By Lo Fung

The recent political fiasco around “the perfection of the political system” reminds me of two movies from the 1980s and 1990s. One is Back to the Future, and the other is Groundhog Day, both of which played with the idea of finding a way out through time travel. In Back to the Future, the protagonist successfully rewrote history in 1985 and turned his father from a sad, fearful creature into a brave person who pursues his dreams, and the former “villain” who bullies his family has turned into a “follower”. The annoying weather anchor in Groundhog Day “turned over a new leaf” after being reincarnated repeatedly, learned to play the piano and French poetry and changed from a selfish to a generous person.

Very unfortunately, Hong Kong’s “perfecting the electoral system” fiasco only returns to several decades ago and is stuck in a specific time and space, similar to the movie, yet the other aspects, especially the ending, are a whole different story. Hongkongers not only cannot win over the “beauty” – democracy – but have also found themselves trapped in the infinite cycle of small circle elections. Every morning when they wake up, they find themselves back in the same spot.

A careful examination of the explanation from the mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials and lawmakers who just passed the bill in the National People’s Congress, it states that the “perfected” electoral system is exactly what the Basic Law had proposed during the draft stages. At that time, all the bills and proposals supported and acquiesced by mainland officials would necessarily include a number of seats in the Legislative Council elected by the Election Committee, and the only difference was the ratio; sound accounted for 40%, others for a third, and some for 20%. How does the reintroduction of this “safety switch” not remind one of the 1980s? The difference is that when the Basic Law was drafted at that time, the consensus was that the electoral committee seats were a transitional arrangement and would be reduced with the gradual development of the political system. In the final draft, the first and second terms of the legislative councils of the SAR would have 10, then 6 members elected by the committee, and by the third term, those seats would all be canceled; the seats originally elected by the election committee would be replaced by the directly elected seats by the districts.

As such, no matter the discussion that happened during that time, or the legislative intent of the Basic Law and its specific provisions, the gradual and orderly development of the political system, especially the Legislative Council, means that direct elections would replace the seats by the electoral committee, and it was for each and every vote by the citizens to replace the seats from small circle elections. Yet, the newly “perfected” electoral mechanism has reintroduced the seats determined by the Election Committee, and they could take up at least a third of the seats in the Legislative Council. Moreover, the “super seats” from the District Council that were originally introduced to enhance representations of the functional constituency have been abolished, and the directly elected seats that once made up half of the Legislative Council have been reduced to a minority. Comparing the two, the “perfection plan” has clearly brought Hong Kong’s political system back to the state of the 1980s. It is hard to believe that there is no regression.

Moreover, what has gone into regression is not only the content of the bill, but also the process of its introduction. Although those of my generation who have experienced the process of drafting and consulting the Basic Law may not agree to the final results, they have to admit that the drafting process was rigorous and serious. From the establishment of the drafting committee, Beijing had focused on consulting Hongkongers from different sectors, backgrounds, and political affiliations which included Kuomintang’s organization in Hong Kong and a variety of trade unions. For every single article, a draft for solicitation of feedback came before amendments; Hongkongers were allowed to submit their opinions in writing, and there was a myriad of open consultations and discussions which allowed people of different opinions to exchange and discuss ideas. Until the very last meeting of the Drafting Committee, the officials were still taking in feedback before they made the final decision. Such a process met the requirements of openness and humility. It adhered to strict and rigorous procedures, and Hongkongers felt that their opinions were greatly respected.

This time, with the perfection of the electoral system, it was a completely different story. The bill passed by the National People’s Congress had not gone through any public consultation in Hong Kong prior, and was only discussed by Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office officials behind a few closed-door consultations in Shenzhen, before it was hurriedly launched and passed in the NPC General Assembly. There are at most a few hundred that were consulted, among which the pan-democratic political groups, dissidents, and professional organizations were all absent (guess Third Side’s Tik Chi-yuen will be too embarrassed to call himself a pan-democrat). In other words, from its proposal to its passage, there have only been a few months in between. There was no repeated discussion around the proposal and each article, and most citizens have been kept in the dark. This is a completely different story from the careful, meticulous, and open discussion of the policy before it was finalized 40 years ago. Is this not a huge step back? If this is not regression, what is?

What is more frightening is that certain significant political figures such as Rita Fan, a former member of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, even publicly stated that the pan-democratic faction is not even qualified to be in the consultation process. Whether this is her personal opinion, or representative of the government, who would know? We only know that the chief architect of reform and opening up, Deng Xiaoping himself, said that even Hongkongers who believe in slavery and feudalism were to be included and accepted, not excluded!

It is said that for some time in the future, Beijing and the SAR government will carry out large-scale explanation work (not consultation) on the new electoral system. Zhang Xiaoming, executive deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, will also make a special trip to Hong Kong. However, no matter how good he and his officials are with the “art of talking”, there is no whitewashing of the impression and fact that Hong Kong’s political system has regressed 40 years.

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