Why Patten's Exco might still come to the party
WHAT kind of democracy seeks to take open political debate away from the Legislative Council and shut it up in a confidential discussion hidden from the eyes of the voters who elect that legislature? That was the question posed by the Governor, Chris Patten, when he argued for purging legislators from the Executive Council in his maiden policy speech in October 1992.
In defending a complete separation of Exco from Legco, Mr Patten also pointed to practical difficulties in forming a coalition Exco, comprising leaders from various political parties.
''Confidentiality and collective responsibility were seen as too onerous a burden for some of the potential joint members,'' he said, ''And for those Legco members who did join the Executive Council, the responsibilities of having to stand up for government policies at a time when they were competing for community support, and in some cases to found a political party, proved burdensome.'' In fact, the United Democrats had turned down an earlier invitation by the Governor for it to be represented on the policy-making body for exactly the same reasons.
Beijing, eager to curtail the influence of the democrats, was delighted with the British decision to retain a so-called executive-led government in Hong Kong.
The logic put forward by the Governor was by and large accepted by the general public.
But the arrangement for dignitaries unconnected to the legislative assembly to assume the role of policy makers has apparently turned out to be unsatisfactory.
Several major Exco decisions, including those on the make-up of the future Court of Final Appeal, rates increases and the old-age pension scheme, have all met concerted objections from Legco.
The situation was presumably so serious that the Secretary for the Treasury, Donald Tsang Yum-kuen, has compared the administration to a silent lamb in danger of being slaughtered by politicians demanding free lunches.
Officials and Exco members alike have been trapped in a difficult position, in which they have to compete for public support with politicians who have secured a popular mandate.
Perhaps more embarrassing for the Governor is the reality that about half the nine non-civil service Exco appointees are apathetic when it comes to defending government policies. Shipping merchant Tung Chee-wah, banker John Gray and two barristers Denis Chang Khen-lee and Andrew Li Kwok-nang are sometimes referred to as ''invisible'' Executive Councillors.
Businessman Raymond Chien Kuo-fung has been more accessible to the media. But he deserted the Government during the most crucial debate under Mr Patten's governorship on the controversy over the pace of pre-1997 democratisation of Legco.
Wearing his hat as chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Industrialists, Mr Chien appealed to the business sector to oppose the reform package.
The golden rule of collective responsibility was a major obstacle in convincing party leaders to serve on Exco. But Mr Chien's move has made a mockery of the so-called Exco tradition.
It has even been suggested that the unhappy incident prompted the Governor to have second thoughts about the wisdom of retaining an Exco devoid of a popular mandate.
After the Government managed to push through the Patten package in Legco by a narrow margin, the Governor announced his intention to review the composition of Exco after the Legco elections in September 1995.
His aides will probably have to spend the latter half of this summer trying to pick the most tactful words to dismantle the case the Governor put forward so forcibly only 20 months ago against what he dubbed a coalition Exco.
The United Democrats, who will evolve into the Democratic Party in October, are now likely to be more amenable to an Exco offer. Some of their core members have admitted in private that they should have jumped at the opportunity last time.
Mr Patten is scheduled to deliver his third policy speech to Legco when it reconvenes on October 5. The topic of who should join Exco in the remaining months of British rule is expected to be tackled in the document. After its unsuccessful bid to scupper the Government reform bill, the Liberal Party's chairman, Allen Lee Peng-fei, was sceptical that the Governor had used Exco seats as a bait to lure the democrats to stand by him.
Tsang Yok-sing, who leads the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, also raised similar concerns at a public forum.
Even the spokesman for Xinhua (the New China News Agency), Zhang Junsheng, has told the press he did not understand why the British authorities had chosen to revive the issue at this sensitive juncture. It remains to be seen whether the Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen's recent remarks on Sino-British co-operation carries any bearing on the Exco dispute.
He retracted his earlier statement that the Sino-British row on politics should be buried to pave the way for co-operation on economic and livelihood matters concerning the territory.
Mr Qian stressed that co-operation must be all-round, covering the political front. Now that the Patten reforms are already written into the statute books, there is simply no room for further negotiation in this regard.
China will not be silly enough to waste its energy flogging a dead horse. The threat that the democrats could be elevated to Exco before the 1977 handover is perhaps the new political issue that Mr Qien has in mind when he said the two sides should seek co-operation in the political domain as well.
China's contention that the move could jeopardise the present executive-led system, however, does not seem to hold water.
After all, the first Chief Executive for the post-1997 Special Administrative Region is to be returned by an 800-member electoral college as prescribed in the Basic Law. The future head of government, who will double up as president of Exco, might well be a party animal himself, let alone those he picks to sit on the council.
