Chief Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, head of the Constitutional Development Taskforce, said on Wednesday that he hoped to see the emergence of a 'mainstream proposal' next spring on the method of electing the chief executive in 2007 and the legislature in 2008. But it is clear that he was ignoring Hong Kong's real mainstream opinion, which is for universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008, and is looking for a minority view that will be dubbed the 'mainstream proposal'.
At least he was honest enough to say that the taskforce had received 'many views' that the elections in 2007 and 2008 should be by universal suffrage. However, he said, because the central government has ruled out such a possibility, the taskforce 'will not take any further actions with regard to these proposals'.
Similarly, Mr Tsang and his taskforce have decided to ignore the crucial issue of a timetable for universal suffrage. While conceding that this was a 'very important' issue, Mr Tsang decided that it should be dealt with 'at a later stage' (presumably after instructions have been received from Beijing).
The last chapter of the taskforce report is entitled 'Way Forward'. Yet how can one know the way forward without a timetable? How can we decide what to do in 2007 and 2008 if we do not know how many more steps we will need to take before universal suffrage is implemented?
Mr Tsang says that the 'immediate task now' is to decide what to do in 2007 and 2008; a timetable can wait. But if he takes that attitude today, what is there to prevent his taking a similar attitude when one has to deal with the elections in 2012? Or in 2016 and 2017?
At his press conference, Mr Tsang also declared that 'any constitutional development changes must require the tripartite agreement which has been enshrined in the Basic Law from day one'. This is a blatant falsehood. The Basic Law makes it clear that Hong Kong can on its own determine how to elect the legislature. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress changed this in April, and Mr Tsang, dare I say, perhaps to burnish his patriotic credentials, is attempting to shield Beijing from public criticism.