By Emily Lau

Emily Lau, one of Hong Kong’s most outspoken and popular politicians, leads The Frontier party.

On July 1, 2003, more than three-quarters of a million people took to the streets of Hong Kong to oppose legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law. The huge protest rocked Hong Kong to its foundation and made the Liberal Party withdraw its support for the controversial bill on national security.

This led to a humiliating defeat for then-Chief-Executive C.H. Tung as he was forced to withdraw the bill from the Legislative Council. The huge demonstration led to the resignations of two unpopular principal officials -- Secretary for Security Regina Ip and Financial Secretary Antony Leung.

In other civilized places, such a show of people power would topple the government. In the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the protestors’ demands were more modest. Apart from shelving the controversial bill, the people wanted a quicker pace of democratic reform. They wanted the right to elect the chief executive by one person, one vote in 2007 and to democratically elect all members of the Legislative Council in 2008.

At present, the chief executive is chosen by a committee of 800 people. Although there are more than 3.2 million registered voters in Hong Kong, only 200,000 have the right to elect members to this committee. As for the Legislative Council, 30 members are directly elected by geographical constituencies, and the other 30 are returned by functional constituencies in which the same 200,000 elites have the right to vote.

Although many people in Hong Kong and overseas were impressed with the peaceful and dignified demonstration, the leadership in Beijing was not amused. Instead of responding positively to the Hong Kong people’s aspirations, Beijing decided in April 2004 that direct elections could not be held in 2007 and 2008.

In so doing, the Central Government has ignored Annex I and Annex II of the Basic Law, which lay down a mechanism to deal with changes to the elections of the chief executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. Beijing was so concerned about the July 1st demonstration that it couldn’t wait for the mechanism to be activated. Such high-handedness casts a giant shadow on Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy” under the concept of “one country, two systems”.

Although Beijing had said “no”, hundreds of thousands of people turned out on July 1, 2004, to march for direct elections in 2007 and 2008. The people’s demand for democracy was rebuffed, but Mr Tung was forced to step down in March 2005 in favor of the Chief Secretary for Administration, Donald Tsang, who enjoyed high popularity ratings and will do what he is told.

According to Article 45 of the Basic Law, the chief executive shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government. The ultimate aim is the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee.

Knowing that Beijing is wary about direct elections, there is concern that Mr Tsang has not done enough to push Hong Kong’s case for democratic government. Once his package of limited political reform was rejected by the pro-democracy Legislative Councillors last year, he moved the discussion of constitutional development to the closed meetings of the Strategic Development Commission. Members of the commission were appointed by him. Most are conservative business and professional people. A handful of pro-democracy politicians were appointed as window dressing.

Recently, the commission’s Committee on Governance and Political Development organized a workshop to discuss the election of the chief executive by universal suffrage. After the meeting, Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam and the leader of the Central Policy Unit, Professor Lau Siu-kai, told reporters about a certain consensus.

Professor Lau said that almost all members of the committee agreed that Hong Kong people should be allowed to vote for the chief executive provided the candidates are vetted by a nominating committee. The proposed committee size ranged from 800 to 1,600 people. He said the main concern was how to ensure that the candidates would be acceptable to the Central Government.

Mr Lam said the differences of opinion among the various factions are getting smaller, as many agreed that the election method should develop gradually, starting with a higher threshold for nomination and prospects to lower the threshold later.

To ensure the candidates are acceptable to Beijing, certain proposals were advanced at the workshop -- asking Beijing to select the acceptable candidates, having the nominating committee conduct a pre-selection or empowering the nominating committee to veto unsuitable candidates. Professor Lau said the committee will continue discussing and submit a report early next year.

The workshop discussions attracted little media attention. Regrettably, such an important topic was deemed to have little news value, so most people won’t know that such outrageous suggestions are seriously considered.

According to the Basic Law, the ultimate aim is for Hong Kong people to elect the chief executive by universal suffrage. This should imply a free and fair election. But if hurdles are erected to screen out unacceptable candidates, then it is not a real election.

Obviously, most people in the workshop focused on finding a model acceptable to Beijing. For 10 years, election of the chief executive has been nothing but a farce, and we’ll see a repeat performance in March next year.

The Basic Law guarantees Beijing an important say in Hong Kong’s constitutional development. But under “one country, two systems”, the wishes and aspirations of Hong Kong people should be respected. Otherwise, there’s no way Hong Kong can enjoy “a high degree of autonomy”.

Sadly, the Strategic Development Commission’s discussions showed that many members only know how to bend over backwards to address Beijing’s concerns with scant regard to defending Hong Kong’s autonomy.

The workshop proposals were preposterous and laughable. They failed to strike a balance between addressing Beijing’s concerns and safeguarding Hong Kong people’s political rights. They are an affront to the people’s dignity and deserve utter rejection.

ARCHIVES

Emily Lau: wisely wary
of democratic deficiencies.

Too often, C.H. Tung wagged
his finger at Hong Kong people.


Stephen Lam: strangling hopes
for meaningful democracy?