Do you really know why Hongkongers occupy Central?

http://goo.gl/VOAPNq

-          by Dr Leung Kai-chi, Assistant Programme Director, Leadership Development Section, University General Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

-          original article in Chinese, 梁啟智：你真的知道香港人為什麼佔中嗎？

-          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 2^nd 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”

瞬間看普選1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBWMgSqGf1U
瞬間看普選2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCd17uhOKr8
瞬間看普選3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEYL3OE7xUk

Can you hear the people sing? – Hong Kong version, lyrics rewritten in Cantonese

誰還未覺醒 https://youtu.be/RNbXLbHrMds