By Emily Lau

One of Hong Kong’s most outspoken and popular politicians, Emily Lau represents the Democratic Party.

HONG KONG -- In 1997, the British government handed Hong Kong over to Beijing after 150 years of colonial rule. Then Hong Kong was a prosperous, stable and vibrant place, home to nearly seven million people with civil liberties and the rule of law. But it wasn’t, and still isn’t, a democracy.

Chris Patten, the last colonial governor, arrived in 1992 to engineer an honorable exit. He initiated some political reforms, but in doing so incurred the Chinese government’s wrath. Beijing felt suspicious, wary that Britain would try to leave an administration beyond Beijing’s control.

Patten’s efforts to introduce a modicum of democracy proved too little too late. Sino-British relations soured. Hopes for a smooth transition and “political through train” crashed. When Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty, its Legislative Council (LegCo) was disbanded and replaced by a provisional one for a year. Pro-democracy legislators like me were thrown out of office. But in 1998, fresh elections returned us.

Britain’s failure to introduce democracy was deplorable. China’s reluctance to allow Hong Kong to move toward universal suffrage is equally disturbing. The pro-democracy movement continues its struggle, but with no light at the end of the tunnel.

Two pro-Beijing political parties, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) and the Liberal Party, supported allowing the people to elect the chief executive and all of Legco by one-person one-vote in 2007 and 2008. But they switched course when Beijing and business tycoons clearly couldn’t stomach democracy.

In 2003, former chief executive C.H. Tung’s team tried to bulldoze through a bill on national security based on Article 23 of the Basic Law (Hong Kong’s mini-constitution drafted by Beijing). The proposed offences, involving sedition, subversion, secession, treason and theft of state secrets, stirred controversy.

Hong Kong lacks democracy, but its people cherish freedoms. Many feared the Article 23 law would criminalize free speech. On July 1, 2003, about 500,000 people marched to protest against the bill and other government blunders. Thus pressured, the Liberal Party withdrew support for the bill and handed Tung a humiliating defeat.

Unnerved by the mass mobilization, Beijing tightened control on Hong Kong. In 2005, the unpopular Tung stepped down. Top civil servant Donald Tsang took charge.

Tsang’s appointment jolted the political and business communities where he lacks allies. So he relies on Beijing. Political insiders say that when Tsang needs the pro-Beijing political parties’ support he must appeal to the Central Government Liaison Office (CGLO), which gains new chances to interfere in Hong Kong affairs, undermining one-country, two-systems.

Even before 1997, pro-democracy politicians like me were banned from entering the Chinese mainland. Eleven years later, the ban remains as a warning for Hong Kong people to behave politically or suffer consequences.

On December 20, 2008, the ninth anniversary of Macau’s reversion to Chinese sovereignty, I joined seven other pro-democracy legislators on a trip to the former Portuguese enclave to join a march for democracy and human rights and to protest against attempts to rush through legislation on Article 23 of the Macau Basic Law, which has provisions like those affecting Hong Kong.

Upon arrival at the ferry terminal in Macau, we were denied entry. The Macau authorities didn’t ask us questions. Giving no details, they claimed we contravened Macau’s internal security law. After holding us for an hour, they sent us back to Hong Kong.

Soon, Macau will enact Article 23 legislation. Then it’s Hong Kong’s turn. By denying us entry, the Macau authorities showed intolerance to dissenting views, which is bad for Macau and unsettles Hong Kong. We must stay on guard, ready to defend our rights.

Starting in 1996, I convened The Frontier, a political group concerned that under Chinese rule the struggle for democracy would be difficult with human rights and the rule of law undermined. The Frontier toiled tirelessly with non-government organizations to safeguard civil liberties.

In late 2008, the Democratic Party invited The Frontier to merge, which we did, and I was elected a Democratic Party vice-chairwoman. We want to consolidate pro-democracy forces. Legco has 60 members -- 23 in the pro-democracy camp, but from eight groups and parties. Many Hong Kong people urge us to unite for greater influence. If our union succeeds, other activists may join the Democratic Party too.

We’ve endured 11 years of setbacks to political progress. For Legco elections, the Tung administration re-instated corporate voting in functional constituencies, the rotten boroughs created by the British colonial government in 1985. Previously, London appointed all Legco members.

Functional constituencies gave voting privileges to people who contributed to economic well-being. They included chambers of commerce, banks, insurance companies, hotels, airlines, lawyers, doctors and accountants. The voters, both corporations and individuals, hold an extra vote and choose their own Legco members.

Thirty Legco members are directly elected by ordinary voters in five geographical areas. Functional constituencies choose 30 more. Hong Kong has 3.3 million registered voters, but only 220,000 qualify in functional constituencies, exposing the unfairness.

Patten ended corporate votes, but Tung restored them and also abolished two municipal councils with their 100 elected members, many from the pro-democracy camp. Activists saw the prospects for political advancement withering.

Tung even revived appointed district councilors. Eighteen district councils advise on local issues. Each has several dozen elected members. Under colonial rule, the councils also had members appointed by the governor, but Patten abolished these. When restoring them, Tung admitted wanting to “balance” the elected members’ views.

Reversal of Patten’s limited democratic reforms showed that the powers-that-be didn’t want democracy. Tung set a goal to “depoliticize” Hong Kong. Together with Beijing, he wanted a purely economic city. But the 2003 events on Article 23 heightened political awareness and proved that many Hong Kong people will stand up to defend their freedoms.

Besides ending functional constituencies, we want to elect the chief executive by universal and equal suffrage. Now he’s chosen by an 800-member committee.

In 2007, the central government dashed Hong Kong’s hopes by declaring that the public can’t elect the chief executive and all of Legco by one-person, one-vote starting in 2012. Instead, Beijing said the chief executive may be elected by one-person, one-vote in 2017, if earlier electoral arrangements are satisfactory. Then all Legco could be directly elected in 2020. But Beijing calls the functional constituencies “beneficial” so they’ll likely remain.

To some people, the struggle for democracy looks finished since Beijing has named two important dates – 2017 and 2020. But it’s not so simple. I don’t think the central government will allow Hong Kong to hold free and fair elections to choose its own government.

Even if the people can choose a chief executive by one-person, one-vote in 2017, the candidates may be confined to those acceptable to Beijing. Anyone from the pro-democracy camp would be barred from standing.

By Article 45 of the Basic Law, candidates for direct election as chief executive must be nominated by a special committee, which may become a mechanism to screen out “undesirables”. Current thinking by the establishment calls for the committee to resemble that for choosing the chief executive – a few hundred people from the business, professional, social and political elites.

Similarly, while the people may be allowed to elect all Legco members by one-person, one-vote in 2020, many candidates may be nominated by functional constituencies, reincarnating these abominations. Then the elections wouldn’t be free or fair.

Pro-democracy parties face pressure to support the 2012 electoral methods, whatever they are. Otherwise, bets are off for 2017 and 2020. But those of us who’ve fought many years for democracy won’t surrender. As former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson said, “A week is a long time in politics.” Four years could be an eternity.

Sure, I appreciate that politics is the art of the possible and takes compromise. Looking ahead, our most important goal is to realize universal and equal suffrage. Beijing’s statements about direct elections in 2017 and beyond aren’t promises. There’s no guarantee the elections would be free and fair.

If Hong Kong can’t have direct elections in 2012, we need an unambiguous guarantee the people can elect their government democratically. If that’s settled, then 2012 can be seen as a transition to full democracy. Even then, reforms must show “gradual and orderly progress” as required by the Basic Law. Such changes include an end to corporate voting and enlargement of the franchise in functional constituencies. Appointed seats on district councils must go.

There are suggestions to increase the number of Legco seats to 70, 80 or more. This looks difficult for 2012 because Beijing insists the 50-50 ratio of directly elected and functional-constituency positions must remain. If increasing Legco’s size means more functional constituencies, then it has to be over my dead body.

This year, the Tsang administration again will embark on a process of consulting the public. Secretary for constitutional and mainland affairs Stephen Lam says the discussions will be confined to the 2012 elections. That’s unacceptable. After debating democratic reforms for decades, Hong Kong must settle the issue once and for all. Merely working out arrangements for 2012 isn’t the right way forward.

Hong Kong people must cope with the global financial meltdown while continuing the long, hard struggle for democracy. If we can turn Hong Kong into a free and democratic city underpinned by the rule of law, it’ll benefit us and help to develop a modern, free and democratic China.

ARCHIVES