Why progress means change
Anger and frustration over the central government's changing of the rules regarding Hong Kong's progress to full democracy are natural, and need to be vented, whether it be through the written word or by taking to the streets. At the end of the day, though, there is a need to sit down and think what should be done next.
Chief Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen yesterday submitted his taskforce's report to Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, who immediately endorsed it and forwarded it to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. In it, Mr Tung said: 'I consider that the methods for selecting the chief executive in 2007 and for forming the Legislative Council in 2008 should be amended, so as to enable Hong Kong's constitutional development to move forward.'
Now it is up to the Standing Committee to decide whether there is indeed such a need. It will have to decide if it will allow Hong Kong to change its electoral methods. According to the interpretation issued last week, if it decides that there is no need to amend the electoral methods, the old methods will continue indefinitely.
In making this interpretation, the Standing Committee appears to have ignored another provision in the Basic Law. This is that the ultimate aim of electing both the chief executive and the whole legislature through universal suffrage should be achieved through the principle of 'gradual and orderly progress'.
It is difficult to see how making no change to the way elections are held can be interpreted, even by the very imaginative Standing Committee, to be 'gradual and orderly progress'. For there to be progress, by definition there has to be change.
As to how much progress there should be, that certainly is open to discussion. Beijing has made it clear that election of the chief executive through universal suffrage in 2007 is out of the question. But, that said, there still has to be progress. The most fruitful course is not to enlarge the size of the Election Committee, but rather to make its members more representative. If each member is elected by thousands of voters, then continuing to use such a committee to choose the chief executive can be considered consistent with 'gradual and orderly progress'.
Another possibility is to turn the Election Committee, which is not fully representative, into a nomination committee, thus ensuring that all those nominated will be acceptable to Beijing and allow the Hong Kong public to choose among the nominees.
Both these methods will be an improvement, but they will not satisfy the Basic Law's ultimate goal of universal suffrage. They are acceptable only as interim measures.
As for the legislature, Senior Counsel Alan Hoo, discussing the meaning of 'gradual and orderly progress', has pointed out that while Legco had 20 directly elected members in 1998, in 2000 there were 24, an increase of one-fifth. In September, there will be 30 directly elected members, an increase of one-quarter on the 2000 figure. If this is consistent with 'gradual and orderly progress' then perhaps in 2008 there should be a one-third increase, meaning 40 directly elected members. And at the election after that, in 2012, there can be an increase of one-half, resulting in the entire 60-member body being directly elected.
Coincidentally, 2012 will also be election year for the chief executive. In order to give him or her as much of a mandate as the legislature, the two should probably be elected by universal suffrage in the same year. Such a happy coincidence will not occur again until 2032, which most people will consider much too late.
Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator
