Letter to Hong Kong By Emily Lau, Democratic Party Legislative Councillor Broadcast on Radio 3, RTHK on 1 December 2013 Last Wednesday I received a call from a friend in the pro-democracy movement saying universal suffrage in 2017 is under threat and urged the Democratic Party to take action. What prompted this urgent phone call was the visit by the chairman of the Basic Law Committee of the National Peoples Congress Standing Committee, Li Fei, who is also deputy secretary-general of the NPC Standing Committee. During his visit last week, Mr Li delivered a disturbing message which made many Hong Kong people feel that universal and equal suffrage in 2017 is unattainable. Although the message was not unexpected, many people still feel angry and frustrated. Mr Li was invited to Hong Kong by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Carrie Lam, who heads a three-member team to take charge of constitutional reform. Later this month, Mrs Lam will make a statement in Legco to kick off the public consultation process. In sending Mr Li to Hong Kong before the start of the public consultation process, Beijing wants to signify that it is determined to seize control of the process. In so doing, it may even adopt ways that go beyond the requirements of the Basic Law. To people who want to see universal suffrage in 2017, such development is ominous. During his three-day visit, Mr Li outlined Beijings framework for election of the chief executive in 2017. He said the candidates would be chosen by the nominating committee which is stipulated in the Basic Law. But he also stressed the nominating committee would be formed in strict accordance with the composition of the election committee that chose the four chief executives since the handover in 1997. Such requirement, as we all know, is not found in the Basic Law. In March last year, C Y Leung was elected chief executive by a committee of 1,200 people. He won by securing 689 votes. Furthermore, the chief executive election committee which chose Mr Leung was only elected by less than a quarter of a million people. Compared to the 3.4 million registered voters, such an electoral method is grossly undemocratic and unfair. To use a similar method to choose the nominating committee would be totally unacceptable. Mr Li also reiterated the point made by Qiao Xiaoyang in March when he met pro-Beijing Legco members in Shenzhen. Mr Qiao is chairman of the Law Committee of the NPC Standing Committee. Both Mr Qiao and Mr Li emphasized the chief executive must love the country and love Hong Kong and anyone who confronts the central government cannot become chief executive. Again such requirement is nowhere to be found in the Basic Law. After laying down Beijings requirements, Mr Li urged the Hong Kong people to discuss how the candidates should be nominated by the nominating committee, but stressed the nominating committee should decide collectively. This is interpreted as a means for vetting the candidates, and those deemed unacceptable to Beijing would be screened out. This is unacceptable. Mr Li also suggested it would be reasonable to put a cap on the number of candidates, arguing that too many might lead to complex procedures and soaring expenses. Again such limit cannot be found in the Basic Law. Mr Lis pronouncements have, as expected, sparked off many attempts to read and second guess the intentions of Beijing, like people trying to second guess the wishes of the emperor thousands of years ago. In sending Mr Li to Hong Kong to lay down the political reform framework, Beijing is responding to the call of its supporters, who are not sure what they should say. In the 2010 political reform process, people in the pro-Beijing camp learned a bitter lesson. After amendments proposed by the Democratic Party were rejected by the SAR and central governments, Beijing suddenly changed its mind and accepted my partys proposal. The last minute turn-around stunned and embarrassed many people in the pro-Beijing camp and made them very cautious about expressing their views, lest they should be caught by surprise again. The chief executive small circle election last year proved equally unsettling for pro-Beijing politicians, because they were initially led to believe that Henry Tang would be given the top job. But at a very late stage, Beijing changed its mind and backed C Y Leung. Up to now, the rift between the two camps is not healed and there is still a lot of bitterness and mistrust. In 2010, my party supported the package for limited constitutional reform, paving the way for gradual and orderly progress as stipulated in Article 45 of the Basic Law. After that, Beijing announced that the Hong Kong people can choose the chief executive by universal suffrage in 2017, and after that, all members of the Legislative Council can be elected by universal suffrage. This is a solemn promise made by the central government. While many people here do not believe Beijing will honour its undertaking, but they have urged my party to do our utmost to make Beijing deliver. According to the Basic Law, the passage of the constitutional reform package in Legco requires the support of two-third of its members. There are now 70 Legco members, so it requires a minimum of 47 votes to get the package passed, and that is a tall order, given how divided Legco is. In order for Legco and the community to reach a consensus on universal suffrage in 2017, different political parties should begin talking to each other to work out their differences. What my party would like to see is an election which would allow people with different political persuasion to compete. I hope the political parties in Legco understand that it is futile and repugnant to try to create a mechanism to bar people from standing for election. We should also recognize the price for failing to reach a consensus is very high. Many people will flock to Occupy Central, using the demonstration to vent their anger and frustration. The end result, as forecast by Legco President Tsang Yok Sing, is that Hong Kong would become ungovernable. As the SAR government gets ready to consult the public on constitutional reform, it should be obvious to all sides that the stakes are extremely high. If the process is not handled properly, it could have calamitous consequences. ENDS
Posted on: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:10:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015