args

Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

I would like to respond to my opponent's previous comments as follows: He wrote "Although there might seem to be no need for a welfare state, that will not stop people from wanting one, as everyone welcomes policies that benefit them. Taxes will actually increase, as the tax rebate percentage will become lower, the money used for welfare." This would be a matter for political debate in a democracy. For example, a socialist candidate might argue that a developed, civilized society should make health care provisions for all citizens free at the point of use according to need, not the ability to pay, and he might also add that although taxes would rise in order to pay for a nationalised health service, citizens would no longer need to purchase private health insurance. On the other hand, a capitalist candidate might argue that consumers should decide how best to spend their own money, not the government, and that those people who cannot afford private health insurance should rely on their families or charities for support in a medical crisis. I would suspect that the Hong Kong electorate would overwhelmingly vote for capitalist candidates ahead of socialist candidates but, of course, there is a possibility that I could be wrong. Perhaps the people of Hong Kong are unlike their cousins in Singapore and value social justice more than personal wealth and would vote in a socialist regime. It would be very surprising if that happened but that would be democracy in action: the will of the majority of people should prevail over the vested interests of the financially privileged few. Moving on, my opponent wrote: "Hong Kong has very low tax, but that does not mean prices of products will not increase because of a slightly higher tax rate. It's all simple math. The tax increases by ten dollars; the price increases by ten or even more." This is, indeed, true. If extra taxes are levied upon corporations, the cost will be passed on to the customer. This would also be bad news for Hong Kong companies who export their goods and services as it puts them at a competitive disadvantage, although we should remember that Hong Kong companies are already at a huge disadvantage compared to their rivals in mainland China where labour costs are a fraction of those in Hong Kong. However, this is something politicians and political commentators need to discuss with voters so that they can decide which way to vote. Continuing, my opponent wrote: "The reason why Hong Kong has a high average salary is because of a few billionaires..." This is true of all top cities worldwide: New York, London, Paris, Moscow and Los Angeles all have more than their fair share of tycoons, oligarchs and plutocrats; Hong Kong is far from unique in that respect. The fact remains that Hong Kong is one of the richest states in the world whose inhabitants are some of those most prosperous on the planet. This negates the call from the general public for welfare services for the many to be funded by a relatively wealthy few. Moving on again my opponent wrote: "You will find that, to be under the poverty line in Hong Kong is easier than in the US, and if you click into the respective "countries" under the Developed Countries tab, you will find that things are cheaper in the US than in Hong Kong." This statement seems to be self-contradictory but, in any case, it does seem that food is cheaper in the US than Hong Kong, although I have to say that food here in London, like property prices, the cost of fuel and public transport and other major outgoings is higher than either Hong Kong or the US: it is all relative to average income. Furthermore, the exchange rates distort the real cost of living. That said, living in poverty is not easy anywhere, but the opportunities to succeed in Hong Kong are there for those who want to take them, which is not true in many parts of the US or the UK. That's why there is more of a demand for welfare services in Europe and America than there is in Hong Kong or Singapore. Finally, regarding popularise in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, I would suggest that it would be healthy for the members voted in by the Council to be popular with the citizens, enacting popular policies that the people approve of. Surely this is better than having some forelock-tugging technocrat parachuted into power by his political masters in Beijing, accountable not to the citizens but, instead, to his bosses on the unelected Chinese State Council? In the final analysis, the people must be allowed to decide their own fates and must be able to hold their leaders to account through the ballot box. Hong Kong, of course, has no history of democratic rule: prior to its current status as an autonomous area of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong was a British territorial possession, governed from London. It is, perhaps, for this reason, together with the buoyant economy, that there is no popular clamour for freedom from the people, but that does not mean that they should not be entitled to be represented by leaders of their own choosing. Thank you.