by Lo Fung

The high-profile public consultations on Hong Kong’s electoral system reform, which were attended by senior officials in the central government, have drawn to a close. Ordinary citizens will never know what suggestions have been given by those 1,000 people who were lucky enough to attend, except for some major changes such as the seat distribution of the new LegCo (Legislative Council). It would appear that the central government already has a plan in hand: the Election Committee will occupy the majority of the seats, which could be 40 or 50 seats. There will definitely be fewer directly-elected seats, which will possibly go back down to 20 seats, the same as the first-ever LegCo.

Some said the big reduction of directly-elected seats means returning to the starting point and making a new beginning. The Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew Cheung has flatly denied it is democratic backsliding. But someone like Cheung is so unconvincing that he sounds more like he is covering up the truth. There were only 20 directly-elected seats in the first LegCo, which, at the time, had only in total 60 seats. It means the seats elected using “one person, one vote” was at least a third of the total number of seats. The number of seats of the “improved” LegCo will be drastically increased to 90 seats. If there are only 20 directly-elected seats, the ratio will reduce to 22%, less than a quarter. In other words, whether the actual number of seats or the proportion, the directly-elected seats will be hugely decreased and even worse than the starting point of the first LegCo. How could that not be a big step backward?

Besides, the so-called “consultation” of the new system is nowhere near as strenuous and detailed as the final drafting of the Basic Law’s Annex 1 and 2. I recall, when I was reporting the drafting of the Basic Law, the members of the Constitutional Development Task Force had put forward many proposals. There were many heated exchanges during the discussions, and each of their argument was well-founded. It was literally a huge debate between political theory and practice. They have implemented what Deng Xiaoping had said, that no one will be rejected because of the person’s particular political belief. On the other hand, the “improved” electoral system has been finalized in one step, very “efficient” but without detailed discussions. People and organizations with different opinions, especially the pro-democratic camp, which has been working hard on pursuing double universal suffrage, have been ignored. The consultation process is nearly as backward as the proposal itself.

The “privileged” ones who took part in the consultation have uttered shocking comments that baffled and unsettled people. For example, Zhang Xiaoming, Deputy Director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, cited one participant as saying, “if we are lost and the road is blocked, why don’t we make up our minds and go back to the starting point to embark on the right path and start afresh?” He even said these comments were inspiring. The saying of Hong Kong having “lost its way” or “gone down the wrong path” in the past 20 years, endorsed by Zhang the “imperial envoy,” will be taken seriously by many, and become an important justification for Beijing and SAR government to extensively change Hong Kong’s electoral system. But has Hong Kong really lost its way in the last 20 years? Have we been going down the wrong path to demand democratic development and double universal suffrage under the principle of gradual and orderly progress stipulated in the Basic Law?

It has always been the political development blueprint of the Basic Law to develop democracy, including the implementation of double universal suffrage, gradually. It is also a promise from Beijing’s central government and the previous SAR governments. According to the Basic Law, Article 68 clearly states, “the ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage”; Article 45 also states that the ultimate aim is electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. With these constitutional goals and responsibilities, the number of seats elected by universal suffrage gradually increased to 30. Under the constitutional reform package passed in 2010, five district council “super seats” from universal suffrage have been added to increase the universal suffrage’s element in LegCo. It means in the last 20 years, the political and electoral system reforms have been carried out according to the Basic Law blueprint; previous Chief Executives, SAR governments, LegCo, and political parties have all been abiding by the law without going astray. How could they now say Hong Kong has lost its way or gone the wrong way and must “turn around” and regress to the time before the 80s? Is developing the political system as per the Basic Law a wrong path?

Citizens, especially the pan-democrats, who have been tirelessly fighting for double universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and LegCo elections in the last 20 years, are neither lost nor going the wrong path. First of all, a universal and equal election is not a perfect system but still better than other systems involving only a small circle of people. It ensures a peaceful and orderly transfer of power and seats; its overall governance is closer to public opinion and people’s sentiment, which can avoid excessive concentration of power and cannot be restrained, etc. Judging by history and experience, a democratic political system with the basis of universal suffrage is a goal worth fighting for and more pros than cons to Hong Kong’s long-term development and stability. What Hong Kong citizens have been trying to achieve in these 20 years is long-lasting peace, and that is not a wrong path.

Furthermore, double universal suffrage is a promise from the central government and the Basic Law. Hongkongers are only heading to the goal that is a guarantee written in black and white. It is logical and legal. On the contrary, to cast the set goal of the Basic Law aside instead of putting the best effort to achieve it is irresponsible, time-wasting, and slowing down the pace of Hong Kong development. And that is what caused Hong Kong to lose its way.

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