Devaluing our high degree of autonomy

Last week the Preparatory Committee met in Beijing to decide the election methods for the first legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) in 1998. The committee acceded to a request by Chief Executive-designate Tung Chee-hwa not to make firm recommendations. Instead it listed several options, leaving the final decision to Mr Tung.

The committee's decision was hailed as a mini-victory by some journalists. To the Frontier and many members of the pro-democracy lobby, the Preparatory Committee's decision could hardly be described as a boost.

The fact that Mr Tung can choose a multiple-seat, single-vote system or proportional representation to elect 20 of the legislature's 60 members is neither here nor there. As one pro-communist politician noted, no matter what electoral method is adopted, the aim is to frustrate pro-democracy candidates.

Addressing the Preparatory Committee, Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, said the international community was concerned about the 1998 elections and had associated them with post-1997 democracy and the rule of law. Thus he said the elections must be 'democratic, open and fair'. However the Preparatory Committee's decisions do not meet these criteria.

After months of speculation in the media that most members of the Preparatory Committee favoured the multiple-seat, single-vote system, a last-minute decision to include proportional representation as an additional option was portrayed almost as an act of magnanimity.

Proportional representation provides a better guarantee that pro-communist and pro-business parties will win seats. In the 1991 and 1995 elections which used the first-past-the-post system, many pro-Beijing and pro-business candidates were defeated. Thus any election method for 1998 must try to prevent another victory by the pro-democracy camp.

In this regard, proportional representation is more certain of achieving such an objective than the multiple-seat, single-vote system.