In a moment of frankness, a Hong Kong legislator confessed that an attempt in Legco to slash funding for the government's constitutional affairs work represented a protest vote against the leadership's go-slow approach to full democratisation. Speaking at a Legco meeting on Wednesday, unionist Lee Cheuk-yan said: 'No voting right - no right to get funding ... This is a vote of protest.'
Mr Lee, a member of the pro-democracy lobby, was venting his frustration over the administration's lack of commitment to promoting the pace of democracy. Both he and his colleagues say that, as a result, the funding which has been set aside for the Constitutional Affairs Bureau in the 2003-04 Budget should be cut by 30 per cent. As expected, the amendment was vetoed by a coalition of pro-government legislators.
The rare move to put pressure on a policy bureau through a funding cut will probably be seen as it should be - no more than political gesturing. But it underscored the depth of anger and feelings of betrayal within the pro-democratic camp over Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's plan for electoral reform.
This growing unease reared its head on Monday - two days before the budget debate - between a group of democracy activists and Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam Sui-lung. Mr Lam, formerly Mr Tung's spokesman, dropped a bombshell at the meeting by revealing that the government had not yet ascertained whether the Basic Law allowed people to elect the chief executive by universal suffrage in 2007.
He was referring to Annex I, which states that the electoral method for the chief executive could be changed 'for the terms subsequent to the year 2007'. Annex II says the means of electing the legislature could be changed in 2007. Mr Lam maintained that it was not clear whether the Basic Law allowed universal suffrage to be used for the third chief executive election, scheduled for 2007. The issue is crucial to the question about the scope of a constitutional review called for in the Basic Law, and mandated to take place by 2007.
Should Mr Lam's remarks be legally correct, it means that the earliest possible time for electing the chief executive through universal suffrage would be 2012, not 2007, as is generally understood in the community.
With the atypical pneumonia outbreak triggering the worst crisis in recent history, it is hardly surprising that the issue of democratic review and reform is seen as irrelevant and far-fetched by the populace. The fact that Mr Lam's comments and the Legco debate about funding for his bureau have gone largely unnoticed in the media, reflects the community consensus towards tackling the health crisis as a matter of urgency. For the same reason, a coalition of pro-democracy groups has postponed a major rally scheduled for this month, which they had hoped would reignite the public's aspirations for a greater say in electing leaders.
