The historic meeting between the Democratic Party and the central government's liaison office did not bring a sudden breakthrough on democratic reform. It was not expected to. The significance of the gathering is that it took place at all.
This was the first time the Democrats had met senior mainland officials since the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989. Only a short time ago, such a meeting would have been inconceivable. The willingness of both sides to sit down and talk about proposals for democratic reform in 2012 has broken the ice. It may yet help secure an agreement on changes to our electoral system. But even if it does not, the meeting has provided a valuable opportunity to start moving on from the divisive hostilities of the past.
The Democratic Party is taking a political risk by entering into the discussions. It is clear the meeting was Beijing's reward for its decision not to take part in the recent by-elections styled by other democrats as a de-facto referendum on universal suffrage. The Democrats will need to keep convincing their supporters that there has been no departure from the party's principles. But they could also win public support for their attempts to negotiate a better deal on democratic reform. Beijing should, in this spirit of goodwill, allow Democrats banned from visiting the mainland to do so.
The meeting has, however, raised concerns among some about an erosion of the 'one country, two systems' concept. Critics have already accused the liaison office of interfering in Hong Kong affairs. The high level of autonomy granted to Hong Kong under the Basic Law lies at the heart of the arrangements for our city's return to China. It must be respected. But the idea that Hong Kong could go it alone on constitutional reform, without approval from Beijing, is unrealistic. This has been clear since the central government laid down restrictions on democratic development here in 2004.
Beijing's interest goes beyond narrow party political rivalries in Hong Kong. It knows developments here could have a bearing on political reform on the mainland. The central government is also forging closer ties with democratic Taiwan. Mainlanders now travel to both places more frequently than in the past and are increasingly aware of developments. This is rarely pointed out in Hong Kong, but it undeniably forms the background against which our reform process is taking place.
The Democrats and their partners in the Alliance for Universal Suffrage are, by dealing directly with mainland officials, making misunderstandings less likely and a deal easier to achieve. This inevitably involves the liaison office playing a more overt role in Hong Kong affairs. If it is going to play a role, better that it does so openly. The press conference it held was, therefore, welcome. But Beijing needs to be careful not to give the impression it is gradually taking over responsibilities of the chief executive. The deadlock on democratic reform means its involvement in negotiations could be helpful if concessions are to be made and an agreement reached. On other matters, however, there is a need for restraint. It is particularly important that Hong Kong's rights are respected and protected, especially the freedom of speech and rule of law, which are key to our city's success. The meeting between the Democrats and Beijing is a positive development. Hopefully, it will help bring about an improved package of reforms for 2012 and greater understanding between the two sides. Hong Kong's separate system must, as always, be carefully guarded. But there is no reason why a willingness to talk should pose a threat to 'one country, two systems'.
