Advertisement
Advertisement

There's a will, but is there a way?

The recent election campaign underlined the fact that the most intractable issue confronting Hong Kong is that of full democracy: how and when is the city to realise the Basic Law's 'ultimate aim' - choosing both the chief executive and the entire legislature through universal suffrage?

Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has made a bold promise: to come up with a 'final solution' to the problem during his next term. The first step will be a green paper, issued in the middle of the year, to consult the public on three reform package proposals. That consultation is to produce a 'mainstream' model - with at least 60 per cent public support - which he will take to Beijing for discussion.

While his optimism and determination are praiseworthy, a number of questions immediately arise. Which three models will he consult the public on? How will they be selected? How will he determine that the 'mainstream' model has at least 60 per cent public support?

Twenty-one members of the pan-democratic camp have already put forward their own proposal, which calls for 'double universal suffrage' in 2012. Will that be one of the three proposals on which the public will be consulted?

If it isn't, then the green paper will lack credibility. The pan-democratic camp, almost by definition, represents a substantial proportion of the electorate.

But if it is one of the three, then other questions arise. What need is there for a timetable if the very next election for chief executive is to be by universal suffrage? Moreover, how will the Basic Law's requirement for 'gradual and orderly progress' be satisfied if the 'ultimate aim' is achieved in one step?

The same question can be asked of elections to the Legislative Council. How can one say that there is 'gradual and orderly progress' if Hong Kong moves, in one step, from the current situation of 30 seats chosen through direct elections, to all 60 seats?

There can be little doubt that Beijing takes the literal wording of the Basic Law seriously. It would seem that, for there to be gradual and orderly progress, there must be at least two steps rather than just one.

That is why it is deeply regrettable that the political reform package presented by the chief executive in 2005 regarding the 2007-2008 elections was vetoed by the pan-democratic camp. Even though that package was not fully democratic and did not contain a timetable for universal suffrage, it provided for some reforms that would have satisfied the Basic Law's requirement for progress that is orderly and gradual.

It is primarily to satisfy that requirement that former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang and her Core Group are pressing for some electoral reforms to be made next year, paving the way for universal suffrage for lawmakers in 2012.

Unfortunately, Mr Tsang appears adamant about not making any changes for the 2008 poll, since his reform proposals were turned down. While it is unfortunate that his scheme was rejected, the chief executive, for the good of Hong Kong, could still initiate changes in next year's elections, especially for functional constituency seats.

The abolition of corporate voting is one reform that could be made easily, and probably wouldn't provoke much opposition. It is no longer acceptable to give the vote to companies and not to individuals.

The issue of universal suffrage is so important that it is vital for the administration to get it right. For that reason, it would be dangerous for the administration, after collecting public views, to simply declare its model the 'mainstream' version, ready for presentation to Beijing.

Before going to Beijing, Mr Tsang must consult the public one more time, to make sure the model he has chosen does indeed enjoy 60 per cent support. Only then should he seek the views of the central government.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator.

Post