|
The New Year of 2004 will probably
bring mixed blessings to Hong Kong. The economy is likely
to improve and the controversial topic of political reform
may take centre stage on the wider community¡¦s agenda.
Despite the obvious political risks involved, I have taken
a lead amongst Functional Constituencies in making my own
views known publicly, as well as committing my office to a
full, professional and impartial survey to serve as a
basis of my future actions. In this regard, I have already
sought cooperation with the HKSA and have also
provisionally contacted an academic institution with a
view to commissioning them to design the questionnaire and
to provide us with the analysed report.
What I now need to do most is to appeal
to your civic-mindedness to take part in the up-coming
survey and to register to vote in the 2004 election. I
seek the truth in what I do and in time, I will prove that
there cannot be any self-interest or personal political
agenda. I have already announced that I will not run in a
functional constituency in 2008 or earlier. Please let me
hear your voice, it counts. I have done a similar but
smaller survey in 1998 ahead of others in the field. It
can be most illustrative of what the ¡¥normally silent¡¦
professional, middle income group really thinks! No doubt,
the community, other legislators and the local and the
Central Governments will all take a keen interest in the
results.
General background
I have recently recorded a Letter to
Hong Kong and I think this can serve as a useful
background to your crucial vote. The following is a
slightly edited and expanded version.
Hong Kong has always been a home to
pluralism. That is why different shades of views and
cultures have blended harmoniously. However, this is not a
state of affairs that can be taken for granted. This
balance of constant change and stability is delicate and
fragile, and the people of Hong Kong are intelligent and
sensitive. They know when the Government is not serving
their best interests and their views are being
manipulated. Hong Kong thrives on change, provided that
the changes are well accepted by the majority, and are
professionally managed and gradual.
Despite the faster than expected pace
of economic recovery, the community is evidently still
looking for changes in the political structure. I believe
too that such reforms are essential as there are already
worrying signs that one day, if they do become the set
pattern , the consequential political inertia may
undermine the long term stability of the community.
Concerns that must be addressed include
the growing economic inequalities between the affluent and
the grass roots, and the reality that the latter group is
gaining greater political influences with the increasing
number of directly elected seats. One may argue that the
major economic restructuring that is taking place now will
inevitably exacerbate an uneven distribution of wealth.
The fear is that when the economic and political bases of
power in a community are growing in different directions,
it becomes a sure formula for societal conflicts,
confrontation and instability.
Secondly, the administration has been
unable to secure wide support for its many controversial
policies over a sustained period of time. The position has
now deteriorated to a stage that any politician or
political groups siding with the Government on any issue
will automatically be tagged with a negative label by some
sector of the mass media. This tactic may be unethical and
unfair but it can certainly inflict incalculable damage on
the political parties concerned and will further hamper
the effectiveness and leadership of Government.
Thirdly, the poor handling of the
unpopular article 23 issues has already provided the
reformists with a much-needed focus of attention and the
best vote catching machinery. A passive and evasive
attitude towards political reform is no longer a
defensible option.
Any one of these issues, if not dealt
with properly are potentially divisive for the community
and might fuel calls for more drastic changes than are
really necessary. So far, the Administration has remained
intolerably evasive and much valuable time has already
been lost. However, as all sensible people would agree,
there must be a trade-off between the pace of political
reform and stability. The key question to ask is how fast
we can go without compromising the needed stability, for
which the support of the reforms by our Central Government
is a crucial factor for consideration.
I believe there are many shades of
political views amongst the professional middle- income
group, such as the accountants of Hong Kong. From my own
contact with them, I have discovered many would like to be
offered a range of options to pick from. Before that
happens, the true views of the accountants remain a moving
target. However, what is being debated now appears to be
only the extremity of views i.e. no change or proceed
directly to universal suffrage. A more balanced middle
ground is still lacking as an alternative and I see little
harm for the community to give it a try. At least, any
alternative proposal is better than none and although we
cannot hope to get it right in the first round, it will
certainly help to trigger some rational debate.
The alternative political reform
proposals
I believe that a possible approach is
to embark on a phased programme to political reform under
a pre-determined timetable. The timetable could then be
short circuited by a regular poll of public attitudes and
if the views collected show a two-thirds majority in
favour of an immediate change to full universal suffrage,
such legislative changes should be brought immediately to
a vote in the Legislative Council before the next
election.
Suggested reforms: The Legislative
Council
First phase (2008 &/or 2012): simply
add 30 more geographically elected seats. This will give
the universally elected members a much greater say
especially in rejecting unpopular Government policies.
However, the remaining 30 seats of Functional
Constituencies can still be effective in vetoing some of
the more drastic initiatives of the reformists; rather
like an Upper House in most developed democracies e.g. the
Senate in the U.S.A. and The House of Lords in the U.K.
The design is a more conservative check and balance
structure to allow time for the parties to adjust to the
not insignificant changes.
Second Phase (2012 or 2016): turn the
remaining 30 FC seats into Nominating Committees to select
no more than 3 candidates each who must then obtain the
mandate from the people of Hong Kong in a universally held
direct election. This will effectively narrow the gap
between the views of the lawmakers from different
electoral processes.
Third & Final Phase (2016 or 2024): all
90 seats are opened for universal suffrage.
The Chief Executive
First Phase (2007): turn the
800-members Election Committee into a Nomination Committee
and elect no more than 3 candidates for universal
suffrage.
Second & Final Phase (2016 or 2024):
universal suffrage at the same time as the Legislative
Council.
The Basic Law has already incorporated
one of my earlier ideas back in 1988, that is, to
recognise universal suffrage as the ultimate goal.
However, the mini-constitution is silent on when this can
be achieved. It could be as early as 2007 or as late as
2047. Naturally, this will make the pace of reform the
most crucial aspect to be determined.
An alternative proposal (regarding the
timing for universal suffrage) that I have suggested for
discussion falls somewhere in between the previously
mentioned dates, i.e. 2016 to 2024, depending on whether
we want each stage to take 1 or 2 elections. A gradual
change seems more in line with the spirit of the Basic Law
and gives a clearer time frame for all the parties
concerned to be prepared for the future. However, I do
also recognise that fixing a rigid timetable has its
limitations as we may not be able to judge political moods
and sentiments so far in advance. That is why I have built
in another polling mechanism in every election to short
circuit the timetable through the most peaceful and
civilized means. However, I must emphasis that the poll is
not a referendum as it does not, in itself, determine the
final decision. The move towards universal suffrage has
still got to make its way through the procedures as
prescribed by the Basic Law, i.e. the Legislative Council
passing a Bill by a two-thirds majority, the endorsement
by the Chief Executive and obtaining the final blessing
from the Central Government.
The advantages of my proposal are many:
1) It provides a clear and certain middle course for
survey and discussion purposes;
2) It is very easy to modify e.g. numbers of seats and
nominators and the timing of the change in stages can be
adjusted to satisfy prevailing preferences;
3) It allows time for the Central Government to
indicate its disapproval of specific candidates at the
nomination stage, thus avoiding a much more serious
constitutional crisis later i.e. by electing a Chief
Executive who may risk being rejected or cold shouldered
by the Central Government;
4) The regular polling device allows for a peaceful and
rational escape route from a rigid timetable and at the
same time, renders disruptive demonstrations unnecessary;
5) The move towards universal suffrage for both the
Executive and Legislative branches of the Government is
synchronised.
I hope that by sharing my ideas with you, I can provide
the community with another viable option to choose from.
It is also my hope that if the community can settle this
matter once and for all, then the July 1st and the New
Year marches would have served their useful historical
role.
¡@
Dr Eric Li is the LegCo
Accountancy Functional Constituency Representative.
For more information, refer to his website at
http://www.ericli.org
¡@
¡@ |
