-
by Dr Leung Kai-chi, Assistant Programme
Director, Leadership Development Section, University General Education, The
Chinese University of Hong Kong
-
translated to English by Cliff
Wong
Question
1: What has happened in Hong Kong?
Hongkongers are now fighting for a fair and
open universal suffrage proposal in a peaceful way. The Basic Law, the
mini-constitution of Hong Kong, stipulates that, at last, the Chief Executive
to be elected via universal suffrage. The National People’s Congress Standing
Committee (NPCSC hereafter) had decided, in 2007, Hong Kong could implement
universal suffrage in 2017. These are the bases for Hongkonger’s strong desire
for universal suffrage. The Chief Executive is now elected by a 1,200-member
Election Committee. Candidates running for the top post of Hong Kong needs a
simple majority of 601 votes currently.
The entire process may not truly reflect
the opinions of Hong Kong citizens as many deemed that the Election Committee could not represent Hong Kong people. Therefore, many Hongkongers demand a change to the election
system. Nevertheless, the NPCSC has stipulated, in her decision in August 2014,
that the Election Committee to transform to the Nominating Committee which carries
the filtering function before candidates are put forth for universal suffrage.
Candidates need to obtain over half votes from the Nominating Committee before
running for the election. This means that the current framework laid down by
NPCSC does not eliminate the 1,200 people – it instead strengthens the power
enjoyed by the current Election Committee.
Question
2: I don’t understand – what the hell is this 1,200 committee?
The 1,200-strong Election Committee is one
of core storm in the current debates of constitutional reform in Hong Kong. The
Election Committee is divided mainly by industries, like the Eateries and
Travelling. But we have to say sorry if you happen to be employed in these
industries because only the owners could be involved in the Election Committee.
Vote-rigging is simple by opening more shell companies with candidates
inclining to the Business sector.
Moreover, the composition of the Election
Committee is not even. The Education sector now has 30 seats, elected by all
teachers, totaling 81,831 people. The Fisheries and Agriculture sector owns 60
seats but only with 4,000 people in the industry. The more shocking fact is
except 158 government-approved representatives, all other people in the
Fisheries and Agriculture sector are not eligible for Election Committee.
Indeed the local government of the last cabinet has the say on how the Election
Committee should form. This signals the inequality of the Election Committee.
There are now over 3.5 million of
registered voters who could elect their representatives in Hong Kong
legislature and the District Council. Nonetheless, there are less than 240
thousand people eligible to elect members of the Election Committee. In other
words, over 3 million Hong Kong people are not represented in the Election
Committee.
Question
3: It is normal to incline to the Business sector since Hong Kong is under capitalist
rule.
The current election system is detrimental
to the development of capitalism in Hong Kong. Capitalism often expands the
wealth gap, with a widening difference between the rich and the poor inducing
social unrest. Hong Kong’s wealth gap in the past 10 years has been famous of
the world, adding fuel to the instability of the society. A business-inclined
political system will result in many short-sighted policies which is
unfavourable to the business environment. In fact, one of the most important
conditions for the success of capitalism is a fair market, built upon a
democratic system which could check corruption. Inclining to the Business
sector may in the end create policies favourable to individual parties only,
leading to unfairness of the market. If you observe the rest of the world, a
fair and just political system is necessary for many capitalist countries with
different wealth gaps. Hong Kong now tops the Economist's "crony capitalism index". The current election system in Hong Kong will not lead
to benefits of the most.
(Note: Modifications to the translated version
Question 3:
Phrase香港現在已列全球裙帶資本主義的首位，
It is skipped in the translated version, now translated as:
Hong Kong now tops the Economist's "crony capitalism index".)
Question
4: Regardless of what Hongkongers want, we need to cater China’s thoughts and
reality. We cannot copy direct the Western model of democratic political
system!
The Chinese government has promised that
Hong Kong’s political development must comply with international standards by
listing that International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR
hereafter) applies to Hong Kong in the Basic Law. ICCPR clearly indicates no
unreasonable restrictions to be imposed on civilians who wish to participate in
governance. The United Nations’ Human Rights Council further interprets that
citizens’ right to join elections must not be limited by unjustified or
discriminatory reasons including but not limited to political affiliations.
As far as reality is concerned, the true
fact is that Hong Kong will become ungovernable if without genuine universal
suffrage. The demand is the key to solve or alleviate many political and social
problems of Hong Kong (Question 6). Nobody has demand a complete copy of the US
model or the UK system; Hongkongers are just fighting to ensure a genuine
choice is available in elections of the city’s top person via the election
system. There is open discussion on how to implement this principle.
China’s thoughts? In a commentary back on 2nd
February 1944 in Xinhua Daily, a fair and just system must ensure not only the
right to vote, but also the right to participate in elections. With the
skyrocketing development of China, she should have a higher ability to sustain
in political reforms.
Question
5: A step-by-step approach is better – why not allowing the 3.5-million-strong
voters to vote first even the nominating process has problems? Isn’t it a step
forward?
Following the framework of NPCSC, the
democratic process will retard instead of improvement. Five elections (including
a supplementary one) in the past required only a one-eighth threshold to be
nominated. Two elections had observed candidates with different political views
able to go on public debate. With the threshold now raised to a half,
candidates filtered in the proposed system will no longer be a genuine choice. Instead
it will become rubber stamp for candidates honoured by Beijing. This explains
why Hongkongers would prefer no change instead of a step forward like this.
Question
6: How could Hong Kong develop with you guys arguing everyday?
Admittedly speaking, ongoing arguments are
a nuisance. So how to solve disputes? We are not condemning those who lead to arguments;
we are here to design a system that everyone is convinced of so that a final
decision could be reached in the course of arguing. That’s why we deem genuine
universal suffrage is a must. The candidate elected from universal suffrage
could implement policies with his mandate from the people. Losers could return
if they are not convinced of. No endless debates will exist as a result. The
current political chaos and failed government is the result of lack of true
universal suffrage. Therefore, we are here to fight for a dash instead of
initiating new rounds of endless debates.
In the distorted election system and the
legislature of Hong Kong, pro-establishment camp will always get the rule while
the pro-democracy camp becomes the prolonged opposition parties. This unhealthy
situation leads to the lack of political talents in Hong Kong. The pro-establishment
has no need to bear the consequences for policies and legislations deemed
failure later. Vice versa, the pro-democracy camp will never get their
political requests realized. Political talents have no intention to join the
pro-democracy camp and will not be recruited by the pro-establishment camp,
leading to a poorer governance level of the city. The fight for universal
suffrage is to correct the current distorted problem.
Question
7: Hong Kong is part of the Chinese territory; we cannot make decision on our
own without consulting the Chinese government?
The Chinese government has promised
Hongkongers could make decision on their own. Our legislature’s election could
prove this, since the Basic Law only requires the government to inform NPCSC
for any changes of the election system. Back in 1993, the then Director of the
Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, Lu Ping, had indicated
publicly of Chinese government non-interference over Hong Kong’s path to
democracy, which he claimed is an internal affair within Hong Kong. There is no
need to seek China’s consent on changes of the election method of the city’s
Legislature.
Back to the Chief Executive election, many
local political parties and scholars have put forth different proposals which
could completely fit in the requirements of the Basic Law and at the same time
able to ensure genuine universal suffrage system is in place. However, all
these proposals are put down by the NPCSC’s framework. The decision from the
mainland congress is the reason why Hong Kong is vulnerable to social unrest.
Question
8: How about the question of national security? Many foreign forces have wanted
to create chaos via Hong Kong, how is it possible to design an electoral system
without limits?
National security does not go in conflict
with genuine universal suffrage. Many Hongkongers have accepted that the
Chinese government has the ultimate right to appoint Chief Executive. The Basic
Law has required the elected candidate must be appointed by the central
government, meaning that the central government has the right not to appoint
somebody. The public has not opposed this requirement in previous consultations
by the government.
If so happen a foreign spy is joining the
election, the Chinese government could release information of this spy and
indicated clearly that appointing a spy is not possible. It is easy and
reliable with sufficient evidence. The proposed Nominating Committee is not an
international relations expert in the end – they do not have the ability to
rule out “foreign forces” on behalf of Hongkongers and the central government.
National security is only an excuse unless an international relations
examination is needed before joining the Nominating Committee.
Question
9: How about Hongkongers elect someone who oppose the communist government in
China?
Trust the system – US President is elected
by US citizens and the New York mayor is from the choices of New York people.
However, the two key persons may not agree with each other’s political view.
New York mayor may, at times, disagree with US President publicly but we do not
observe the development of New York turns downward. UK has once experienced a
Conservative rule of the Parliament with a Labour rule of the London city
chamber. In Taiwan, the Taipei (Taiwan’s capital) mayor may also have different
views with the Taiwan president. We have not experienced a downfall of UK or
Taiwan either because of political difference. Confidence is the key, both to
the central government and Hong Kong people.
Question
10: Why Hong Kong people are still not satisfied when you guys have already
enjoyed a very high degree of freedom?
Freedom, democracy and rule of law are
complementary to each other. A government not elected by her people will not be
pressurized to maintain the freedom of her people. An undemocratic procedure of
forming legislation will lead to injustice even with a fair court since the
judicial power needs to judge based on the legislation. Over the past 10 years
Hongkongers have found their freedom and rule of law have been eroded with no
protection from a democratic rule. The Sino-British Joint Declaration ensures
the lifestyle of Hong Kong people to remain unchanged for 50 years. However,
who to execute and monitor this guarantee without support from a democratic
system?
Question
11: No violent means are needed in the fight of democracy!
There is no one who seeks violence in the
course of fighting democracy. We are now engaged in public gatherings to
request the government to respond. We do not possess any weapons nor any
harmful materials. The only violent party right now is the police who aims at
disperse the crowd. Pressure groups who lead the demonstration have repeatedly
reiterated that the non-violent principle must be maintained. Protestors have
raised their hands to indicate their non-resistance when the police act on
them.
Moreover, Hong Kong general public has
adopted many peaceful means before. In the previous consultation launched by
the government, over 120 thousands of people and parties have submitted their
proposals and views, but it was left distorted by the government and not truly
reflected to NPCSC. Now our option of direct demonstration is the result of
ignorance of other means.
Question
12: But the students have already stormed the government headquarters?
NO – the students has only entered the
civic square outside the government headquarters by climbing the barricade
recently set up. According to Town Planning Board, the square was originally a
public space. Public gatherings have also been held in the past. The recent
chaos is due to police’s restriction for citizens to gather in the square.
Question
13: It was only a showdown by politicians! The students are misled!
This is a student-led movement, politicians
are criticized for failing to stay with pace. The reality is the opposite of
the claim. In a macro view, protestors have a very strong rationale though it
appears to be radical. In today’s Hong Kong, even if you get majority vote in election, you are still a minority in the chamber, and never have any chance of running the government. The abnormal legislature originated from unjust
political system. Over the years, many principle officials, including the Chief
Executive, has been accused of numerous scandals and allegations of
business-government collusion. However, there was huge difficulty in
establishing an investigation, not to say any prosecution. “With great power
comes great responsibility.” – However, in Hong Kong’s political sphere, the
opposite is true. This has set up a very bad example for the future generation.
(Note: Modifications to the translated
version
Question 13:
Phrase在今天的香港，就算你獲得多數的選票，也只會得到少數的議席，更完全沒有機會執政。
It is skipped in the translated version,
now translated as:
In today’s Hong Kong, even if you get
majority vote in election, you are still a minority in the chamber, and never
have any chance of running the government.
Phrase 常言能力越大責任越大，香港官場卻是背道而馳
Original translation:
The Hong Kong government has set up a very
bad example for the future generation.
Now changed to:
“With great power comes great
responsibility.”- However, in Hong Kong’s political sphere, the opposite is
true. This has set up a very bad example for the future generation.)
Question
14: This movement must have the support of “foreign forces”!
If you are very worried about foreign
forces, you better check how many Election Committee members possess foreign
passports. Unless the government is to remove members with foreign passports,
this claim is not justified.
Question
15: This is only a movement showing Hong Kong people’s discontent with
mainlanders.
The claim is the result, not the cause. The
truth is the discontent of Hong Kong people could not be expressed without
genuine universal suffrage, so it speeds up the resistance of identification
with China. There are many dimensions about Hong Kong people’s identity; some
will intend to segregate with China while some others will emphasize the
relations between China and Hong Kong, expressing a sense of patriotism. Most
of the city’s population originated from the fear of communist rule back in
1949. Their choice has helped them escaped from the continuous political instability over the mainland. This means an emotional connection is
accompanied with suspicion. For example in Hong Kong, 470 million dollars had
been donated for 1991 Hua Dong(Eastern China) Flooding, but at the same time hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people had migrated to other countries. Which
dimension of identity is shown depends on the social context at the time. We
could presume that the discontent of mainlanders will be alleviated with
genuine universal suffrage.
(Note: Modifications to the translated
version
Question 15:
Phrase: 對中國認同的抗拒
Original translation
“the resistance of agreeing with Chinese rule”
Now changed to
“the resistance of identification with China”
Phrase: 愛國情懷
Original translation “emphasize the relations between China and
Hong Kong”
Now added: “,
expressing a sense of patriotism”
Phrase: 4.7億元
Original translation 0.4 billion dollars
which should be more accurately specified
as “0.47 billion”, or simpler as “470 million”
Phrase: 91年華東水災
Original translation 1991 Huang Dong Flooding
Changed to 1991
Hua Dong(Eastern China) Flooding
Phrase: 數以十萬計的香港人
Original translation “thousands of Hong Kong”
Yet it should be “around hundred thousand Hong Kong people”
However, other sources indicate the numbers of emigrated Hongkongers should be 數十萬計的香港人, i.e. hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people)
Question
16: Why Hongkongers did not fight for universal suffrage under colonial rule, when
the Governor was not elected as well?
This is a common but unfortunately wrong
question. First, there was many protests and movements against the British
colonial rule, like the protest for direct election in 1988. Second, the
British colonial government did intend to enforce a more democratic rule but
was opposed by the Chinese government. Back in 1956, Zhou En-lai had expressed
disapproval of Hong Kong people ruling themselves. To avoid excuse from Chinese
to take back the city, the British had not implemented the reform. When in
1990s the governor Chris Patten introduced political reform, he was severely
criticized by China as “a-thousand-year-criminal”.
Please complain to the Chinese government,
not the British government, for failure of achieving universal suffrage during
colonial rule. But it seems awkward to rationalize Chinese way of handling
political reform by using the British colonial rule to compare – Hong Kong is
not a Chinese colony anyway.
Question
17: As NPCSC has laid down the framework, why still go protest?
NPCSC framework is subject to local
legislation which requires a two-third approval from the legislature and the
consent from the Chief Executive. The approved local legislation will return
back to NPCSC for confirmation. In other words, the framework is not final and
Hong Kong still has a chance to bring the framework down by voting against the
legislation.
(Here below are my own translations)
Supplementary
remarks
Some
questions are often raised in comments, which are now responded together.
1.
About the speech by Zhou En-lai in 1956, the
then Premier of China, the source of which comes from British National Archive
FCO 40/327, see here. (Note: see also Quartz’s article
The Secret history of Hong Kong’s stillborn democracy.)
These British internal
documents contain assessment of the situation at that time, which are required
by law to be disclosed after several decades. The material is used for historic
research. Of course, there are comments which criticize that only the British
point of view is presented, with an intention to use the Chinese stance to
clear themselves (see The Young Plan). In any case, accompanying the post-war development,
the awareness of Hong Kong people kept increasing, the demand on colonial
government for democracy also elevated. This point should hold.
2.
About the concern that there will be too many
candidates, thus calls for filtering by nomination, one can refer to this
example: The last French presidential election had ten candidates, after the
first round of ballot, a second round is held, with votes casting only on the
two candidates who topped the first. This ensures that the winner gets a simple majority
vote. Such a scheme is endorsed by both the democratic and the pro-establishment
camps in Hong Kong, and can well handle the issue of “too many candidates”,
with a legitimacy unparalleled by what the 1200 people can offer.
3.
About the concept that “Cannot break the law
anyway”, if we really stick to it, then the world can have no Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson
Mandela, Martin Luther King, and not even Sun yat-sen and Mao Zedong. Using
illegal means to fight democracy is most common in history. Now the fight further
emphasizes non-violence, its success or failure depends only on public support,
hence whether the protestors should break the law, is not determined by any
individual, but only the Hong Kong public opinion can tell.
4.
If without evidence, please stop labeling the
students, claiming that they are instigated. If others abuse name calling and
claim that you are brainwashed by communist party, you will not feel good
either. Always base your discussion on facts, only then the society can progress.
Thank you.
Internet resources：
A
series of animations to illustrate the issues on universal suffrage
“Glance in a flash of universal suffrage 1-3”
Can you hear the people sing? – Hong Kong
version, lyrics rewritten in Cantonese
誰還未覺醒 https://youtu.be/RNbXLbHrMds
