Dear Emily,

Hong Kong people have remarkable success in economy with very little natural resources. We boast of efficiency of infra- structure and free trading that befits a modern city, yet we lag behind in democracy. It never surprises anybody that the Administration is not responsive to public opinion from air quality to alleviation of poverty because the political system cannot hold the executive accountable to Hong Kong people.

As speculated, the consultation on constitutional reform will be released in the next few days, but pro-establishment political party hurried to present its proposal which was echoed by information source. The practice of testing water has become a norm, not an exception. As put forth by the DAB, the proposal for constitutional reform is a replica of the 2005 proposal, which is not a progress in democratization.

In this district council based proposal, the election committee for the chief executive will be expanded from 800 members to 1200 members. Nomination required will be increased from 100 to 150. District Council members will elect among themselves 100 members to the political sector in the election committee. The other three sectors will be increased also by 100 members each. Method to elect or select these new members is not yet specified. The Legislative Council will be expanded from 60 seats to 70. To keep the one to one ratio between the geographical constituencies and the functional constituencies, both will be increased by 5 seats. District Council members will elect among themselves 5 members to join the functional constituencies in the legislative council. Election method is not specified, and bi-cameral vote counting will stay unchanged.

The proposal is not a step forward in democratization, because a mere increase in number to expand the election committee and the legislative council does not give more power to people.

Since the defeat of the 2005 proposal in the Legislative Council, the chief executive and his political appointees put the blame on the pan-democrats. They drummed up the message that the pan-democrats had blocked the progress.

I beg to differ.

Progress in constitutional reform has to come from the steps forward taken by the Central government from its bottom line of taking control. Any compromise by the pan-democrats without the Central government letting go control through its appointees will not result in progress in democratization. The 2005 proposal, like the present one, makes no change in the basic structure of the political system. With equal increase in number for all sectors in the election committee, and same increase for the functional constituencies and the geographical constituencies, there is no shift of power from the political privileged to representative elected directly by Hong Kong people.

The Central government takes control by setting a high threshold of nomination in the chief executive election, and keeping a one-to-one ratio between the functional constituencies and the geographical constituencies in the legislative council. This was set in the Decision by the National Peoples’ Congress in 2007. The pan-democrats and academics could scratch their head off to circumvent the Decision or modify the functional constituencies with widened franchise, but if the NPC insists on the control as set in the Decision, there will hardly be any real progress in the 2012 elections. That’s why the pan-democrats asked for direct dialogue with leaders of the Central government when the executive chief refused to take our message across.

The NPC Decision promised that one man one vote could be considered in the chief executive election in 2017, but possible screening of candidate in the nomination process would undermine the right to be elected and could bar off candidates unwelcome by Beijing. To avoid screening, the pan-democrats asked to lower the number of nomination from 100 to 50. On top of that, any candidate who could secure direct nomination from 100,000 registered voters should be endorsed by the nomination committee. The present proposal increases 100 members to each of the four sectors, and it also raises the threshold by 50%. The control is not relaxed, and district councilors indirectly elected to the nomination committee cannot be effectively held accountable to their voters for their decision on nomination.

For the legislative council, the district council option is even worse. The constituency of a district councilor is very small. Population in a district council constituency is 17,000 on average. A deviation of 25% is allowed. It could be just four blocks in a public housing estate. When victory in election in a very small district is the entry ticket to the legislature, the system will force the member to put small district interest above public interest. The not-in-my-back-yard practice will be magnified in the legislative council. When it comes to town planning, transportation and communal facilities, the debate for public good will be biased with narrow district interest.

I visited three central European countries in September to study their democratization since 1989. They are going through debate on whether official from the region should be allowed to run for parliamentary election, because a city mayor who is also a member of the parliament would be in an advantageous position to bid for national resources, and that is unfair for other cities that don’t have their mayor to compete for resources in the parliament. We should not repeat this mistake.

There are 3.37 million registered voters in geographical constituencies, but only 220,000 voters for the functional constituencies. Worse, the bi-cameral vote counting system enables half of the functional constituencies to veto member’s resolution in the legislature. Representation of the general public is tragically distorted. The district council option makes no change to the power structure. There will be five members added to both section to keep the tie.

Democratization of the legislature has to start with cutting the functional constituencies, and / or widening of franchise until the number of voters for the functional constituencies is comparable to that of geographical constituencies, so that Hong Kong people is fairly represented in the legislature. The current proposal makes no effort in either direction.

I see the need to enhance public participation in district administration. It should not stay a consultative body on public hygiene, sports and cultural facilities only. After the abolition of the two urban councils in 2000, their former power should have been passed onto the district council. But getting district councilors into the legislature would only create another privileged group.

Equal and universal suffrage by 2012 is a matter of urgency. When there is much distrust between the government and people, democratic election is the door to effective governance. Although it is not a quick fix to every problem, the ballot box could return a chief executive who is obliged to address peoples’ concern and a legislature that will safeguard public interest whole heartedly.

Your long time friend,

Cyd


http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/radio3/lettertohongkong/20091115.html