The betrayal of Hong Kong
Far from 'answering queries and putting an end to disputes', the Basic Law interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has raised more questions than answers. The interpretation has put in place two additional hurdles for changing the way in which the chief executive and legislative councillors are elected. Tantamount to a revision of the law, the interpretation has dealt a heavy blow to the 'one country, two systems' principle and that of a 'high degree of autonomy'.
One such hurdle is to empower the chief executive to report to the Standing Committee on whether there is a need to amend the methods of electing the chief executive and legislature. To add insult to injury, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa announced last Thursday that he had submitted his report to the Standing Committee. Instead of heeding our call to consult widely and publish the report before submitting it, Mr Tung presented the report with lightning speed. The manner in which he handled the matter reflects the low priority of public opinion. To send in the report without prior consultation or publication is bad enough. The content of the report is even worse. A reasonable man would expect it to state the reasons for a need to change. Far from it. It contained nine factors which Mr Tung said Hong Kong should have regard to when considering changes. These pre-conditions, imposed by Mr Tung and his administration, create additional hurdles to direct elections. This is tantamount to another interpretation of the Basic Law. But this time, the culprit is our special administrative region government.
It is a report that turns its back on the people; a betrayal of our interests. It is clear from the report that Mr Tung serves the leaders in Beijing, not the people of Hong Kong. Although he says that public opinion must be taken into account, his actions suggest the opposite. The second report by the Constitutional Development Taskforce said that more than 50 per cent of those polled in recent surveys are in favour of selecting the chief executive by universal suffrage in 2007, while around 60 per cent support election of all members of Legco by universal suffrage in 2008. Not only did Mr Tung fail to mention the clamour for direct elections in 2007 and 2008 in his report, the conditions he listed amount to proclaiming that direct elections in these years are out of the question.
For a start, the report states that 'development towards the ultimate aim of universal suffrage must progress in a gradual and orderly manner, step by step. The pace should not be too fast'. While this may look like stating the obvious, a careful reading between the lines may highlight an expansion of the principle of 'gradual and orderly progress'. This may be conveniently used to pre-empt universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008.
Another condition is that 'any proposed amendments must aim at consolidating the executive-led system headed by the chief executive and must not deviate from this principle of design'. The irony lies in the fact that it is a deviation from a principle stated in the Basic Law - that the executive branch of the government must be accountable to the legislature.
A third condition which bodes ill for direct elections is that 'any proposed amendments must enable different sectors of society to be represented in the political structure and to participate in politics through various channels'. Implicit in this principle is the intention to preserve the functional constituencies to ensure that sectors with vested interests would not be excluded. The idea that the preservation of the functional constituencies ensures 'balanced participation' is illusory. Direct election ensures equal opportunities for all sectors in political participation, and is in fact the best way to ensure 'balanced representation'. But this may have been lost on Mr Tung, whose dislike for democracy is no new hat.
If certain sectors are not ready for direct elections, this is not a good reason for erecting barriers to direct elections, let alone by means of imposing preconditions to changing the political system.
That Mr Tung did not fully reflect the views of the people of Hong Kong makes the report flawed and lacking legitimacy. Added to this is the fact that some of the conditions listed in the report are not grounded in the Basic Law. Nowhere in the Basic Law is the principle of consolidating the executive-led system headed by the chief executive mentioned. And the principle of 'gradual and orderly progress' and 'balanced representation' are elaborated and expanded in such a way that deviates from the original intention of the law, virtually making the act another interpretation, if not a revision, of the Basic Law.
The flawed report can be remedied, if Mr Tung so wishes. In a meeting with the chief executive last week, democrats called for a supplementary report, containing public opinion on direct elections in 2007 and 2008. This call went unheeded. By creating stumbling blocks to universal suffrage and presenting us with a fait accompli, Mr Tung has again unilaterally handed to Beijing the already fragile concept of a 'high degree of autonomy'.
The attempt to dampen hopes for direct elections in 2007 and 2008 by our own government may be daunting even for the most resolute. I urge you not to stop fighting for direct elections in 2007 and 2008. The national security legislation saga proved how people power, and unwavering commitment to democracy, can change things. Our people have made history; let us make history again.
Yeung Sum is chairman of the Democratic Party and a directly elected legislative councillor