Hong Kong must rouse its can-do spirit to get electoral reform passed
Cliff Buddle says with reform of Hong Kong's electoral system desperately needed, the focus should be on what is achievable now while laying foundations for meaningful change in the future
The Lunar New Year is a good time to make a fresh start. The Year of the Goat has ushered in a slightly more positive environment in which to consider democratic development.
Constitutional affairs minister Raymond Tam Chi-yuen said last week he is now cautiously optimistic legislators will vote in favour of the government's proposals for universal suffrage. Previously, he had been "extremely pessimistic". The package of reforms for the chief executive election in 2017 is due to be announced soon.
The government is considering ways to win over democrat lawmakers. One suggestion is that it should secure promises from Beijing that if the package of proposals is approved this time, more significant reforms will be possible in the future.
Meanwhile, there is talk of a meeting between mainland officials and democrat lawmakers later this month. Such a meeting would provide a much-needed opportunity to break the political deadlock, as it did when the system was last changed in 2010.
Any optimism must, indeed, be tempered with a great deal of caution. The chances of the proposals being passed by the required two-thirds of the legislature remain remote. Democrats have vowed to vote down any package in line with the tight restrictions the central government imposed last year. Hong Kong officials, meanwhile, stress that no reforms outside of Beijing's framework are possible. All will depend on whether the government can persuade four democrat lawmakers to vote in favour. We wait to see what concessions, if any, the government is willing and able to make to win their votes.
However bleak the position may seem, there is a little more hope than at the end of last year. The government's consultation paper was released in the immediate aftermath of the Occupy Central protests. It described introducing universal suffrage for electing the chief executive as "politically the most difficult task" since the handover. A reading of the consultation paper suggested that the government had already given up on making any meaningful reforms.
Even within the tight framework laid down by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, there is much that can be done to improve the election in 2017. But the consultation paper did little to spark debate in those areas where changes can be made. Instead, it seemed to favour simply introducing universal suffrage in line with Beijing's decision and leaving everything else the same. That would be a missed opportunity.
The chances of securing sufficient votes in the Legislative Council may be slim, but the government has a responsibility to do all in its power to come up with a package that has the best prospects of appealing to moderate democrats. That must now be done.
As for the democrats, their pledge to veto any proposals in line with Beijing's decision is understandable as the restrictions it imposed are likely to ensure pan-democratic candidates are screened out in the election. Many of their supporters favour a veto, so to strike a deal with the government would be risky. The Democratic Party discovered this when it opted to back government proposals in 2010.
But the government, their supporters in Legco, and the pro-democracy camp should all be focusing on what is possible. If the proposals are voted down, Hong Kong will be stuck with the highly unsatisfactory system we have now for at least the next five years. There is a desperate need for change. A veto would also mean that much-needed changes cannot be introduced for the Legco election in 2020.
So, what is possible within Beijing's framework? Professor Simon Young Ngai-man, from the University of Hong Kong, provided some examples in a far-sighted article in this newspaper in September, as the city braced itself for the Occupy Central protests.
Candidates for chief executive must, under Beijing's framework, secure the support of half of the nominating committee. But the procedures for deciding which candidates go before the committee for approval are up for debate and should be made as open as possible.
Changes could be made to the subsectors which choose members of the committee. The current composition of these sectors, based on various trade and industry groups, is out of date. The example cited most frequently is that of the agriculture and fisheries subsector, which enjoys influence beyond its relevance to Hong Kong today. The subsectors should be reviewed and restructured, so they better reflect our society.
Corporate voting, which allows companies to exercise voting rights - rather than individuals - is open to abuse. If we are serious about democratic development, it should be scrapped.
The government showed little enthusiasm for either idea in the consultation paper. But it should be actively exploring these options.
The key to securing the necessary votes from democrats may, however, lie in what assurances are given for reform in the future. The Basic Law says universal suffrage is the ultimate aim of Hong Kong's democratic development. Are we to believe that after so many years of striving to achieve that aim, the end is the central government's tightly restricted framework?
If this is the case and further reform is not possible, no self-respecting democrat could possibly vote for the plan.
Assurances are, therefore, needed that this is not the end of the process. If the government's proposals are accepted, the door to further democratic development must remain open. This applies both to the Legco elections in 2020 and those for the chief executive in 2022.
Beijing's restrictions for the next chief executive election do not meet the aspirations of most Hong Kong people. But that should not prevent us from taking the opportunity to improve our system and lay the foundations for much more meaningful reforms in the future.
