LEGISLATIVE Councillors are now told that the political reforms have been settled in the Governor's favour and should be discussed no more. Time has come to legislate for Hong Kong and co-operate with China. If only it were so simple.
Many amendments of the reform bill were broached on June 29, in the Legislative Council but there was one glaring oversight. Legislators, myself among them, did not consider a formal procedure for 'recalling' a wayward Legislative Councillor who had disappointed, or worse, voted against his electors. A councillor can be impeached if he has broken the law.
Two legislators, one from a directly elected seat in the New Territories and another from the functional constituency, were convicted between September 1991 and May 1993 for separate offences and had to resign from their posts. By-elections were held and the vacancies promptly filled. Politics went on and so did life.
The question now is: What can Hong Kong constituents do with a legislator who habitually lets them down? In the US a popular movement, often starting with a petition, can force a constantly erring congressman to resign. The 'recall' action is democratic for it is the most immediate means for a group of people who feel betrayed to reject, at mid-term, a politician who has broken his contract with his electors. Hong Kong does not have a history of citizen politics and, therefore, it allows at least one legislator to flout the wishes of his constituency with impunity.
Our legislator with such an unenviable record is the Honourable Jimmy McGregor of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC) who has never disguised his disdain for his constituency and has publicly denounced its members for one thing or another. He voted for the Government's political reforms in June, despite the overwhelming sentiment in the HKGCC against the package - particularly the part to do with re-aligning the nine new functional constituencies and converting them into de facto directly elected seats.
Many of his fellow functional constituency representatives, myself included, conducted opinion surveys before we debated and voted on June 29 and 30. We did so knowing the subject was controversial and the implications grave. There was not much point in talking about our 'honour', 'principle', 'conscience' and 'democratic credentials' if we arrogantly ignored the opinions of those who put us in office.
I do not deny that legislators should be given some leeway on general, social, cultural and moral issues such as the death penalty, education and homosexuality. If every legislator had to consult or conduct a survey for every minute issue, he would not have much time to do anything, much less to lead. But there are certain matters of compelling importance for a functional constituency that cannot be decided on the whims of a legislator, especially one whose credibility with his electors is in doubt.