Duty to democracy must be honoured

VICE-PREMIER Qian Qichen's public statement this week on the development of democracy in the SAR deserves attention. Mr Qian's responsibilities include Hong Kong and Macau affairs, and he may be regarded as Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's superior. In response to a question during an interview with the South China Morning Post on Hong Kong's political development, Mr Qian's detailed answer was simple: be patient and expect no major changes, 'just as you have your meal one mouthful after another'. Mr Qian quoted from the Basic Law and prescribed that 'democratic development in Hong Kong will have to start from the actual conditions of Hong Kong and proceed step by step'. What he forgot to add was that according to Article 68 of the Basic Law the 'ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage'. Article 45 of the Basic Law also promises the 'ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures'. Article 39, too, indicates that the 'provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . . . as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'. Hong Kong people agree with Vice-Premier Qian that democratic development in the territory will have to start from its actual conditions and proceed step by step. But a careful examination of the SAR's actual conditions indicates a community well equipped for democracy. Hong Kong people, in general, are well-educated, the media is highly developed and the community enjoys a free flow of information. Moreover, Hong Kong people are politically sophisticated. They have moderate political views and there are no serious contradictions within the community. Hence there is no reason to believe Hong Kong cannot practise full democracy. A step-by-step approach cannot serve as the excuse for maintaining the status quo. District board elections on the basis of universal suffrage were first introduced in 1982, and direct elections to the Legislative Council took place in 1991. Hong Kong people are certainly ready to seriously consider further democratisation. Mr Qian indicated that the 'number of members of the Election Committee for the second chief executive [election] has expanded to 800, from 400 for the first term. The 800 people include representatives of Hong Kong's various sectors . . . Their opinions should reflect those of the majority of Hong Kong'. Increasing the number of members of the Election Committee was hardly progress in democracy because only 179,000 were qualified to vote for such members, less than three per cent of the population. Moreover, their views obviously did not reflect those of the majority of Hong Kong, at least as far as the election of the second chief executive was concerned. Opinion surveys consistently showed that about 50 per cent of Hong Kong people did not support Mr Tung's re-election, and only 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the respondents showed their support. In the case of the Election Committee, however, more than 700 members openly nominated Mr Tung, blocking the possibility of any competitor emerging as 100 nominations were required from members of the committee for a candidate to be permitted to stand. To have half of the seats in the legislature directly elected in 2004 is no remarkable progress either. According to the Office of Members of the Executive and Legislative Council consensus in 1989, all Legislative Council members should be directly elected by citizens in geographical constituencies from 2003 onwards, and the chief executive should be directly elected not later than 2003. Mr Qian argued that the 'past practices have shown that the model based on functional-constituency elections is an effective way to ensure that people from various walks of life can have balanced participation in political life. As a result, this should be kept intact'. As the Basic Law clearly stipulates that the ultimate aim is to select the chief executive and elect all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, functional constituency elections are therefore only transitional measures, and it is difficult to understand why they should be kept intact. Mr Qian's comments can only be interpreted as meaning the Chinese authorities are not eager to realise the ultimate aim, as promised in the Basic Law. Further, there is obviously no better mode than direct elections by universal suffrage to ensure that 'people from various walks of life can have balanced participation in political life'. After all, many people in Hong Kong have simply been excluded from functional constituency elections. It is strange that Mr Qian believes that Hong Kong cannot copy the political system of another country because it is 'a commercial city and one of our country's special administrative regions'. In China's economic reforms, the mainland insists on opening to the outside world and learning from the best experiences of other countries. Why then can Hong Kong not emulate the system of other regions? The existing system is not entirely original, nor is it modelled on that of the mainland. It is the duty of the Hong Kong Government to consult the public on the review of the electoral system to take place before 2007. It should present to the public a timetable and concrete measures of consultation. The Vice-Premier responsible for Hong Kong affairs has the obligation to ensure the SAR Government performs the above duty. To declare his position on the issue before this consultative process is, to say the least, inappropriate. Joseph Cheng Yu-shek is a professor of political science at the City University of Hong Kong rcccrc@cityu.edu.hk RAGG29GET