The year 2004 is the Hong Kong version of George Orwell's 1984. Ironically, Hong Kong people were promised 'a high degree autonomy' and 'one country, two systems' in 1984, when the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed. And now, 20 years later, the dream is shattered, with this year marking the violation of the principles of 'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong' and 'one country, two systems'.
But no one here in 1984 could have imagined that the National People's Congress would rule out universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008, and would limit the number of directly elected seats through the geographical constituencies to the number of seats for the functional constituencies.
The token gesture to pacify those who are clamouring for change is to allow modifications to the existing electoral methods, as specified in the Constitutional Development Taskforce's third report. However, reforms which simply tinker with the matter can do little to alleviate the political problems which beset Hong Kong.
For a start, the channels for public participation are limited. The chief executive, hand-picked by Beijing and chosen by an 800-member Election Committee, commands little respect from the people. Executive decisions do not win support from the legislature, creating additional hurdles for governance.
Increasing the number of Election Committee members, changing the sectors which make up each part of the committee, or enlarging the size of its electorate still make the election a sham.
As for the legislature, although increasing the number of seats in both the geographical and functional constituencies will mean more chance for political participation, it works against the principle of 'gradual and orderly progress' as stipulated in the Basic Law. With the ultimate aim of universal suffrage, not changing the proportion between the two means there is no progress.