Hidden agenda?
In the recent Legislative Council election, there were allegations that the central government's liaison office played an active part behind the scenes to influence the outcome. The liaison office refuted these allegations strongly and publicly. These same allegations and denials have occurred in every election since the handover.
There are certainly legitimate reasons why Beijing takes a keen interest in the outcome of Legco elections. In exercising its constitutional powers, our legislature can either facilitate or obstruct the government's policies and programmes, including those in which the central government has an interest.
For example, in 2003, the last-minute about-turn of the Liberal Party helped the democratic members prevent the passage of the Article 23 legislation that would have prohibited acts of subversion against the central government. Two years later, the democratic camp blocked the passage of the bill on future electoral arrangements that had Beijing's backing. Against this background, it was in the central government's interest to do everything possible within the law to improve the chances of pro-establishment candidates winning a seat in last month's election.
When Anson Chan Fang On-sang defeated Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee in the Legco by-election late last year, the democratic camp saw this as the public's endorsement of its fight for greater democracy and of the criticism against Beijing for failing to make any commitment on a timetable for universal suffrage. It was envisaged that this political agenda would feature prominently in the coming election and that the pro-establishment candidates would be put on the defensive. But Beijing surprised everyone in Hong Kong by deciding, only two weeks after receiving the report on constitutional development from the chief executive, that Hong Kong could elect by universal suffrage its leader in 2017 and all Legco members by 2020.
The announcement came at the end of December last year, less than a month after Mrs Chan had taken up her Legco seat. The people of Hong Kong generally accepted this timetable. As a result, while the democratic camp continued to champion the slogan 'universal suffrage by 2012', it had no impact in this year's election.
Then, one week before election day, Hong Kong welcomed the mainland's large troupe of Olympic gold medallists, whose performances raised the patriotic feelings of our citizens to new heights. While one cannot quantify the effect of this feel-good factor in terms of additional votes for pro-Beijing candidates, the athletes' visit demonstrated Beijing's efforts to improve its image and that of the Hong Kong government on the eve of the election.
Turning to the actual election, our proportional representation system in the geographical constituencies means that proper co-ordination among friendly parties can be conducive to winning. This includes nominating a good mix of candidates to attract different segments of the electorate and advising supporters on how to split their votes to achieve maximum effect.
So, is there any truth in the claim that the liaison office assumed such a co-ordinating role among the pro-Beijing camp? Let's examine the facts. Of all the political parties, only the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the Federation of Trade Unions possess 'cast-iron votes' and can channel a certain proportion of these votes to support each other or other friendly candidates. After losing its two seats in the direct elections, the Liberal Party allegedly complained that, unlike in the previous election, it had not been 'allocated' some 'pro-Beijing' votes. Instead, these votes went to other independent candidates who have close links with the liaison office, it said.
There is, of course, no evidence to question the liaison office's claim that it played no role in any allocation of votes. But, as the representative office of the central government - and given its extensive association with all the pro-China groups and personnel in Hong Kong - it is the best body to reconcile any difference in views among these political groups. If it wished, it could also help the groups reach a common strategy in contesting the election. In politics, many things are done without announcement or acknowledgement.
Another claim about the liaison office's involvement came after the election. The office categorically rejected any suggestion that it had directly or indirectly passed a message to the Liberal Party that it should concentrate its future efforts in the functional constituencies and, therefore, withdraw completely from direct elections. But widespread coverage of insider leaks in the Chinese press suggests that there is no smoke without fire.
The democratic camp secured 23 seats in the latest election and can continue to act in concert to block the passage of any legislative proposal on constitutional development not to its liking. Thus, one would expect Beijing to take an even greater interest in Hong Kong politics.
It is possible that the central government or liaison office will take more open or covert action in the next election to improve the chances of like-minded candidates securing close to half the seats in the geographical constituencies and maintaining a predominant majority in the functional constituencies.
The end of this year's election marks the beginning of the run-up to the 2012 poll. We should not be surprised to hear stories about Beijing or the liaison office allegedly saying or doing something that may affect the fortunes of political parties. It is therefore of paramount importance to uphold the rule of law and an independent judiciary in Hong Kong.
Joseph Wong Wing-ping, formerly secretary for the civil service, is currently an adjunct professor at Chinese University of Hong Kong
