The Hong Kong SAR Government must be concerned about the outside world’s perception of its political system and development. Monica Chen, the Director of the Hong Kong Economic & Trade Office in New York, just sent out this e-mail letter to contacts in the US:
Dear Friends,
On November 18, the Hong Kong SAR Government started a three-month public consultation on the method of selecting the Chief Executive and for forming the Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2012.
This is an important exercise as we listen to the aspirations of Hong Kong people and seek common grounds to advance democratic development in Hong Kong.
As pointed out by Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang, the administration is “determined in advancing Hong Kong’s democratic development in 2012, paving the way for universal suffrage elections for the Chief Executive in 2017 and the entire Legislature in 2020. We are doing so with the greatest sincerity. Our job is to broaden the scope of political participation and increase substantially the democratic elements in the 2012 elections in accordance with the Basic law and the decision of the Standing Committee of the National Peoples’ Congress in December 2007.”
The consultation document sets out a number of key issues for consideration:
To enlarge the scope of political participation through an expansion of the Election Committee for electing the Chief Executive and by increasing the number of seats in the LegCo;
To increase the democratic elements within our political system by electing all District Council (DC) seats in the election Committee and LegCo from among elected DC members; and
To maintain the current nomination threshold for the Chief Executive Election and LegCo and not expand the traditional Functional Constituencies in the LegCo.
The British Consulate-General (BCG) issued a statement of the United Kingdom’s reaction to the public consultation, following the release of the document. (http://ukinhongkong.fco.gov.uk/en/) It says, “The timetable for universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020 is now in place. The 2012 elections could then be significantly more democratic than those held in 2007 and 2008, preparing the way for full universal suffrage as envisaged in 2017 and 2020.”
Noting that Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity are underpinned by its rights and freedoms, the BCG believed “that these can best be guaranteed by Hong Kong moving to a system of universal suffrage in 2017/2020, as envisaged by the NPCSC decision of 2007.”
It is the common aspiration of the HKSAR Government and the community to further democratize Hong Kong’s electoral system. We sincerely hope that various sectors of the community will give us their views actively. With the collective wisdom and determination of the people of Hong Kong, we can bring real democratic progress to the electoral methods for 2012.
Monica Chen
Director
Hong Kong Economic & Trade Office, New York
Website: www.hketony.gov.hk
Filed under: Uncategorized
Now we get a glimpse of how the public relations arm of Hong Kong SAR government works to update its friends with the latest progress of the city and to improve the government’s image in front of its most important stakeholders.
Though we hail these moves from the SAR government, the message carried by the posted e-mail remians opaque, or even awkward. The email does not call for specific actions, does not pose discussable questions, does not explain the three major goals of HK’s democracy, and it fails at convincing people the current HKSAR government will and can deliver a “significantly more democratic” society in years to come. The e-mail does not delve into the idealogical talk, which is a good sign for me; yet neither does it address some of the biggest obstacles and problems down the road of democratization, nor does it portrait a clear and promising picture of what is waiting for us at the end of the political reform.
In short, the message in general appears insincere and uninteresting — and so are the democracy promises murmured by either the current Tsang administration or the so-called pro-democracy camp.
To be honest, I do not agree what the Government propose for the elections in 2012. With no doubt, it is approached to democratic, however, I am bewildered that the enlargemnet of functional constituency as it is pointless to have such a constituency. However, if the Government could provide a full political development map, I would agree with her proposal as the proposal serves as a milestome for universal suffrage.
I really wonder if the British Consulate General’s view represents the dominate understanding of foreign parties who are insterested in HK’s political development with regards to the HK government’s recent consultation.
I’m afraid I don’t see a timetable for universal suffrage for 2017 and 2020 being set out in the consultation documents. Nor do I find the proposed 2012 elections could be significantly more democratic than those held in 2007 and 2008 and prepare the way for full universal suffrage as envisaged in 2017 and 2020.
Rather, the consultation is really more or less an artificial regeneration of the 2005 proposal that was voted down by the Legislature.
Yes, the proposal calls for an increase in seats in the Legco. But if what’s increased are seats for the District Councilors which are more likely to be from the pro-government camp with vested interest, the increased seats would only pose more challanges for real democracy in 2017 and 2020. For Hk to advance on its democratic development, I think the FCs must be abolished.
By and large, I think the government’s conultation document would only bring about immobilism if not a way backwards. Democracy is a common aspiration for Hong Kong people, but I think the government should exercise our autonomy given in the BL to the fullest extent and must be more proactive and bold to assert this determination but not just second-guessing what the central government wants or waiting for democracy to fall from the sky one day.
I agree with the BCG’s comment that the 2012 election can be, and should be more democratic for moving onto a universal suffrage in 2017/2020. It is disappointing that the government seems not to share the view.
The government will not back down on 2012 universal suffrage but it should show its sincerity in securing and ensuring the fulfillment of 2017/2020 universal suffrage. However, it seems that the news media recently are absorbed in whether will there be a mass resignation from the pro-democratic parties or not. More radical pro-democratic party like the League of Social Democrats would like to show the government the wants of Hong Kong citizens through a re-election/ referendum. Yet, wishing for democracy, does that mean the citizens agree with what they want, a 2012 universal suffrage, or other requests?
In a recent opinion poll by the liberal party as well as a survey by HKCU, most Hong Kong people do not support to force 2012 universal suffrage; most Hong Kong people do not understand the reasoning behind this mass resignation. Above all, 35 % of the interviewees do not know there is a 2017/2020 universal suffrage plan. We can question is can the mass resignation reach its goal or is going to force its way to make HK say what they say?
I think universal suffrage is important to Hong Kong, not only for the sake of democracy, but also the healthy development of Hong Kong’s future. Instead of arguing and accusing each other within the pro-democratic party on the matter of mass resignation. Rather, they should focus on the short-comings of the political reform consultation paper, to inform the public that we need a clearer road map towards universal suffrage. A disunited pro-democratic party is what the pro-Beijing sector will be happy to see. They should unite on something constructive like how to ensure 2017/2020 is a real democratic universal suffrage in which the government is still avoiding to talk about.
I would say it is the maximum of what the government can strive for by 2012. The political reform in Hong Kong should be in a gradual approach so that the Central government can have higher confidence in allowing more flexibility for Hong Kong political system. The mass resignation from the pro-democratic parties was not an appropriate means to call for universal suffrage. It is also not what Hong Kong citizens want.
It is not practical to set the deadline for universal suffrage to be 2012. To practice universal suffrage, it requires more than the support of the government, the political parties but also the political environment. Hong Kong citizens have long been claimed as political apathetic. The voting rate for previous LEGCO elections was seldom near 50%. I think 3 years is not enough to change citizens’ attitudes towards election, let alone practicing universal suffrage for both the Chief Executive and LEGCO elections.
I would like to repeat the British Consulate-General (BGC)’s statement in connection with HKSAR’s political reform proposals quoted by Monica Chen as follows:
“The timetable for universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020 is now in place. The 2012 elections could then be significantly more democratic than those held in 2007 and 2008, preparing the way for full universal suffrage as envisaged in 2017 and 2020.”
The statement reflects exactly what HKSAR is facing and exactly what Hong Kong people should do, i.e. that a big step forward should be taken for the 2012 elections in order to pave the way for full democracy
God will only help those who help themselves and democracy is something which mankind has to fight for. In this connection, HK people should, fight for, among other things:
a) abolishing the traditional Functional Constituencies system as soon as possible; and
(b) allowing all elected district councilors to join the Election Committee in 2012, as they represent certain sections of the community;
The louder the voice, the clearer the message will reach Beijing.
I think the proposed reform on the legislative and Chief Executive Election has strive a balance between the concern from the Central Government and the quest of the universal suffrage from Hong Kong citizen. On one hand we are determined to have a true democracy and select the representives who strive for our betterment. On the other hand, however, we should not undermine the worry from the Central Government about the influence universal suffrage may bring to the stable development of Hong Kong (I don’t agree that a true democracy and universal suffrage will come true on the expense of the development, though).
One may perceive the Reform proposed by the HKSAR Government makes no difference compared with that proposed in 2005 and urged an immediate radical changes in the election of Legislative Council, including abondoning the Functional Constituencies System. I don’t think an immediate revamp as what pro-democrats demanded will be wholesome as time is needed for consultation and haste radical changes may not bring health development of the political system as we expected. However, it is the government’s responsibility to provide Hong Kong Citizens with the timetable and roadmap to 2017 and 2020
Concerning the Mass Resignation suggested by the League of Social Democrats, I won’t say it is a waste of taxpayers’ money but the representiveness of such election hinges on how many citizens are actually voting. The rationale is good for shouting our voice to achieve universal suffrage, but it seems to me that the recent debate within the pro-democrats such election may not go as we expected.
The election reform proposed by the SAR government I believe is the most we can achieve at the time being as the concerns of Beijing to maintain Hong Kong as a capitalist society with the balance between democracy and economic development.
The virtually identical proposal between the present proposal and the one in 2005 that was rejected by the group of pan-democrats reflects Beijing firm position in a cautious approach in approaching universal suffrage in both the Legislative Council and Chief Executive Elections.
The proposed indirect referendum by some Pan-Democrats through the resignation of one pan democrat legislative councilor in each of the five geographical constituencies is likely to be ineffective in bargaining for more concessions in the reform package. Such action would likely only divert the focus of the public within the consultation period to come up with constructive suggestions that are capable to be implemented in this period such as the widening of the electoral base of functional constituency. Let’s look forward to the universal suffrage in both 2017 and 2020 and waste no more time in issues that would hinder the democratic development of Hong Kong.
Compared with 2005 when political reform was first introduced, it seems that this time the government has comparatively conveyed more intensively to the public the message that the society should be pragmatically, calmly and rationally discuss and seek consensus in order to have at least some progress on constitutional development. Knowing that the pan-democratic forces are more than likely to vote down this so-called artificial regeneration of the 2005 proposal, it is seemingly politically unwise for the Chief Executive to ask for support for this “repeated” proposal again.
Looking into the issue on the surface, it is not hard to discover the inconsistency of the government. In front of the public, the Chief Executive always possessed a clear mind that he can analytically point out that political development in 2012 is vital in a sense that it is the last chance before advancing to the universal suffrage of Chief Executive in 2017. However, whenever it comes to time when he has to take action, the result is always expectedly unsatisfactory. There is no doubt that the most controversial issue regarding democratic development in Hong Kong is related to the functional constituency. People in Hong Kong also concern mostly whether FC would be abolished or be voted by “ordinary voters”. But the consultation document simply makes it seemingly irrelevant to the discussion.
Nevertheless, from a strategic point of view, it can be imagined that when the 2012 proposal was voted down in LegCo in the foreseeable future which is more than likely, the government will then justify itself of not going to hold another consultation again in short term. By then, the NPCSC will have another chance to exercise its supreme power of interpretation to override its previous decisions. While simultaneously, Donald Tsang will have his terms end by 2012 and constitutionally not possible continue to contest for the next election. Therefore, in the eyes of the Standing Committee and the Tsang’s government, such inconsistency is not without reason and not politically unwise.
I really disappointed with our government in the sense that it has delayed to propose the democratic election development timeline foe several time.
Most people may feel like each Chief Excutive do not want to bear the responsibility and could not step up for the peoepl in HK and voice out our opinion to the China Government. Each of them, Mr. Tung and Mr. Tsang are denying the critical responsibilities to the next Chief Executive.
there had been a decade for the government to let the public to discuss, and i do reckon the government had collect thousands of advices and opinion. however, it seems that our governemnt are not goin to limit the consultation time for the universal suffrage. Hong Kong citizens’ education level are renowned high in the world, but it is strange that some critics had been made to point out that the hong kong people are still not ready for the real democratic. It is really an insult to our citizens especially the tax payers.
The government has kept using terms like “democracry”, “increasing people’s political participation” to please the society when promoting their proposal; thinking the soceity will accept such proposal on electoral reform.
It is really disappointing when the proposal is just maintaining their status and control rather than advancing Hong Kong’s democractic development.
Even they expand the Election Committee (EC) for electing the CE, the CE is still selected by a group of people. Incresing the number of seats in the LegCo but refusing to remove the Funtional Constituency is meanlingless as the seats of FC are chosen by a small group of “professionals”, and giving them an extra vote.
The meaning of real democracy is simple, one man one vote. Yet, the government has shown no determination or sincerity to listen the public voice and enlarge political participation.
Furthermore, I question whether we are going to elect the CE through universal suffrage in 2017, as the terms of “universal suffrage” are decided by the Mainland Government. Maybe, they have their own definitions of “universal suffrage”, which we may not vote for our CE 100% democratically. It is really frustrating to fight for democracy in Hong Kong, because the Mainland Government has always got the final say on everything.
I agree with Silva that the present proposal is the maximum the SAR government can strive for. Many criticize the proposal being same as the 2005 proposal and be disappointed of the government’s sincerity, I see otherwise. First, according to the principle of gradual and orderly progress of universal suffrage set out in the Basic law. Second, following the proclamation of the central government that universal suffrage shall not take place in Hong Kong until 2017 and 2022 for LEGCO and chief executive respectively, one shall not hold any hope of sudden increase in democratic element of 2012 election. Therefore, one being disappointed of the reform proposal may have misplaced expectation which would not come to reality.
Despite the fact that the present proposal doesn’t bring us democracy, but I believe it is a stepping stone towards real democracy. I do not oppose the striving for universal suffrage in 2012 by the pan-democrats as their political belief, but insisting on the political belief without accepting any other options may put a halt on the democratization, which is clearly not worth it in my view. Although some may doubt whether the central government would allow a ‘real’ democracy in Hong Kong, we shall not reject the possibility and surrender in first place.
In my opinion, we shall be pragmatic and realistic instead of clinging to political slogan or rhetoric, having the general public discuss how to bring the best possible democratic system in Hong Kong. Universal suffrage is never a simple slogan which can be implemented but would involve much deliberation in many issues. For example, what shall be the relationship and balance of power between the chief executive and LEGCO when both are elected democratically? Shall the parliamentary system in UK or the presidential system in the United States be followed? The list goes on and need our constructive discussion which is lacking in our society. Shall universal suffrage come to reality as promised by the central government, we have to do what we can do so as to get ready for the democracy.
The road to democracy is never easy, and we have to make clear what means can best achieve our ends which is the democracy. Shall rejection of the present proposal which may halt democratization and shake the confidence of Beijing on Hong Kong be the best path to democracy? I personally don’t think so.
In regard to the influence of democratization and possible resignation of the pan-democrats as referendum on other countries’ perception of Hong Kong, I do not think those political issues would arouse much concern in international community. Hong Kong has long been deprived of democracy since colonial era, still its prestige and status are built up by renowned contributions and edges. I think as long as the political stability can be maintained, little attention will be attracted regarding political issues.
Most of us would perceive the consultation on electoral reform is only a show; it is indeed merely a tactic of the government to defer universal suffrage from happening. I cannot totally agree with this view as I believe what the local and Chinese governments are concerned about do matters, the environment of Hong Kong is not ready for universal suffrage yet. We should take it step by step and reach universal suffrage at the end, but I think it’s almost impossible to see it in two years’ time. Perhaps we should first focus on what can and cannot be done in 2012.
I think the Functional Constituencies system has its value in an immature electoral system, it ensures the diversity of occupation or social status in the Election Committee. Thus, the candidate selected would probably be able to listen and fulfill the needs of different sector. One may say that having universal suffrage could just include everyone, much more diverse and “fair”. However, the current functional constituencies’ members are likely to be professionals and are experienced. Compared to the public as a whole, they are less emotional and with more information about the politics and economic development, they can consider the interest of Hong Kong in a better sense. Perhaps what can be improved in 2012 is the scale of this group, having more members may bring to more synergy.
I think both governments know that universal suffrage would be inevitable in the future; they would have their plan on when to implement it. This is no point to demand for that in 2012, the software for it cannot be well prepared and it is not feasible at all. Seems that we do not have any control over the timeline which seems to imply this consultation is really useless. However, we should still actively voice out our opinion which might be considered by the officials. After all, it is better to have a channel that all citizens to express opinion than no sign of moving forward at all.
Moreover, we should not only ask for universal suffrage by words, people who truly wish for that should also get themselves to be more political conscious, as well as to arouse others’ interest in it. In this way, we can prove by action to the Chinese government that we are ready for universal suffrage.
To me, the proposed political reform package could not be regarded as “standstill” because I consider it “moving a step backward”. I agree with the pan-democrats that the government should inform the public the way functional constitutency would be if universal suffrage has to be conducted, fortunately in 2017 and 2020. Without informing the public what is going on with the FC, instead, the government proposed adding 5 more seats returining from the District Council to be the new FCs. If the FC is going to be expanded, then the government, not the next term, should be explicit in teling the public what will happen to FCs when there will be universal suffrage. Different from the definition by the ICCPR, as suggested by some pro-Beijing people, I regard it is somehow urgent or important for the Central Government to give a clear definition of what universal suffrage would be if it will really be implemented in 2017 and 2010. People in Hong Kong are not only concerned about the economy. They should have known that the political system will also affect the economy too. it is the attitude of being ambiguity of the HKSAR government that somewhat pushed the pan-democrats to introduce the resignation of the Legislators in order to let people cast a vote of whether 2010 double universal suffrage is that urgent and crucial.
Personally, I would like to have universial suffrage in place as soon as possible. At the end of the day, my wish alone is not enough and everthing is vested in the hand of the Central Government.
However, I would like to pinpoint that the notion of “universial rights” and “equality” are by no means concepts unknown to the Communist Regime. Back to the 1893 at a meeting held in Zurich, the Communist International (the Second International) proclaimed to the effect that for all those proletariats in countries where univeral suffrage is not yet achieved, the condition for achieveing universal suffrage is ripe and the proletariats shoudl fight for their unviersal rights.
Where Beijing government, still claiming itself communist, does it mean that Hong Kong is worse than those countries back in 1893?
Whatever the government has to say, there is finally one sad truth: it does not depend on HKGov or the people here, it depends on Beijing.
The logic is simple. Beijing will not do something that fundamentally destroys HK, because it definitely does no good to Beijing itself. And it will definitely do something that is good for HK and itself at the same time. This is the best HK could hope for. But if something is not sure in terms of the benefits brought for HK and Beijing, it becomes tricky. And Beijing has to decide and weight the ups and downs of such options, universal suffrage is one of them.
If one really want universal suffrage in HK, he has to prove that to Beijing, and prove that this democracy is good for Beijing AT THE SAME TIME. But I did not see there is an advocate of democracy eagerly doing this.
So what HK politics should really talk about, is that how the institutions could create a great platform to identifying and solving the problems in society AFTER universal suffrage is adopted. It should be constructive, not blaming each other every day.
And when dealing with Beijing, simply do not take that the ruling party in Beijing is called communist. Treat them like any political force in the world, caring about the performance of the places they govern. Therefore HK has to raise a plan that will best guarantee HK’s performance and its relationship and interaction with Beijing will become better. They do not want to hear concept, they want to see measures. Treat this like a business deal (I know politicians hate this), but make it like “sell the democracy to Beijing”, and make the two parties happy. This is something HK people are very good at, but unfortunately I have not seen anyone actually leveraging this advantage. Everybody is just doing something they have no experience at – playing politics.
I can hardly see the road for democracy in Hong Kong is paving regarding to this consultation documents. All I can see a step back when comparing this electoral reforms to the ones in 2005.
Yes, the government does listen to public opinion about the dissent concerning appointed District Councilors. However, the number of electorates in the Election Committee also shrinks to 1200, which is only 50% of the increment of the 2005 proposal. In this point of view, how can we claim that the scope of political participation expands as stated in the above letter? This is totally the opposite. Less members in the Election Committee means the circle is now smaller! The HKSAR government now is like: give you a sweet, and then hit you hard!
Many Pro-China may assert that: this is the maximum that Hong Kong Government can fight for in a gradual and orderly manner according to the Basic Law.
Are you sure? Why not maintain the amount of Election Committee as 1600 and at the same time discard the voting rights of the appointees in DC in the Legco election? Is it really difficult to have both?
If you have watched the video about how frivolous our Chief Secretary Tang Ying-lin responded to councilors’ questions in the Legco, I believe you won’t be convinced by the government both orally or in written form.
Last but not least, Florence mentioned Functional Constituencies system has its value in an immature electoral system. I do agree with her argument. Functional Constituencies are essential in this transitional period. In addition to the reason that this can ensure the wide diversity and representativeness from various sectors, since they are mostly pro-government/pro-Beijing, this can ensure the government policies get a certain amount of supports and prevent the risks in carrying out different government plans, let alone this can ensure a certain extend of smoothness when facing some Mainland-Hong Kong issues.
Freedom of choosing leaders is one of the very basic human rights treasured by many, yet here in Hong Kong, the so called Asia’s World City, we failed to achieve so repeatedly. I share the view that the proposed political reform is completely “moving a step backward” given its contents are more or less the same like the rejected 2005 version. Expanding the Election Committee of Chief Executive and representatives of Legco seem allowing a bigger participation of the election and thus more democratic, according to the government. However, the devil is in the details.
Even the Election Committee of the CE has been expanded, it is still a small circle election with the dominance of pro-business and pro-Beijing groups. General citizens still have no say in it. Regarding to the proposal on Legco, while 5 seats would be added to the Geography Constituency, 5 seats elected within the District Council would also be added to the Functional Constituency (FC). Under the current system, FC brings privilege to a small number of people which against universal and equality which are the core principles of universal suffrage.
Moreover, adding more District Councilors (DC) that are directly elected to the Legco is not a good practice in two ways. Firstly, citizens do not know who their elected DC will vote for when they elect the DC. Secondly, the functions of DC and Legislative Councilors (LC) are different while DC focuses more on district matters, LC looks into more territory wide matters. Therefore, bring more DCs into Legco may confuses the duties of the two and also create the possibilities of conflicts of interests while there are policies doing less favours to certain districts.
To conclude, the proposed political reform package is a very frustrating one. Universal suffrage will bring more support to the leaders of our government and thus improve transparency of the establishment and its governance which are very essential to the place’s economy as well. Therefore, if Hong Kong really determines to become a genuine international city which is comparable with London and New York, true democracy is an indispensable software Hong Kong has to seek.