Do you think the functional election system makes for good government? This was the subject of a debate the Civic Party organised this week where Sir Gordon Wu Ying-sheung, chairman of Hopewell Holdings, and I were invited to speak. I argued that good government is one that is fair, transparent and accountable. This means the key political institutions and processes, including elections, must be fair, transparent and accountable. Sir Gordon said he did not mind what form government took, as long as the society it governed enjoyed the rule of law, full employment and low taxes. Our approaches are different. I care about the form of government and the decisions made, whereas Sir Gordon looks essentially at the latter. Systems and structures are important. Functional elections are inherently unfair. Look at the difference in participation. Functional electorates for the Legislative Council election and the sub-sector polls for the chief executive Election Committee total about 200,000. For direction election to the legislature, the number is more than 3 million. Functional elections allow corporate bodies - that is, not individual people - to vote. How does such an entity vote? Let us not forget that only 11 functional constituencies out of 28 for legislative elections have solely individual voters - the rest are dominated by corporate voting. Do they first have to get the board of directors to decide, poll employees, or ask shareholders before sending a human representative to cast the ballot? The government is not concerned. It has abdicated part of the responsibility to organise legislative polls to corporate bodies to decide and verify membership. Thus, companies that are members of chambers of commerce, industry associations and business federations can vote in a number of constituencies and sub-sectors. Banks, stockbroking companies and insurance firms similarly have the vote. A particular issue is the conglomerates, which have many affiliate companies, and can control a large number of votes. All these features make functional voting unfair and non-transparent. Indeed, some constituencies and sub-sectors have only a few hundred corporate voters. The truth about functional voting is that it keeps political influence in the hands of the establishment. Sectors entrenched in voting systems that return half the legislators and the chief executive make up Hong Kong's political elites. Some argue functional constituencies help produce 'balanced participation'. In reality, there is no better balance than allowing universal suffrage, but 'balance' here is a euphemism for maintaining the political status quo. If supporters of 'balanced participation' were honest, they would admit that replacing the functional voting system would disrupt the status quo, which is why they do not favour change. Let me say, however, that the game will be over soon. We might as well provide a sensible transit to universal suffrage, as required by the Basic Law. I predict the functional election system will come under increasing attack because people have seen through it. The attack will not only be intellectual, but physical. We had a taste of that in 2004 and last year with the Legco election and the Election Committee sub-sector polls for the chief executive. The systems can be penetrated. In constituencies with individual voting, younger voters do not see things in the same way as those who are part of the establishment. The young will outnumber and outvote them. In constituencies with corporate voting, the bleat for reform will continue. People know functional constituencies make for bad government because they divide society between the political 'haves' and 'have nots'. Unfairness creates the seeds of instability. Moreover, those elected via functional polls tend to focus first on sectoral interests rather than the public interest, further exacerbating an unfair system. The system will break down in the foreseeable future. It is better to negotiate how to replace it sooner rather than later. Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange
