Dear Ivy,

This is a voting day. This is an unusual voting day. We never before have any voting exercise like this one, and we might never have another chance to voice our opinion on democratization through the ballot box again.

This voting exercise does not come easy. Five legislative councillors resigned from their office to trigger this by-election turned de-facto referendum. It is meant to kick off a vigorous public debate on the upcoming constitutional reform, and Hong Kong people could cast a vote to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the proposal by the government. This is of course, not pleasing to the HKSAR and the Beijing government, because the result of the voting is an accurate gauge of public opinion, which is not the same picture as the government tried to paint.

The Hong Kong government announced in mid April its proposal on the two electoral methods for the chief executive and the legislative council in 2012. The proposal keeps 50% of the seats in the legislative council for functional constituencies; and threshold to the nomination to the election of chief executive will even be higher for the democratic camp. Devils hide in the details of indirect election in the District Council option. The expansion of functional constituencies through indirect election will not increase the power of people, and it cannot hold the legislators so elected be more accountable to the public.

This proposal gives no next step forward. The government asked us to believe in the well meaning of the Central government that equal and universal suffrage could be installed in 2017 and 2020. But I just cannot and will not take empty words any more. What promise could be more solemn than the “one country two system” in the Basic Law? Yet the Basic Law could be subject to re-interpretation by the National Peoples’ Congress. Equal and universal suffrage has been delayed and refused once in the 2005 proposal, and the government will delay further with the present one. This time, we have to tell the two governments loud and clear that we are in urgent need of democracy to resolve our deep rooted conflict with a fair and just mechanism that common folks could take part in with equal political right. And our vote today will send this message effectively.

The administration claims to have support of the majority with 1.6 million signatures gathered by the pro-establishment political parties. This figure is not a concrete proof of support from the majority. Identity of the signatories is not checked, people could be doubly counted. The democrats also claim support from 60% of the public, with reference to telephone polling in the past years. All of the above is not the most scientific, not the most objective count.

Hong Kong needs an accurate answer, which could be derived from counting the vote one by one, with every voter’s identity checked to eliminate double counting. And the vote is casted after months of debate. It is the result of deliberative democracy, not a casual answer given to the polling agent on telephone line. The final number will tell the truth.

Apparently, the truth is the last thing that the government wants to see. The administration would not recognize the de-facto referendum brought forth by this voting exercise. First, Beijing named it unconstitutional, but HK officials could not find any print in our law book to support this allegation. Hong Kong officials call it an unnatural election. There are small tricks to cut down publicity and to discourage people from voting. Street banners were not cleared to make room for election campaign. Words to call for higher turn out rate that usually appeared on government poster disappeared. There is no major media event for the chairman of the Electoral Affairs Committee to publicize the voting exercise. The last boycotting action came from the chief executive; he refused to confirm whether he will cast his vote or not.

Exercise of voting right is a personal decision. But that doesn’t apply for the chief executive. To promote the voting exercise is one of the public duties that he has to discharge. In spite of different political stand of the ruling party and its opposition, all government has a duty to hold a free and fair election. It shall not intervene or manipulate. Or the election will be corrupted by foul play, and the system will fall apart.

Secret ballot is part of democracy. Voters should not be under threat when they cast their vote. Their choice should be kept confidential. But when the Central government goes for boycott, voters are worried that once they enter the polling station, they could be identified for going against the wish of Beijing. Though the Civil Service Bureau issued statement to assure civil servants that they could vote to their free will, deed is better than words, if the chief executive will not take lead to vote this time, white terror would not be lifted.

In this case, the absence of one voter could impair the security of the secret ballot. This voter is the chief executive.

Yes, we have to go through blocks and barricades on the way to democracy. Casting a vote is an easy step. And one small step by everyone could carry a strong message. This voting exercise is not just about getting the resigned legislators back to office, it is an answer we owe ourselves that is, how hard do we urge for democracy?

I wish this mail get through to you in time. Don’t let the sun set without your vote.

Cyd

On a very unusual voting day

16th May, 2010

Letter to Hong Kong (2010-05-15)