Last Sunday, when a large number of people massed to demand full democracy for Hong Kong, the local puppet government responded as Beijing would have: riot police moved in, gassed the protesters and dragged them to detention.
That was a provocation. The next day, more people assembled. The protests grew by the day, notwithstanding inclement weather — the reason the mass actions earned the nickname “Umbrella Revolution.”
As the protest actions grew, informally called “Occupy Central,” the police disappeared. Deluged by hundreds of thousands of protesters, the HK government was hardly visible — although even more intransigent, calling the street actions “illegal.”
Those in the streets, mainly young people out to ensure a democratic future for the territory, are demanding HK chief executive CY Leung’s resignation. They want real elections to happen, not the make-believe exercise of people casting a ballot for any of the Beijing-approved candidates standing for office.
When China negotiated the return of the territory from Britain, they agreed to certain terms that would ensure HK’s autonomy as a protected democratic society. Only diplomacy and defense reverted to Beijing. The “special administrative region” would retain its democratic character.
After the 1997 handover, however, Beijing proceeded to undermine the conditions. Candidates for the territory’s chief executive were, in effect, vetted by Beijing — consistent with the Chinese capital’s obsession with control. That makes the popular vote moot, as it is in the mainland.
Beijing, to be sure, frowns on the HK protests. The ruling party is deathly afraid of such mass popular actions, as we saw in the Tiananmen massacre a quarter of a century ago. Over the past few days, Chinese authorities have been frantically censoring social media sites and cable news services in a mad effort to keep the rest of China from knowing about what is happening in HK.
Beijing has enough troubles as it is with the Uighurs and the Tibetans. They do not relish the prospect of another round of student-led protests in the streets of her main cities. There are limits however to how they can keep censorship effective.
This is a regime that thrives on keeping its people ignorant and without real options. It is only a shade more benign than the sort of suppression North Korea maintains. By relying on suppression, however, Beijing works with a short string. Modern communications militate against censorship and globalization inevitably carries with it dangerous ideas, such as individual freedom.
We can only surmise how this episode will end. This is surely a watershed event. China may not lose the territory, but surely it can never win its soul.
Incompetent
Through the length of the Senate hearing on the MRT-3 yesterday, DOTC Secretary Abaya maintained the look of deer caught in the headlights. He had no grasp of the details and no vision of what could be done.
When asked about why the Sumitomo maintenance contract was terminated, he said the firm refused to allow “warranties.” When the others in the panel, including current contractor APT Global, were asked, they stated their guarantees were exactly what Sumitomo granted. Abaya was lying.
When asked about why he did not consult with the private owners of the vital facility, he said it was not his obligation to do so. He personifies the vacuous arrogance of the administration he serves.
He did not clearly answer so many critical questions. Why was the MRTC given only 12 days to bid out and contract a maintenance provider to replace Sumitomo? Why was the maintenance contract awarded on a short-term basis and without the “single point of responsibility” which was the strong suit of the Sumitomo contract? Why was the maintenance contract awarded to PH Trams and then to APT Global chopped up so that overhaul and upgrade of the signaling system were bid out separately?
Is any one supervising the production of new trains at the Dalian plant in China the same way Sumitomo, as designer of the rail system, supervised the production of the first generation of trains? Of course no one is doing that now.
In the proposed 2015 budget, the DOTC is asking for P53 billion in order to acquire the MRT-3. Abaya, however, could not explain why this amount was requested and what exactly is it for. He simply mumbled something about the amount being quoted by the Department of Finance.
The amount requested is barely enough to buy back the MRT bonds. Of the MRT bonds floated in the open market, about 83% was acquired by DBP and LBP. The two government financial institutions hold 9 out of 14 board seats in the MRTC board, including the chair.
If this is what the DOTC intended to buy back, it will be a pointless exercise. It is held by government anyway, producing immense profits for the two government financial institutions. Government gets no additional control by buying back the DBP and LBP bonds.
The only reason for doing this is that the two financial institutions are under pressure from the BSP to unload their holdings. This is because running a train system is not the core competence of the banks.
If what the DOTC wants is to buy back the private shareholders of MRT Holdings, they might need much more than the amount in the proposed 2015 budget. At any rate, they have not made a formal proposal to the private owners of the MRT system and therefore have no idea of the asking price for the shares.
Whichever it is, Abaya does not seem to know.