args

Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

I will make this brief as I am running up against the deadline. My opponent's argument in a nutshell is that, if democracy was introduced to Hong Kong, the majority of people would benefit from the creation of a full welfare state and would vote for politicians promising such a measure. Firstly, I have shown that it is unlikely that the prosperous, industrious people of Hong Kong would, en masse, give up their well-paid jobs to live a life relying on state benefits. Secondly, I have demonstrated that politicians opposing a welfare state would highlight the costs of such a scheme, not only to individual taxpayers, but to the wider economy, and we mustn't assume that the electorate would be incapable of understanding these arguments. My final argument is that, in a democracy, the will of the majority should prevail over the vested interests of a few. That means that even if a pro-welfare state government were elected, by poorer people who would benefit directly and also by richer people who wanted to live in a fairer society, the people would benefit from enhanced public services but there might be a price to pay in terms of higher taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations, which may have a wider long-term impact on competitiveness. If the electorate considered any such negative impact too high a price to pay, they could vote for an alternative government at the following election which might dismantle or scale back the welfare state according to the voters' wishes. The fact that a Chief Executive (from a shortlist pre-approved by China) may be elected is not enough, the people of Hong Kong are entitled to determine their own future by voting in a government of their own choice in free and fair elections. I would like to thank my opponent for a fascinating debate and also the voters for their interest.