• Sun
  • Dec 28, 2014
  • Updated: 11:46am
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 24 April, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 24 April, 2013, 3:14am

Democratic candidates must have a place in 2017 contest

Frank Ching says whatever the decision on the nomination process, there must be no regression from freedoms allowed in previous polls

Senior Chinese legislator Qiao Xiaoyang dropped a bomb last month when he presented his views on how the 2017 chief executive election should be held.

Some of what he said was unacceptable and resulted in a strong public reaction. However, other points he made, while unpleasant to many, must be accepted as little more than common sense. These include the fact that the chief executive must be someone who can work with the central government and, hence, be acceptable to Beijing.

It is heartening to see that some individuals identified with the democratic movement are taking pragmatic stands. Former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang, for example, is reportedly forming a group that will consult the business sector and the pro-establishment camp to formulate a proposal acceptable to the central government.

Chan Kin-man, an Occupy Central organiser, has said that core members of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which opposes one-party rule in China, should not run for chief executive to ease Beijing's concerns.

Even Martin Lee Chu-ming, who threatened in 2010 to leave the Democratic Party because it had conducted talks with the central government's liaison office, has offered an idea which won't vanish simply because he has "retracted" it.

But Lee, as well as Benny Tai Yiu-ting, originator of the Occupy Central idea, also insist on "international norms". However, it is extremely difficult to say what such norms are, since countries have different ways of holding elections. In fact, some Hong Kong democrats have such high standards they would consider the United States undemocratic.

They speak of each vote having the same value as every other vote, which sounds good in theory. But consider George W. Bush, who was elected US president by the Electoral College (shades of the Election Committee!) even though he won fewer votes than Al Gore in the popular vote.

Tai in fact suggested that the nominating committee should include all of Hong Kong's 3.5 million voters. That way, every nomination will in effect be by a referendum of all the people.

Hopefully, such ideological positions are being adopted solely for negotiating purposes. Much more pragmatic positions must be adopted in discussions of how the nominating committee should be formed and exactly how it should go about making nominations.

The main thing is that there must be no retrogression in the universal suffrage election in 2017. Democrats were able to be nominated in 2007 and 2012. The system in 2017 must be such that democrats can be nominated so voters have a genuine choice and the resultant chief executive will be able to govern effectively.

In 2010, when the Democratic Party and the liaison office agreed on the 2012 electoral reform package, the Democrats asked Beijing for a 10-year plan for democratisation, leading up to universal suffrage elections for the entire legislature in 2020.

The liaison office said that the central government would study the idea but that it was unrealistic to expect Beijing to resolve all issues in a few weeks.

It is now three years. It is high time for Beijing to present its plan for democratisation rather than hide behind meaningless slogans of loving China and loving Hong Kong.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator. frank.ching@scmp.com. Follow him on Twitter: @FrankChing1


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

Talk about setting the bar low. Ching only objects to getting an even less democratic Nominating Committee than the Beijing Boys' Club we now enjoy. Incredible how cowed people are by Beijing forces in Hong Kong now. The Basic Law standard is what we are entitled to and that's fully democratic broadly-representative NC. Give democratically-elected Legislative Councillors all the nomination rights for constitution of the NC and that standard will be satisfied. And that's no referendum.
"It is high time for Beijing to present its plan for democratisation rather than hide behind meaningless slogans of loving China and loving Hong Kong." Unfortunately, democratization is even more meaningless than loving China. I again challenge you to define it.
Benny Tai is a total airhead with his 3.5 million nominating committee. Only the dumbest academic is capable of such fuzzy thinking. If it were within my power as vice chancellor to deny him tenure for incompetence, I would be tempted to do so.
It comes down to nominating a number of candidates for a primary. Say with a field narrowed down to 5, you can be sure no one gets a majority. This will be followed by a runoff between 2. So we are going through two whole years of campaigning for primary and two more elections where there is no room for running the government.
Worse, the whole idea that more candidates are better is absurd. Let me give an example.
Take a hypothetical case. Ip, Eu and Lau get votes in the descending order after the first election. The runoff is now between Ip, a love China candidate, and Eu, with a hate China position. There is now a choice between 2 ideologies.
Suppose we throw in 2 more candidates, Tam and Chow. The first election produces this order: Eu, Lau, Ip, Chow and Tam. Now we have a runoff between 2 rabid hate China candidates. Is this what we want?
More is not better. Tell me, who select whom to run in the primary? Someone has to make that choice.
hard times !
this whymak has been silent for quite a long time and now it ( a group's spokesman indeed) has emerged to attack our beloved and respectable Professor Tai Yiu-ting who is co-organising the planned civil-disobedience movement,'Occupy Central' to be staged in July 2014 once our promised universal suffrage turns out to be a faked one with a so-called screening mechanism or there is a primary poll to exclude any candidates unwelcomed /disliked by Beijing such as candidates from the pan-democratic camp. What is wrong with such a peaceful gathering to demonstrate our civil-disobedience like the ones staged by India's saint,Gandhi ? May I ask ?
What's wrong with such a peaceful gathering? It's an obstruction for starters. So you're selfishly inconveniencing others. It's also a provocative temper tantrum which will not help democracy development. I prefer Anson Chan's more pragmatic approach, since it focuses on positive engagement with many different groups.

Maybe you should read the article more carefully, rather than making the same mindless and repetitive statements. It's really inane. Have you noticed the part about how George W Bush was elected in 2000 in the USA despite losing the popular vote? What are your thoughts on this?

Democracy in the USA is a joke, and it meets "international standards". All the politicians in the US are bought off by corporate lobbyists. The same will happen in Hong Kong once functional constituencies are abolished.


SCMP.com Account