• Fri
  • Dec 19, 2014
  • Updated: 4:30am
Universal Suffrage
CommentInsight & Opinion

Beijing must keep its word on universal suffrage

Emily Lau says Beijing must keep its promise on universal suffrage in 2017, and trust that the people of Hong Kong, given a free choice, will elect a chief executive acceptable to all sides

PUBLISHED : Friday, 18 April, 2014, 3:14am
UPDATED : Friday, 18 April, 2014, 3:14am

With the government's public consultation on political reform drawing to a close, Beijing decided to invite all Legislative Council members to Shanghai. The visit, last week, included a meeting with mainland officials in charge of Hong Kong affairs. This enabled the 10 pro-democracy legislators who joined the trip to hold rare talks with Beijing officials on constitutional reform. The last time such discussions took place was in 2010.

According to the Basic Law, the earliest opportunity for the Hong Kong people to elect the government by universal suffrage was in 2007, 10 years after the change of sovereignty. However, this move has to be approved by Beijing and, regrettably, it was put back by a decade.

The stark reality is that Beijing will not allow Hong Kong people to elect the chief executive by universal suffrage, even in 2017.

As far as I can see, there's less than 1 per cent chance of this happening. Despite such a bleak outlook, many Hong Kong people still expect the pro-democracy political parties to fight for universal suffrage in 2017.

Beijing must overcome its concern that the situation in Hong Kong may get out of hand

Thus, we will fight even for that 1 per cent chance of change.

Hong Kong people have high expectations of a chief executive election by universal suffrage by 2017. Public opinion surveys conducted over the years have repeatedly shown that the majority want the right to elect the government by universal suffrage. Pro-democracy candidates, including myself, who have stood for direct elections for Legco since 1991, have all embraced such a platform and have consistently been re-elected.

Following Legco's passage of the limited political reform package in 2010, paving the way for elections of the chief executive, and the legislature in 2012, Beijing has given the undertaking that Hong Kong may choose the chief executive by universal suffrage in 2017 and, after that, all Legco members will also be elected by universal suffrage.

However, central officials have repeatedly said that anyone who seeks to confront the central government would not be allowed to stand for election, let alone be chosen as chief executive. To prevent this from happening, Beijing will only allow candidates they trust to stand for election. Hence, they will use the nominating committee to screen out undesirable candidates. In short, Beijing demands a one-person, one-vote election which carries zero risk.

To the Democratic Party, that is unacceptable. Election by universal suffrage does not only mean voters have the right to vote, but people with different political views should be able to be nominated as candidates. It should be a competitive election in which voters have genuine choice, rather than only being able to choose from among candidates from the pro-establishment camp.

Some commentators have said we will be satisfied as long as a pro-democracy candidate can be nominated to stand for election. This is not true. We want a free and fair election which allows candidates with different political views to take part.

Some pro-Beijing figures have urged us to accept a zero-risk one-person, one-vote election in 2017, saying the system could be improved in future. My reply is "no".

In 2010, the Democratic Party supported an election package which did not provide for universal suffrage in 2012. We did it because we saw it as a step forward, thus satisfying the Basic Law requirement that the chief executive election should be in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. Because my party helped to break the impasse and got the package passed in Legco, Beijing gave the undertaking that the chief executive could be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, and direct elections for Legco would follow.

Beijing must now deliver on that promise. During the meeting in Shanghai, our members had the opportunity to talk to Beijing officials face to face. That was a good start. Our message to Beijing is that it should trust the Hong Kong people, most of whom, as Deng Xiaoping once said, "love the country, love Hong Kong". If given a free choice, Hong Kong people would elect a chief executive who can get the support of both the people and the central government.

To allow such a free election to take place, Beijing must overcome its concern that the situation in Hong Kong may get out of hand, and that foreign forces have infiltrated political parties and will use them to subvert the central government.

On the other hand, if Beijing insists on manipulating the electoral process to produce a fake election by universal suffrage, it definitely will not receive the support of my party.

The government's public consultation is led by the chief secretary, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who has said that she is not optimistic that the government's proposal will secure the support of at least 47 lawmakers, two-thirds of Legco, a requirement stipulated in the Basic Law.

In the coming weeks and months, we would welcome discussion with mainland officials and people from the pro-establishment camp.

We will urge Beijing to trust the Hong Kong people and keep its promise on universal suffrage in 2017. If not, as Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing has warned, Hong Kong could become ungovernable.

Emily Lau Wai-hing is chairwoman of the Democratic Party and a Legislative Council member


Related topics

For unlimited access to:

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



This article is now closed to comments

"Beijing demands a one-person, one-vote election which carries zero risk."---what? Beijing wants to rig the election?!? Say it ain't so! Perish the thought!...
Some CCP apologists repeatedly refer to the "silent majority". Ironically, i too am all for the silent majority to be given the opportunity to express themselves. I strongly suspect the silent majority is not comprised of CCP apologists.
I would never wager on any scenario that is reliant upon Beijing keeping its promises. However, it would be great if they showed they can be trusted for once.
The opposition party kept the spin on the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Mini-Constitution to create confusion at the expense of Hong Kong for personal gains lead by Emily Lau and others. Imagine if Emily Lau stop fighting with HKG to create Chaos, her party has no other political platform to fall back to.
Exactly. We seem to forget sometimes that the CCP is nothing but a fascist criminal organisation, like the NSDAP or the Baath party.
Boy, the word "must" is really used liberally on these pages today. Government must...Beijing must...HKex must...
Dream on, people...
"If given a free choice, Hong Kong people would elect a chief executive who can get the support of both the people and the central government." Lau seems to concede the Party's demand that it have the final say about who leads Hong Kong. How can such a concession be reconciled with the principle of universal suffrage? With serial appeasers like Lau at the helm, democrats have no option but to fully support Occupy Central or be like the hundreds of blindly obedient students on Sewol and perish.
Why don't you do something about the gangsters, kidnappers, criminals in Manila especially the psychopath Aquino and the Philippines congress who are raping the Filipinos, murdering journalists and traf**** Filipinas to Japan to become sex-slaves?
American politicians begin and end every speech with the American people. Ms. Emily Lau is only good at money-see-monkey-do gigs.
“Will the real Emily Lau stand up”?
She probably is trying hard to find out who she wants herself to be
suffering from the need to run a show with an outdated script
an idealist riding a tiger that she is trying to dismount
I bet she cries many nights alone disoriented
only to wake up to put on a brave face
for a cause she knows is lost
and counter-productive
It’s now all damage control
to do what good is left in the ideal
while preserving dignity
Former Taiwan President Lee Tenghui declared Diaoyu Islands should belong to Japan. Lee, as Kuomintang chief, was elected president after Chiang Jing Kuo, whose father slaughtered many Taiwanese during martial law on the island. Lee advocates Taiwan independence, which is not the position of any Kuomintang politician.
Are Lee Tenghui and his father moles planted by Imperial Japan into its former colony? I won't rule this out. After all, there are many Japanese descendants with Chinese names in Taiwan who never returned to Japan after WW 2.
In her visit to Taiwan, Ms. Emily Lau showed up with Lee to demonstrate solidarity. For what, Taiwan independence or ceding more Chinese territory to Japan?
I watched very carefully this former Legco finance committee chairwoman's confronting Mr. Yam Chi Kwong, then HKMA chief executive over Exchange Fund reserves and other issues. Mr. Yam had problems with her disorderly conduct and irrelevant questions. Is she financially and economically illiterate? One shouldn't exclude this just because she was elected.
Will the real Emily Lau, an avowed Democratic Cultist, an advocate of one country two systems without the one country, an economics illiterate, or all of the above, please stand up?
Taiwanese are smart enough to vote Kuomintang, even though Chiang was once their tyrant. HK pan democrats can't tell the difference between present China and one under Mao. These dumb HKers don't deserve the right to vote.
How About
Emily, in the US of A, everyone has at least 3 three votes, once for the candidate as a voter, then you can donate to the 2 parties super-PAC, two more votes.
A question for you- 2007, 2017 or 2022, the process is interactive, no?



SCMP.com Account