Sorry, but you'll have to ask Beijing
The public has until next Friday to come up with ideas on how the election for chief executive in 2007 and the Legislative Council in 2008 should be held - as long as it is not by universal suffrage. The deadline, originally set for August 31, has been extended twice to allow more time for submissions.
It is understandable that people seem to lack enthusiasm for this round of consultation. After all, we now know that it is Beijing, not the Hong Kong government, which will make the final decision. The Hong Kong government has been reduced to acting simply as the frontman for the central government.
In fact, when Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam Sui-lung appeared before Legco in June to discuss this latest round of consultations, there were questions that he could not answer, apparently because the answers can only be provided by Beijing.
For example, when Emily Lau Wai-hing, of The Frontier, asked whether a proposal to allow the election of the Election Committee by 'one person, one vote' would be allowed, Mr Lam did not answer directly. He said that proposals which fell outside the framework set by the National People's Congress Standing Committee in its April decision barring universal suffrage would be unlikely to obtain the support of the three parties whose consent is required - Legco, the chief executive and the Standing Committee.
This makes it clear that every proposal made in Hong Kong would have to be screened by the central government. Mr Lam further said that any proposal for electing the chief executive that was 'a disguised form of universal suffrage' would not be acceptable.
However, if Ms Lau's suggestion that the public be allowed to vote for members of the Election Committee, who would then vote for the chief executive, is 'a disguised form of universal suffrage', then Beijing stands accused of practising universal suffrage. After all, according to the Chinese constitution, basic-level people's congresses are elected directly by the people. These representatives then elect members to serve at higher congresses, all the way to the NPC, which elects the president. It means that, at least in theory, the head of state is elected through a system of indirect elections.
This either means that China has universal suffrage, or that the system of indirect election is not equivalent to universal suffrage.
Hong Kong, of course, does not require so many levels of indirectly elected voters. In fact, one is enough.
If Hong Kong were to turn Legco into an election committee to choose the chief executive, it would simply be borrowing a mainland practice - something that cannot be contrary to the Standing Committee decision.
It may be argued that the membership of Legco is too small. After all, the Election Committee has 800 members, while there are only 60 legislators. But the membership of the committee can easily be bolstered by the addition of the several hundred elected members of district councils, which arguably are the counterparts of the basic-level congresses on the mainland.
Would such an election committee be acceptable to the three relevant parties? It will surely be acceptable to Legco, since the proposal enhances the status of its members by giving them a major role in the election of the chief executive.
But would it gain the support of the chief executive and the Standing Committee? Unfortunately, it is likely that the answers to those questions, like the answer to the question Ms Lau put to Mr Lam, lie not in Hong Kong, but in Beijing.
Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator
