Don't play games with democracy
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has been saying for months that, like other Hongkongers, he wants universal suffrage at an early date. However, he has criticised the pan-democratic camp for resorting to slogans while failing to propose specific ideas about how universal suffrage would work in Hong Kong.
During the March 1 debate between Mr Tsang and legislator Alan Leong Kah-kit, the chief executive pointed out that Mr Leong's political development proposal was not even accepted within the pan-democratic camp. Given that situation, how could it possibly be accepted by the central government, he asked.
Well, we have seen considerable movement in recent days regarding possible road maps to constitutional reform. On March 3 came the news that 21 of the 25 pro-democracy legislators had reached a broad consensus on electoral reform and released a blueprint on achieving universal suffrage in 2012.
Among other things, they proposed the Election Committee that elects the chief executive be turned into a nomination committee, and be expanded from 800 to 1,200 members, through the addition of 400 directly elected district council members. They also proposed the scrapping of functional constituencies in the Legislative Council, saying half of all Legco members should be directly elected and the other half chosen through proportional representation.
Within days, former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang released the model favoured by her core group: it, too, urges universal suffrage for the chief executive in 2012, but is willing to delay until 2016 a legislature chosen by universal suffrage. The functional seats would first be cut from 30 to 15 in 2012, then abolished in 2016. Her model also differs from the pan-democrats' in other ways, such as the number of nominations needed to run for chief executive.
It is true that democracy cannot be implemented in the abstract, and that a particular model will be required to be adopted. Yet there is a danger that the governments both here and in Beijing could require that Hongkongers agree on the details of a particular model before there could be universal suffrage. Hongkongers should not be required to agree on the details of a model. Such a condition would simply be an excuse not to introduce universal suffrage.
The demand for universal suffrage is like a demand for food. The government cannot say that it will withhold food until all 7 million people agree if they want rice, noodles or bread. Similarly, it cannot say that there will be no universal suffrage until there is unanimity on a particular model. Most people simply want democracy - they will be happy regardless of whether it is rice, noodles or bread.
Mr Tsang has said that the government will issue a green paper in mid-year to consult the public on the issue of universal suffrage. On the face of it, that is good news. But one must remember that the government issued a green paper on democracy 20 years ago. It was designed to ensure that there would be no direct elections in 1988: it was full of trifling details and did not focus on the central issue. One hopes that, this time, there will be no tricks.
While it is perfectly fine for the green paper to present a few models to test the public's reaction, the government should not act as though it had no preference. After all, Hong Kong has an executive-led system, and the government - in particular the chief executive - should lead in a way that ensures universal suffrage will be implemented at an early date.
If Beijing requires a detailed plan, the Hong Kong government should prepare one and explain it to the public. But if the government does not take the lead, the chances of early universal suffrage will be negligible.
As Mrs Chan said: 'If there's no political will on the part of the chief executive to push forward on this front and, moreover, to try to convince the central government that we need to make progress on this, we'll never reach a consensus.' These words carry weight because they were spoken by someone who knows all the tricks that the Hong Kong government can play.
Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator.
