How to improve political parties
Since they emerged in the 1980s, Hong Kong political parties have struggled to develop and establish themselves. To this day, they face a range of obstacles to healthy growth. These include: the denial of any governmental role to parties based on electoral popularity; limited public support; the negative impact of the functional constituency system; a self-chosen preference for politics based primarily on opposition rather than policy development; and the watchful antagonism (especially in relation to pro-democracy parties) of Beijing.
Limitations within the electoral and political infrastructure are another inhibiting factor. However, reform in this area is really a 'stand-alone' issue. That is, it can be looked at separately from the inhibiting factors mentioned earlier. It can also be considered outside the highly charged debate about the pace of democratisation. Reform of the electoral and political infrastructure can help lay better foundations for the long-term development of all political parties in Hong Kong.
My view, based on a recent comparative study completed for Civic Exchange, is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, a new Political Party Ordinance is not needed to effect reform. We already have a basically sound - although incomplete - infrastructure governing the conduct of elections (and, indirectly, the operation of political parties). The way forward is to build on these essentially positive foundations using a series of legislative and related initiatives.
The study draws heavily on the Australian experience, with regulating elections and political parties. In Hong Kong, we should work towards establishing: a new, comprehensive political party registration system; an improved public funding regime; much-enhanced funding transparency; and a joint government-Legco standing committee to review the future operation of Hong Kong's electoral and political infrastructure. I also favour retention of the current ban on broadcast election advertising and the introduction of tax incentives for political parties.
First, we should make the recently introduced public funding system much more straightforward so that funds are paid, after the elections, purely on the basis of votes received - above a fixed threshold of, say, 5 per cent of the total votes cast. Next, to obtain full public funding, political parties would need (voluntarily) to register with a revamped Electoral Affairs Commission. These registered parties would be eligible to claim public funding - on the condition that they: agree to publish regularly a full (and auditable) statement of all party income and expenditure on the internet; submit an approved party constitution; and possess a (low) minimum number of members. Donations to registered parties up to a certain level might usefully be made tax deductible.
These measures, taken collectively, would help political parties mature and establish stronger foundations. They would also help institute a level playing field for all parties. Parties (or individuals) could continue to operate without being registered. But they would receive reduced public funding - or none at all - and no tax breaks.
The task of improving our electoral and political infrastructure is an ongoing one. This realisation is behind the recommendation to establish a joint government-Legco standing committee tasked with undertaking a public review of the infrastructure after each election.
These recommendations are not meant to be an inflexible blueprint. They outline a sound, basic framework for reform. They retain and work with what is best in the current system - and avoid both the cost and risks of trying to legislate, from scratch, a new regime for regulating political parties.
