.
It was during this process that the anxious NRM officials attacked the journalists. Matters quickly got out of hand when Dr Besigye’s supporters joined the fray.
Mr Francis Owino, the NRM chairman for Aloi Sub-county, and Michael Kamurizi, a Red Pepper journalist, were among those who sustained serious injuries in the ensuing melee. The spokesperson of President Museveni’s campaign team, Mr Ofwono Opondo, admitted on Wednesday that NRM members were distributing money but said it was meant to facilitate their mobilisation work.
Ms Nabakooba said yesterday that the police will not investigate the source of the money because its primary target is to get those who got involved in the chaos. “We understand that money was meant to facilitate NRM mobilisers and we are not interested in that.” Ms Nabakooba said.
It is illegal under Section 62 of the Presidential Elections Act for candidates and their agents to provide money, gifts or other considerations to a voter with the intention of inducing that person into voting for a particular candidate.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Obama's Bullseye
Last night, for his first time in office, Barack Obama sounded like the president of all Americans.
Obama famously burst onto the national scene in 2004 with an address to the Democratic Convention in which he declared, “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America.” During his own run for the presidency four years later, he would echo this post-partisan theme.
But the first two years of Obama’s presidency have been contentions ones. While he may not have introduced polarization to American politics, he certainly didn’t help matters. Just days after being sworn in, he admonished Congressional Republicans with whom he was negotiating an economic package, boasting: “I won.”
When he encountered political resistance as he set about remaking America, he either directly or through surrogates portrayed political opposition as not just wrong, but illegitimate. Americans expressing their views in town hall meetings became “angry mobs” and “Astroturf.”
As political defeat loomed in last fall’s midterm elections, Obama urged Hispanic Americans to vote for Democrats as a way to “punish our enemies.” Just last month, in announcing a tax deal he had struck with GOP leaders, he blasted Republicans as “hostage takers” and said he was “itching for a fight" with them.
On Saturday, the nation was shaken when news broke of an assassination attempt against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords which killed six and injured a dozen others. Unfortunately, our noxious political atmosphere was on full display as liberals immediately seized on the tragedy and attempted to blame Sarah Palin, tea parties, and the right-wing media for the attack even before anything was known about the assailant.
Subsequent evidence has produced no known links with the alleged gunman, Jared Loughner, who appears to be a mentally disturbed individual without any discernible political ideology or partisan leanings.
“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” one Democrat had anonymously advised the White House via the Politico. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”
In what was billed as a defining moment in his presidency, Obama took the stage at the University of Arizona last night with a clear choice. Was he going to use this occasion to score political points, or was he going to finally live up to the promise of his candidacy and attempt to bring the country together?
Fortunately for the victims of this tragedy, and for America, he chose the latter route.
While the campaign rally feel of the event (complete with cheering and whistling from college students in the audience) seemed jarring at first for a memorial service, Obama struck just the right tone in his remarks. He paid moving tribute to the victims and emphatically stated several times that harsh political rhetoric was not the cause of this attack.
“(A)t a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do -- it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds,” Obama said. “Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.”
He continued, “For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.”
Obama went on to say that those who lost their lives should inspire Americans to be better. “And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse,” he said, “let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not --but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.”
The phrase “it did not” was not in Obama’s prepared remarks, and it’s to his credit that he felt the need to inject those words to make it abundantly clear that political rhetoric was not a factor in the shooting.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Mao running as Uganda’s future
By Otim Lucima (email the author)
Your Email
Message
Send Cancel
Posted Monday, November 29 2010 at 00:00
December 11, 1990, was not the best of times for Makerere University. A students’ riot had ended in cracks of gunfire. Two students, Tom Okema and Tom Onyango, were shot dead on that day, which came to be known as “Black December”.
As is wont to happen in such riots, the Guild President has to respond. A certain Norbert Mao, who had defeated soldier man Noble Mayombo (RIP) in a hotly contested guild race three months earlier, was that guild boss.
President Museveni summoned him to State House in the aftermath of the deadly riot. Mr Mao, who had been ridiculed for his small stature when he contested for head boy at Namilyango College, fixed his gaze on the trappings of power and vowed to occupy the seat someday.
Twenty years later, Mr Mao’s political dream has nurtured some plumes with his nomination as the Democratic Party (DP) presidential candidate on October 25, 2010. Whether these plumes can grow into feathers that can help him soar, is something only the next two months can prove.
Mr Mao, a rather squat politician, compensates for his lack of height by sheer gift of the garb, toned down with a sly delivery of deadpan. Dismas Nkunda, Mr Mao’s peer at Namilyango and Makerere, likens Mr Mao to Squealer, the sweet-tongued propagandist in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
The DP firebrand says he has already crushed Museveni’s political proxies, beginning with the blue-eyed boy, the late Brig. Noble Mayombo in the 1990 MUK guild race. When he sought to step into the House six years later, Mr Mao blew out the candles of Museveni’s former northern Uganda pacification minister, Betty Bigombe, in a fierce battle for Gulu Municipality MP seat. Not done, Mr Mao again humiliated another Musevenist, Lt. Col. Walter Ochora in the Gulu LC5 seat in 2006.
Now he wants to slay Goliath. But what are Mr Mao’s odds against the NRM juggernaut?
Mao is the youngest of eight presidential candidates. His byword for the election campaign is, “now is the time.” He draws a battle line between the old and new generation. But while he rides on the euphoria of the youthful bubble, Mao is not without headaches. The “Young Turk” has to contend with a splinter DP faction.
Mr Mao’s troubles stem from the disputed DP Delegates Conference in Mbale that elected him President General in February. Top DP leadership had remained the preserve of Catholic Ganda since its founding in 1954. But Mr Mao, 43, turned the tables on this, succeeding John Ssebaana Kizito, 77, as DP president. In the event, a section of the party hierarchy accused him of convening an illegal conference that allowed him to run away with the DP crown. A Roman Catholic adherent, Mr Mao became the first to break the Ganda dominance of DP, debunking the popular myth that the party had become bika by’Abaganda (party of Buganda clans).
But he still has to contend with fiery rebel DP Ganda MPs.
His forecast is fluid: “I predict north will identify with me. I believe I’ll get a huge vote in Buganda; DP has the deepest roots in Buganda. East is a toss-up. West; Museveni has a strong say. But I have a connection with the west and I am the best guarantee that there will be no retribution by virtue of Museveni’s origin.”
But Buganda remains a toss-up between Museveni, Besigye, and Mao, although Mao still has eight of 10 DP MPs in his political stable. Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him are two former DP presidents, Mr Ssebaana Kizito and Dr Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere.
Yet that notwithstanding, Mr Mao is nursing political headaches in the mould of Suubi 2011 in the heartland of Buganda, a traditional DP stronghold. Suubi, a loose Ganda-DP pressure group, has thrown its lot with the Inter-Party Cooperation’s candidate Dr Kizza Besigye.
Mr Mao, who says he has been received well, feels the sharp stab of treachery as he quips: “They’re paying us by kicking us in the teeth. We exhibited our genuine side and campaigned for MPs Dr Bayiga and Nambooze,” in apparent reference to hotly contested by-elections against NRM-sponsored candidates that the DP duo won.
Mao points the finger at Dr Besigye over woes plaguing DP. “FDC rejected our proposal to cooperate at MP and grassroots levels. We could not be party to an arranged marriage. IPC is FDC by another name. Joining was like stepping down and becoming a cheerleader for Besigye and FDC.”
Ms Nambooze and Mr Lukwago have publicly courted Dr Besigye, chipping away a critical piece of their party. While DP-leaning former Buganda kingdom premier Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere and Mr Mathias Mpuuga have decamped to Dr Besigye. But Dr Bayiga and former Buganda deputy information minister Seggona Lubega, also Busiro East parliamentary candidate, have since retreated into Mr Mao’s fold, so did Ms Nambooze on her nomination.
Mr Mao portrays Suubi as victims of manipulation, riding on popular sentiments of a narrow agenda for Buganda. He says Suubi shows FDC’s sly side. He sees Suubi as a reactionary movement on a balloon journey, awaiting a crack.
“Suubi is the biggest liability that Buganda has. It shows their inward-looking side. Their agenda is opportunistic.”
He draws parallels with Kabaka Yekka that rallied around the flag of the Kabaka in the1960’s but became the first to betray the Kabaka. Already, the cracks in the IPC have put the allies at loggerheads and their desired option of cooperation has lapsed into frequent deadly skirmishes between FDC, Suubi, SDP and DP.
Even then, Mao is not about to stop digging his knees into Dr Besigye’s sides. He, as much as UPC’s Olara Otunnu and Dr Besigye, know they must cooperate or cannibalise one another in order to ring-fence the turf in northern Uganda. The region has twice delivered Dr Besigye the block vote in 2001, and 2006. But Mao and Otunnu see that support as rented. They see DP and UPC as the due vote holders.
However, DP has no single incumbent MP in its presumed backyard. His coup as Gulu district boss in 2006 was boosted by goodwill votes from FDC and UPC.
Mr Mao, a centrist who focuses on peace-building and moderate politics as the centrepiece of his campaign, casts himself as a bridge between the north and south. He says he is best poised to bring national healing.
A gifted multi-lingual, Mao speaks Luo, Runyankole, Luganda, English, and Kiswahili. His blessed double heritage of an Acholi dad and a Munyankole mum also straddles him across the divide that has defined the ethnic north-west mantra since 1986.
For some inexplicable reason, Mr Mao is often accused of links with Museveni. Snide remarks have been leveled at him for allowing wife Naomi work with State House. Dr Besigye exclaimed thus after his nomination: “I respect Mao. I would have loved to work with him but he has a choice of whom he wants to associate with.” But Mr Mao dismisses this as a smear campaign deflecting the innuendos as “indicators of fear of the threat he poses to claims of providing a legitimate alternative to Museveni.”
He adds: “Besigye has sacrificed a lot but being a victim doesn’t make him the most legitimate alternative to the regime. DP suffered the same ills; our accusers have breastfed and groomed the NRM! FDC is a faction of NRM. It was our voices of dissent that forced Besigye to stop the NRM dance of no change.”
Mr Mao has been accused of conciliatory overtures towards Museveni, especially for keeping silent on the much-maligned Kiggundu-led Electoral Commission. He is also accused of lack of vim over grave issues, including alleged army and police brutality during elections. In his defense, Mao goes theatrical: “If Kiggundu attempts to manipulate these elections, I will call you to the streets and we will count the voters, not the ballots. If that fails, then Museveni will remain the president of the ballots and I will be that of the people,” Mao told fans in Mbale and Tororo.
Belt notches
An enrolled advocate, two-term MP and one-term Gulu District Council chairman, Mao has not escaped the tag of political flip-flop. He has hobnobbed with Chapaa Karuhanga of the National Democrats Forum before teaming up with Mr Aggrey Awori to plot the latter’s bid for the presidency in 2001.
But few would outmatch First Couple Mao and Naomi. And if ladies were vote winners, Naomi, likened to first ladies Carla Bruni and Michelle Obama, would win over to Mao lovers of nouvelle society. With youthful touches to their lives, Mao, 43, and Naomi, 36, represent a breath of fresh air. The couple symbolises class to generation X, a new generation born after Uganda’s independence.
Mao and Naomi touch up their lives with being IT-savvy. Mao remains an active Facebook and Twitter candidate with over 10,000 fans backing his run for the presidency. He frequently posts his political trailers online. If online political activism could translate into offline votes, Mao and Naomi would be 11,000 votes the richer!
But will Mr Mao, who has notched up several victories in his short political career, steer DP to the end of the campaigns chanting the party slogan? The verdict is out on February 18, 2011.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
8 cleared for 2011 presidential elections
Kampala
The final day for nomination of presidential candidates saw the Electoral Commission accept another three individuals, bringing the number of contenders in the February 18, 2011 polls to eight.
The race, which officially kicks off tomorrow, will be between President Museveni, Dr Kizza Besigye, Mr Norbert Mao, Mr Jaberi Bidandi Ssali, Ms Beti Olive Kamya, Dr Abed Bwanika, Mr Olara Otunnu and Mr Samuel Lubega.
Dr Bwanika, of the Peoples’ Development Party, is in it for the second time. His first shot at the top office in 2006 when he stood as an independent, ended up garnering 65,900 ballots (0.95% ) of the total vote. “We must create wealth for Ugandans by creation of employment. We shall also work hard and improve the social services for a better welfare for all of us. Ugandans must own their country,” Dr Bwanika said this time, almost echoing his 2006 message. Uganda Peoples Congress, finally had their candidate, Mr Olara Otunnu, nominated at 1:05 p.m.
Even after accepting EC chair Badru Kiggundu’s handshake, Mr Otunnu still went on the attack. “We are continuing with our crusade for a free and fair election and there is no way it can happen with this corrupt EC. We want a new independent EC. We want a clean voters’ register,” he said. Dr Kiggundu’s rejoinder was to “wish him good luck.”
The last day of nomination was bathed in controversy as Mr Samuel Lubega, an Independent, who first unsuccessfully sought to run as flag bearer of a faction of the Democratic Party, showed up for nomination.
DP wrangles
Mr Lubega has refused to recognise the election of the current leadership. “I have no business with [DP leader Norbert] Mao as long as he does not denounce those illegal tendencies of the Mbale delegates’ conference. We cannot denounce Museveni for unconstitutionalism and we do the same. Charity begins at home. If the DP, whose unity I have always longed for, begins to behave the same way Museveni behaves, then I am out,” he said.
He was nominated three minutes to closing time after more than seven hours of bargaining with the EC. There were a series of meetings between his team and the Commission over the DP materials like headed papers which he had used to solicit for signatures.
The EC later said they would take the chance to nominate him. “I will be ready for court in case any of the people who signed, petition your candidature,” Dr Kiggundu said. Before the final stamps were appended to his nomination certificates, Dr Kiggundu gave Mr Lubega one day to present a new campaign symbol. “The symbol you have presented this afternoon is rejected until it is re-engineered. Your symbol has features which are conflicting [with another party]. You need to harmonise it immediately with my technical people. It could be a reason for your disqualification if not harmonised,” he said. His symbol was of a shield, a drum and a hoe in DP colours.
The electoral law says a candidate who uses symbols that could hoodwink the public and affect another candidates’ votes should be disqualified if they do not change the offending object.
Close monitoring
Uncharacteristically, Dr Kiggundu also told Mr Lubega that; “we shall monitor your campaigns throughout the 112 districts.” DP legal advisor Mukasa Mbidde said last night that they “could consider suing [Lubega], but we have less time for that now.” Mr Mbidde said if Mr Lubega obtained signatures with the help of DP materials, then it was fraudulent.
Meanwhile, Paddy Bitama, a comedian, had his shot at the presidency brought to an end at Namboole Stadium’s gates where EC security refused him entry. He flashed Shs50,000 notes to the gate keepers trying to show them that he had the mandatory Shs8 million.
The election rules were that one deposits the money in a designated bank and only present slips as proof of payment. The comedian said he had just realised that 7,500 signatures were required. But like another artiste before him, Charles ‘Siasa’ Ssenkubuge who in 2006 dropped out shortly after nomination, Mr Bitama’s flirtation with politics turned out to be very brief.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Nomination Day: Boys separated from men as election season starts in earnest
At least seven candidates are expected to present themselves before the Electoral Commission today and tomorrow for endorsement to contest for the highest political office in the land—the second time since the return of multi-party democracy in 2005.
By press time, at least six candidates according to EC boss Badru Kiggundu had been cleared for the nominations at Mandela National Stadium Namboole today.
However, Uganda Peoples’ Congress leader Olara Otunnu had reportedly not submitted the needed signatures. Mr Chris Opoka, an official, said they would submit the signatures by Tuesday 10am.
Signatures’ headache
All the presidential candidates are required to raise 100 signatures from each of at least 75 of the 112 districts. The deadline for the submission of the signatures is Tuesday 3pm.
By press time, those ready for nomination were President Museveni (National Resistance Movement), Kizza Besigye (Forum for Democratic Change), Jaberi Bidandi Ssali (Peoples’ Progressive Party) and Norbert Mao (Democratic Party).
These will be nominated today while Ms Betty Kamya (Federal Alliance) and Mr Abed Bwanika of the Peoples Development Party, will be nominated tomorrow. Mr Otunnu’s nomination is on hold until he finds all the signatures.
According to EC spokesperson Charles Ochola independent candidates Drake Ssebunya, Samuel Lubega and Gideon Tugume had signatures from less than 15 districts verified.
“The verification is still ongoing and we are also working Sunday so that we give them the opportunity,” said Mr Ochola.
Whereas the candidates are also expected to pay Shs8 million before nomination, it is thought that the signatures-clause could explain why despite over 50 people picking the nomination forms, less than 10 are set to meet the standards.
Five candidates contested the last elections in 2006—three of them will feature again. Mr Museveni, Dr Besigye and Mr Bwanika are no strangers to the challenge, while the others will be making their maiden appearance.
According to the EC, President Museveni will submit his papers at 10am and later address a rally at Kololo Independence Grounds.
At 11am, Mr Bidandi Ssali is expected to tender in his forms, while Dr Besigye will do so at midday. The FDC leader will hold a rally at Nakivubo Stadium thereafter.
Mr Mao will hand in his papers at 3pm, before addressing his supporters at Kawempe Growers Grounds.
The mood in most parties was upbeat. NRM Secretary General Amama Mbabazi said over one million supporters are expected to attend President Museveni’s inaugural rally.
Top FDC officials including its Chief Whip Kassiano Wadri and the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Prof. Ogenga Latigo were running adverts on radio asking supporters to attend Dr Besigye’s rally. Other rooting for this were Mr Michael Mabikke of the Social Democratic Party—a member of the opposition coalition backing Dr Besigye and former Buganda Kitikkiro Mulywanyamuli Semwogerere.
But Mr Otunnu’s request to use Lugogo Sports Ground for his maiden rally was turned down, even though KCC officials gave no explanation.
Police warn
Mr Opoka, however, told Daily Monitor that they would use the grounds at Uganda House—that houses party offices—for the rally.
EC spokesman Ochola said Mr Bwanika will be nominated on Tuesday at 11am while Ms Kamya will be endorsed at noon.
Namboole—the venue for the nomination—also looks every inch set. It has been decorated with yellow, black and red ribbons. EC officials met at the stadium yesterday in readiness for today’s historic event.
The Inspector General of Police, Maj. Gen. Kale Kayihura yesterday warned presidential candidates against holding processions in the city, threatening to “crush” any.
Only two vehicles with stickers and 20 supporters will be allowed access to the stadium for security purposes
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Was life better before independence?
This weekend, Uganda commemorates the 48th anniversary of independence. Independence, attained on October 9, 1962, has over the years become a tiresome anniversary for most Ugandans. Most Ugandans today are too stressed out, poor, struggling too hard, with too many odds stacked against them, with crumbling national infrastructure all around them and domestic bills that overwhelm them, to even have the breathing space to reflect on what independence means to them.
Most spent yesterday, October 9, 2010, at their shops, salons, and other small businesses hoping to earn that extra Shs10,000 on just one more day, just to be able to keep going. Sunday and most other public holidays, for much of the business community, have almost ceased to be days of rest as profit margins reduce, business gets harder every passing month and life is a grinding battle.
Politically, as seen in the late 1940s, the subjugation at the hands of the British colonial masters had reached the point where Uganda’s small educated middle clerical and political class could take it no more. Early agitators like Augustine Kamya and Ignatius Musaazi led campaigns for self-rule and economic boycotts. The main justification for the struggle for independence stemmed from a feeling of injustice, of not being represented, of being humiliated at the hands of the British.
The agitation for independence was mainly a sentimental, political matter, with very little understanding of the complexities that involve the mechanism of a modern state. What was not adequately understood and foreseen was that running an independent nation required much more skill, resources, trained personnel and organisation than just a wish to see Africans run their own affairs.
Until 1956, for example, Makerere College had been the only institution of higher learning in East Africa. And yet six years later in 1962, the country could claim, without seeing the futility of this, to being ready for independence. A 1990 document on Uganda in the US Library of Congress described the overall strategic vision of the colonial administration:
‘Colonial rule affected local economic systems dramatically, in part because the first concern of the British was financial... The new Commissioner of Uganda in 1900, Sir Harry H. Johnston, had orders to establish an efficient administration and to levy taxes as quickly as possible... Johnston’s Buganda Agreement of 1900 imposed a tax on huts and guns, designated the chiefs as tax collectors, and testified to the continued alliance of British and Baganda interests.’
Enduring institutions
With this revenue raised from taxes on huts and guns, the colonial administration went on to create some of the most enduring institutions in Uganda - The Uganda Museum, Mulago Hospital and various other hospitals, electricity generation, cotton ginneries, extension of the Uganda Railway and Makerere University. Some of the most interesting and insightful books about Uganda, from its history, ethnic groups and customs, geography, economy, natural resources, and political systems are those written by colonial scholars, administrators and journalists of the colonial era.
In them, the picture is consistent and clear: the European colonisers for the most part were no mere plundering, looting, corrupt individuals or governments but brought to Africa the highest standards of scholarship, planning, and public administration.
Margaret McPhearson’s 1964 book They Build For The Future, on the history of Makerere University, is one of many books that captures best the whole world’s difference between the way the British colonial administrators laid out plans for their colonies and what Africa has seen since the independence period.
Everything was planned and every plan had a compelling, logical, short- and long-term reason and goal. Every policy responded to a need and every need was analysed and understood and every reason for creating a policy to address that need or crisis made sense.
Throughout the creation of what would later become one of Africa’s most respected universities, the sense of planning, studying, and systematically organising resources and people to create Makerere University is visible. Here is an example of how institutions in Uganda were created by the colonial administrators.
The clarity of the British thinking and planning and the reasons they gave for that are unmistakable:
“Dr H.B. Owen, who had retired from the medical service, was recalled to become the first medical tutor at the college (Makerere).
Patiently going forward step by step, in the first instance compiling simple notes and working towards a stage at which his students could assimilate simple text-books, grounding them in physics, biology and chemistry, he moved them on to the pre-clinical subjects got them in two years to the stage when they could move over to Mulago for clinical work.” (Margaret McPhearson, They Build For The Future, page 7-8).
The colonial administrator, Frederick Borup, introduced cotton to Uganda in 1903. Two years later, in 1905, the Uganda Protectorate exported its first bale of cotton to the world market with a value of £200; in 1906, cotton exports had risen to £1,000; in 1907 they were at £11,000, in 1908 stood at £52,000 and by 1915 Uganda’s cotton exports totalled £369,000.
Even in today’s money, £369,000 from a cotton harvest for Ugandan farmers would still be respectable export earnings. In 1915, that was an enormous amount of money.
So much did cotton alone contribute to the colonial economy that the British government ended its financial subsidy to Uganda and Uganda became financially self-sufficient, while Kenya - the largest economy in East Africa for the last 40 years - still continued to receive aid from London.
The colonial government of Uganda, in fact, used the country’s cotton exports as collateral to secure the loan that built the Owen Falls Dam in 1954. It was this Uganda or 1962 and before that is usually described as having been at the same approximate level as South Korea at the time of Uganda’s independence.
The British colonial rule can be faulted over many other things, but they left behind a world-class public administrative system that 50 years since the first wave of independence, no single African state has managed to reproduce. Even where European invaders set foot, for example the Italians in Ethiopia and Eritrea between 1935 and 1941, they built a fine road network and other public works that still survive to this day.One of the main criticism levied against the British was that they left Uganda with an army run essentially by semi-literate officers like Idi Amin, Tito Okello, Mustapha Adrisi, and Bazillio Okello.
If that is so, it says something about the genius of the British that the semi-literate soldiers of the Kings African Rifles who took over the Ugandan army in 1962 and the Ugandan government in 1971 proved to be much better administrators than the Ugandan army after 1986 that is dominated by officers with Masters degrees and advanced military staff and officer cadet training.
Under Amin’s eight-year rule, this semi-literate officer established the Uganda Airlines, Uganda Railways, procured Uganda House embassy buildings in Nairobi, London, New York and other European capitals and by the fall of his regime in April 1979, Mulago Hospital and all other government hospitals in Uganda still had a full store of drugs, and the Uganda shilling from 1971 when Amin took power to 1979 when he fell remained in value at between Shs7 and Shs7.50 to the US dollar, despite the economic hardships, the boycott and the sabotage and when Amin left office, Uganda did not have any foreign debt.
When another colonial-era, semi-literate army officer, Gen. Tito Okello, was fleeing Uganda in January 1986 before the advancing NRA guerrilla army, according to a Weekly Observer news report in 2005, the Okello regime left behind 40 military and police helicopters and Uganda Airlines, Uganda Railways, Uganda Commercial Bank, Uganda Hotels and other state-owned corporations.
Today, nearly everything that the colonial state left behind and even the semi-literate army officers like Amin and Okello were able to maintain or create, have disappeared. This alone demonstrates the positive impact that colonial rule had on Uganda, that they were able to see ability in men like Amin and Okello even though they were semi-literate and yet in Uganda today, the tendency is to view ability only in terms of the possession of academic papers and qualifications.
Internet companies
In the 1990s and 2000s, Internet companies like Yahoo!, Google, Facebook and others emerged to transform the world, often started by drop-outs from American universities. They proved what the British could see as far back as the 1930s: academic qualification is not everything in life.
Even politically and in the areas of human rights, many more Ugandans have died from independence in 1962 to 2010 at the hands of various actors of the Ugandan state than all the Ugandans who died in political and military violence in all Ugandan history before 1962, both in terms of actual numbers and as a percentage of the population.
It was most naive, then, for the first political party in Uganda, the Uganda National Congress and its leaders, to agitate for independence only or mainly on the basis of Africans’ right to dignity and greater participation in the monetary economy, without undertaking serious feasibility studies on whether or not a post-1962 Uganda had the capacity to run its own affairs and manage its finances.
Likewise today, neither the ruling NRM government nor the opposition political parties have an answer to how to create or re-create the Ugandan state to the levels of efficiency that it had before 1962.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
