李怡，1936年生，香港知名時事評論家、作家。1970年曾創辦雜誌《七十年代》，1984年更名《九十年代》，直至1998年停刊。後在《蘋果日報》撰寫專欄，筆耕不輟半世紀。著有文集《放逐》、《思緒》、《對應》等十數本。正在Matters連載首部自傳《失敗者回憶錄》：「我一生所主張所推動的事情，社會總是向相反趨向發展，無論是閱讀，獨立思考或民主自由都如是。這就是我所指的失敗的人生。」

Memoirs of a Loser 180: Situ Hua's Compromise in His Later Years

Aug 6, 2022

What the CCP is most afraid of is the referendum, even if it is a referendum in disguise.

On January 2, 2011, Hong Kong pro-democracy boss Situ Hua died. One thing he did more than a year before his death not only affected the evaluation of many Hong Kong people behind him, but also caused a major split in the anti-communist democracy movement in Hong Kong.

At the beginning of December 2009, a friend went on an outing to the New Territories of Hong Kong together with Situ Hua. By then he had long since stopped running for the Legislative Council, but was still stake president. In fact, as the founder, he still has a great say in the Association of Education Professionals (referred to as the Education Association) and the Democratic Party. Since 1997, the biggest forces fighting for democracy and anti-establishment in Hong Kong have been these three organizations, which are referred to as "supporting religious people".

At the end of November, before the outing, I wrote an editorial in Apple: "Call on Pan-Democrats to Participate in the General Resignation Referendum with a Steel Team". The article received a lot of attention at the time. During the outing, I asked Situ Hua if he had read the article, and he said he had. After pondering for a long time, he said that the election campaign will be very tiring, and there are more things to do after the election. I can't say anything more about his refusal to participate in the post-resignation by-election. Because he is very clear that after the by-election, he will only serve as an MP for two more years, and the significance of the by-election is to "referral in disguise". Since he knew all about it, I'm afraid there is another secret. I believe he already knew he had cancer by then, but the public didn't know it yet.

Here's an explanation of what the "five district general speech, a referendum in disguise" is all about. Friends who care about Hong Kong will remember that this is an important battle to fight the Communist Party and fight for democracy.

The Legislative Council of Hong Kong is divided into two groups, one is a functional constituency composed of professional organizations, in fact, the CCP controls most of its members; the other is a group directly elected by voters in all five constituencies in Hong Kong. Pi has always had a big advantage in this category. In other words, if all voters in Hong Kong vote directly, the pro-democracy faction will almost certainly win.

Since 1997, the democrats have been striving for the realization of the "dual universal suffrage" established by the Basic Law, that is, universal suffrage for the chief executive and universal suffrage for all members of the Legislative Council. But this demand has been blocked by Beijing. The 2007 and 2008 dual universal suffrage, which the pro-China Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Betterment once advocated and the CCP promised not to interfere, was denied by the interpretation of the law by the National People's Congress. Beijing has proposed that the chief executive be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, but has set up a "nomination committee" controlled by the CCP to nominate. In other words, citizens can only vote on the list that the CCP prefers.

There are several factions of the pro-democracy faction in the Legislative Council, collectively referred to as the "pan-democratic faction" by the society. The largest party is the Democratic Party, followed by the Civic Party. The newest party is the Social Democratic Alliance (Social Democratic Alliance).

In July 2009, the Social Democratic Alliance proposed a political action, that is, one of the pro-democracy members elected by five direct constituencies in the Legislative Council resigned. In this way, the government will need to conduct by-elections in five districts. The five districts cover all voters in Hong Kong. After the pro-democracy MPs resign, they will participate in the by-elections, and the by-elections have all put forward the demands of "realizing true dual universal suffrage". The establishment can of course send people to participate in by-elections. But in one-on-one competition, the establishment has never had a chance of winning. Therefore, holding a by-election for the general resignation of the five districts is equivalent to holding a "referendum in disguise" for the dual universal suffrage. The CCP and the SAR government no longer have an excuse to say that only a minority of Hong Kong citizens support dual universal suffrage. This is a real and real pressure on the CCP.

And the CCP is most afraid of the referendum, even if it is a referendum in disguise. Therefore, as soon as this proposal was put forward, it was criticized overwhelmingly by the CCP's public opinion, and the establishment was naturally ordered to resist it.

But "resignation" and "by-election", all these actions are in line with the system and laws of the Hong Kong SAR. Therefore, this is indeed a "referendum in disguise" coup. In early August, Situ Hua responded positively to this suggestion and proposed a list of resignation by-elections. In a radio interview, he said "should do it, it's worth doing it, do it quickly". By early September, two members of the Civic Party expressed their willingness to resign. At that time, the Civic Party and the Social Democrats urged the Democratic Party to participate. That's how loud it is.

I proposed to "call on the pan-democrats to participate in the general resignation referendum with a steel team". The so-called steel team means that those who resign in the five districts must include the chairmen of the pan-democratic parties, and those who participate in the five districts by-elections are the retired and prestigious senior figures of the democrats, including Li Zhuming and Situ Hua. The buzz and the turnout this will bring will certainly have a shocking effect. The high voter turnout achieved the referendum that the CCP most wanted to see.

In September, Li Zhiying invited four democratic veterans including Li Zhuming, Situ Hua, Chen Fangansheng, and Li Pengfei to dinner. During the dinner, it was reported that everyone unanimously supported the referendum in the five districts, but Situ Hua was the only one who opposed it. In November, Situ Hua and the community members had a serious scolding battle for the five-district referendum. Later, he accused Li Zhiying of coercing him to support the referendum in the five districts at the dinner party.

Situ Hua's proposal for a "disguised referendum", why did his attitude change 180 degrees in just over a month? Surprising. Not only did he speak out against it, but he prompted Democrats to offer to wait until the Dec. 13 general meeting to decide whether to participate. This arrangement is rather bizarre. Why do decisions within the party take so long?

Situ Hua soon came out with the news of cancer. Within a year of his death, the Democratic convention had rejected participation in the "five-district referendum." Voting will be held in the by-elections after the May 2010 "General Resignation of the Five Districts". Situ Hua told the media that he would not vote. In the "five-district referendum", the turnout rate was only 17.1%, and about half a million people voted, despite the boycott of the establishment and the lack of participation of the Democratic Party. The "referendum" did not achieve the desired goal.

A week after the vote, the leadership of the Democratic Party entered the Liaison Office and held the first meeting since June 4th with officials of the Liaison Office. The officials of the Liaison Office expressed their appreciation for the Democratic Party's disapproval of the five-district referendum.

In June 2010, the Legislative Council reviewed the 2012 political reform plan proposed by the Democratic Party and the Liaison Office of the Central Committee. Situ Hua publicly expressed his support for the improvement plan. As a result, the Democratic Party and the establishment passed the plan with a two-thirds majority in the Legislative Council. Democrats who oppose the political reform plan accused Szeto and the Democratic Party as criminals of democracy.

In his memoirs published after his death, when talking about the "five-district referendum," he explained that the reason he initially supported but ultimately opposed was that, after a period of observation, he felt that the purpose of the Social Democratic Alliance was to snatch the leadership of the Democratic Party. Huang Yumin of the Social Democratic Alliance pointed out that when he invited the chairman of the Democratic Party, He Junyan, to lead the "five-district referendum", how could he be fighting for leadership? At that time, the Social Democratic Company had only been established for two or three years, and they were not qualified to lead the entire democratic movement!

I believe it was the health factor that changed Stuart's decision. Rumor has it that China has helped him slightly with his treatment. But not sure. In the last years of his life, his younger brother, Situ Qiang, who served in the Liaison Office all his life, had a lot of contact with him. The change in his later years is a mystery. I can only think that perhaps people are sometimes vulnerable to weakness and compromise when their lives are seriously threatened.

This change in thinking has affected the anti-communist movement and democratic ideology in Hong Kong. Since then, the Democratic Party's support has plummeted, and Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement has been divided. The "patriotic democrats" declined, and the local democrats came into being.

Situ Hua, as the founder and leader of the anti-communist organization for decades, has made outstanding achievements. He was strong and principled. But as a person, he also has weaknesses. The weak compromise after suffering from cancer can be said to be unsafe at the end of the season, which has left a profound setback to the Hong Kong democracy movement. It's just that as a friend, I may not be able to blame him for everything.

(Original post published on August 5, 2022)