by Koo Lap

As predicted, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) has, by a vote of 167-0, unanimously approved the amendment of the Basic Law Annex 1 and 2, which is to “improve” Hong Kong electoral system of electing the Hong Kong chief executive and the members of the Legislative Council (LegCo). Tam Yiu-chung, a member of the NPCSC, said this action “has a solid foundation of public opinion.” He was right. As we can see, the NPC has previously approved the proposal to “improve” the electoral system with 2,895 votes in favor, 0 votes against, and 1 abstention. The Standing Committee has been given the responsibility to draft the details of the amendments. The NPC did not show as much support on the 14th Five-Year Plan in comparison, as it has only 2,873 votes in favor, 11 votes against, and 12 abstentions. Are the representatives of 1.4 billion people getting confused? Is the political reform of Hong Kong more important than the national economic plan for the next five years?

Of course, we all know the so-called people’s representatives are only voting puppets. Regardless of how firm their support to “improve” Hong Kong’s electoral system is, it is only a reflection of the Party spirit but not public opinion. How many of those 2,895 members who voted in favor really know about Hong Kong’s electoral system? Do they know what they have voted? The “solid foundation of public opinion” Tam Yiu-chung referred to was probably those 2.38 million signatures collected from the Hong Kong people who supported to “improve” the electoral system, not the 2,895 voting puppets. But what is the concept of these 2.38 million signatures? There are 4.13 registered voters in Hong Kong, and 2.38 million equates to 57.6% voters, close to the 60% votes pan-Democrats received over the years. If the foundation of public opinion is solid like it made out to be by people such as Luo Huining, Tam Yiu-chung, and Matthew Cheung, why don’t we hold a referendum to prove it? Do they dare?

On the surface, it seems the amendments from the NPC do “improve” the system. First of all, there will be a restructuring of the Election Committee. The number of sectors will be increased from four to five, and the committee membership has been added 300 more to 1,500. The LegCo membership will also be expanded from 70 to 90 seats. It would appear that both have widened the foundation of public opinion and even fulfilled the “in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress” as promised by the Basic Law. Unfortunately, it is just an illusion. There is a prerequisite to “widen the foundation of public opinion.” Every candidate has to be vetted and meet the eligibility requirements, the most important of which being patriotic to China and Hong Kong. This requirement is so vague and abstract. Appealing against the vetting result is not allowed, and what the vetting committee says is final. Is that improving the system or robbing public opinion? We all know the answer to that.

The NPCSC’s so-called “improvement” is practically a suppression of public opinion. Even though the number of LegCo seats will be increased to 90 after the amendment, the directly elected seats will be reduced from 35 to 20. The District Council has been scrapped from the functional constituencies, which has been reduced to 30 seats from 35 seats. The remaining 40 seats will come from the Election Committee, with members including the Hong Kong deputies of the NPC, the Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the CPPCC, as well as representatives from local patriotic organizations. The Election Committee has been expanded to 1,500 members, but the control has also increased. Worse still, those who want to join the LegCo election have to be reviewed by the department for safeguarding national security of the Police Force and the Committee for Safeguarding National Security before the Candidate Eligibility Review Committee makes the decision. If you are lucky enough to pass the national security review, you would still need to receive a unanimous nomination from the five sectors of the Election Committee before being able to join the election. Apart from those proven-patriotic buddies, who else can possibly go through all these obstacles to enter the LegCo and fight for the voters’ support?

It shows that the aim of the so-called “improvement” is to reinforce Beijing’s control. It strictly monitors the election procedures, prevents dissidents from joining the elections, and suppresses district councils and LegCo’s directly elected seats because both represent public opinion, indicating how frightened Beijing is of the public opinion. Such a powerful country with a party that has been founded for a hundred years, where has the “Four Confidences” in the path, theory, system, and culture Xi Jinping boasted when he took office in 2012 gone?

Let’s talk about the Wuhan virus pandemic. Not only has the mainland won the fight against the pandemic, its economy rapidly rebounds afterward. The CCP should have been filled with confidence. But being so desperate to suppress the tiny Hong Kong city is not the behavior of a confident regime. The wolf warrior makes a lot of noise and provokes everyone. But is it only a fragile blow-up doll that can burst by one fine needle?

First, we have the national security law to “improve” the electoral system. Then Hong Kong will fully integrate into Xi’s new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The Chief Executive will be chosen directly by Beijing, and the three powers -- the legislative, executive, and judicial, all being hand-picked, will support each other and work together as Xi wishes. The free system of prosperous Hong Kong has been completely destroyed. A clear statement from Yoshitaka Kitao of SBI Holdings, who said, “without freedom, there is no financial business.” Will the tomorrow of freedom-less Hong Kong be better, like Jiang Zemin said? The answer is already clearly written on the wall.

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play