Has Beijing changed its mind about giving Hong Kong people the vote?
Cliff Buddle says 10 years after people were promised a say in electing their leader, we are no closer, despite having endured three chief executives whose governance suffered from having no popular mandate
All this raises the question of whether Beijing has given up on the idea of universal suffrage for Hong Kong.
In Beijing’s view, winning over the hearts and minds of Hong Kong people is not a priority
This has proved very effective. Lam secured 580 nominations, 48 per cent of the voters. Her support came exclusively from the pro-establishment camp. If all those who nominated her also vote for her in the secret ballot later this month, she will be only 21 short of victory. Barring an extraordinary shift in support, she is almost certain to be elected.
Lam is a capable public servant with many years of experience. If she wins, she is entitled to be given every chance to forge her own path. But she owes her dominant position – and likely election – to the decisive support she has received from the central government, rather than her policy platform or popularity. That, as her predecessors have found, will make Hong Kong very difficult to govern.
Just look at what has happened to the city’s first three chief executives after its return to China. The first had to resign, the second became embroiled in scandal and is now in jail and the third is widely believed to have been discouraged from standing for a second term.
All of them found it difficult to implement their policies. They have faced opposition in the legislature, challenges in the courts, and mass protests on the streets. All three have seen low popularity ratings during their time in office. So much for the idea of an executive-led system.
Lack of popular mandate would make it hard to govern Hong Kong, Carrie Lam admits
Lessons should have been learned from the circumstances in which the first chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, was re-elected for an ill-fated second term in 2002. By that time, Tung had become unpopular amid an economic downturn and various controversies. That did not prevent him, with Beijing’s support, from winning a landslide in the election. He received 714 nominations from what was then an 800-member committee. There was not even a need to proceed to a vote.
Three years later, after criticism of his administration’s handling of the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak and abandoned plans to introduce controversial national security laws, Tung resigned. While health grounds were cited, it appeared Beijing had decided on a change, opting instead for Donald Tsang, who was more popular at the time.
Tsang was also elected without the need for a vote, with 674 nominations. But the difficulties he, too, faced in governing Hong Kong led to the timetable being established for universal suffrage in 2017. There appeared to be a recognition by the authorities that a popular mandate was needed in order to give the city’s leader more legitimacy.
It is interesting to consider what might have happened if the reforms had been implemented for the 2017 election. The proposals required that there be two or three candidates competing for votes from the public. But, in order to stand, each of them would need support from at least half of the Election Committee. Lam would have had no problem getting sufficient nominations. But who would have stood against her? It seems unlikely that Tsang or Woo would have been able to gather sufficient support. Such an election would, however, have introduced a wild card – the people of Hong Kong. Beijing would have been able to exercise tight control over nominations, but not the final outcome of the election.
Watch: Zhang Dejiang’s four criteria to be Hong Kong’s chief executive
To Beijing, with love: please stay out of Hong Kong’s leadership race
This is progress of a kind. But, just as when Tung was first elected in 1996, it is the central government that determines the outcome and the overwhelming majority of Hong Kong people have no say. Lam is set to face the same problems in governing Hong Kong as her predecessors.
Can any of Hong Kong’s leadership hopefuls regain trust, and restart political reform?
Cliff Buddle is the Post’s editor, special projects