Back

Note: This article represents the view of the author and not the University of Hong Kong.

After the government announced its adjustments to its original constitutional reform proposals, the debate on Hong Kong's political future has now reached a critical point. Most people believe that the government would not be able to secure the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all Legco members required to pass the bill. It would then become an all-lose situation for the government, Legco and the general public. Many people are scratching their heads to find a solution, so is the author.

It should be noted right at the beginning that the ideas I am going to offer are results of mere independent thinking, I have not discussed them with anybody, nor have I tried to rally the support of any political force. Moreover, being an academic and an opinion researcher at the same time, I always take care to separate facts from opinion. I hope readers would also do the same.

Government is given flexibility to consider people's demands

According to various public opinion polls, it is apparent that the general public has different conflicting demands. On one hand, the majority of the Hong Kong people want an early universal suffrage, they hope that the government would incorporate a timetable for universal suffrage into the constitutional reform proposal. However, on the other hand, they are not willing to vote down the present proposal, which may result in a complete no-go. In my opinion, the apparent contradictory demands are based on good intentions, which allow the government more flexibility in handling such demands.

My hunch is that if the SAR government can just show its determination to fight for universal suffrage, and Beijing can respond mildly and sincerely to people's demand, perhaps by just saying that Hong Kong people should manage Hong Kong affairs, most people would be pacified. Unfortunately, in the recently adjusted constitutional reform proposal the government decided to make the appointed seats in the District Councils the focus of the bargaining, and implicitly ruled out universal suffrage before 2016. These gestures make it difficult for the public to believe that the government wholeheartedly wants to fight for universal suffrage.

According to Annexes I and II of the Basic Law, if there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executives or for forming the Legco after 2007, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, before presenting to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval or record. According to my reading, this arrangement is meant to safeguard people's general consent of such amendments before presenting to the Central Government for legislation. The requirement of two-thirds majority is not uncommon to constitutional amendments around the world, it is a means to guarantee widespread consensus.

Upon further reading of the other Articles of the Basic Law, I believe that the original intention was to strike a consensus among the general public within 10 years after the handover, so that further constitutional development can be tailor-made on the basis of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". However, this design was messed up by the Tiananmen Square Incident in 1989, and the setup of the Provisional Legislative Council shortly after the handover which blurred the timeline of 2007. Moreover, repeated interpretation to the Basic Law provisions by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress have also changed the role of the Central Government in local affairs. I have repeatedly asked myself this question: Are these due to the faults of Hong Kong people? After the death of Deng Xiaoping, the central government lost its ambitions, and the value of Hong Kong was undermined!

District Councils are not bargaining chips

Under such a development, both the central and the SAR governments gave up their attempt to seek for consensus among the general public, and switched to a confrontational mentality in governing Hong Kong. If we use the foresaid requirement of a two-thirds majority to secure a general consent as written in the Basic Law, we can see that both the repeated interpretations to the Basic Law provisions and the recent constitutional reform proposal, including the most up-to-date adjustments, are far from reaching a consensus among general public.

However, at the same time, even though the ideas of introducing universal suffrage in 2007/8 or 2012 proposed by the democrats are welcome by a lot of Hong Kong people, without solid details and proposals we should not regard this as a complete consent. The questions of what the public wants and what they could accept are questions at two separate levels. From various public opinion polls we can see that not any constitutional reform proposal has gained the support of a two-thirds majority of the general public. As for the adjustment proposal to gradually eliminate appointed seats in the District Councils, people are just not given any opportunity to discuss it.

In fact there are no substantial reasons for the government to tie the timetable and roadmap of District Council development to the development of elections of the Chief Executive and the Legco. If preserving appointed seats in the District Councils helps Hong Kong's democratization, then this system should be kept disregard of the timetable for universal suffrage. If appointed seats should not be preserved in the grass-root councils, then this system should be called off as soon as possible disregard of the timetable for universal suffrage. Whether appointed seats should be abolished or preserved in the District Councils has nothing to do with the Basic Law, so why does the government refuse to change the District Council system in case the constitutional reform proposal is voted down? Using District Council seats as bargaining chips for parties with vested interests is not a rational discussion.

The SAR Government and the democrats did not discuss the development of District Councils for 8 whole years after the handover, it is their negligence. Using the appointed seats in the District Councils as bargaining chips at this critical moment is totally irresponsible.

Parallel consultations for DC development and universal suffrage

In my opinion, the government should lay down specific options of District Council development to consult the public. Option 1 may well be the government's current proposal, that is, to reduce the number of appointed District Council seats by one-third in 2008, and then decide in 2012 whether to further reduce the number by half or to zero. Option 2 could be cancellation of half of the appointed seats in 2008, and of the rest in 2012. Option 3 could be cancellation of all the appointed seats in 2008. During the consultation period, the democrats can collect public opinion through opinion polls and civil referendums.

Regarding the elections of the Chief Executive and the Legco, the government can first withdraw the current constitutional reform proposal and then list out different options for the public to choose from, in a consultation conducted in parallel with the consultation on District Council development. The target is to secure consensus among at least two-thirds of the general public as soon as possible, before finalizing the amended proposal for endorsement by the Legco.

During consultation for the constitutional reform, the government or Legco members can put forward very specific options for the public to choose from. Option 1 could be the original plan proposed by the government. Option 2 could be the original proposal plus a timetable for developing supportive institutions for Hong Kong's democratization, like the development of district-level councils and referendums. Option 3 can, of course, be a proposal with a timetable for universal suffrage, presumably after discussing with the central government. There could also be Option 4, Option 5, and so on. Democrats can likewise conduct opinion polls and civil referendums to collect public opinion.

In fact, regardless of the number of proposals put forward, the number-one issue is that the Government and all politic parties should help each other to collect public opinion. Of course, different people can use different means, like opinion polling, petitions, civil referendums, and so on to collect opinion. The most important objective is to arrive at a consensus with the support of two-thirds of Hong Kong people as implied by the Basic Law. If a proposal cannot gain support from two-thirds of the general public and is subsequently voted down, we cannot blame the legislators for that.

Civil referendum provides a way out

I understand perfectly why some legislators are unwilling to hand back their legislative power to the public, and insist on exercising their mandate given by voters once every four years. Notwithstanding this understanding, however, if a certain proposal has the proven support of two-thirds of the general public, expressed through democratic mechanisms like civil referendums, those legislators who claim to be pro-democracy should at least rethink the benefits of accepting that proposal, albeit not perfect, which has promoted the development of democratic institutions on the whole.

Legislators on the establishment side may worry that civil referendums would nurture opposition voices in society. This kind of thinking is totally misplaced. Various researches show that civil referendums increase citizenship among the public and bring people together. Before formal referendums are introduced to Hong Kong, civil referendums should be able to fill in the gap of public participation in making major decisions.

If the democrats can be less fixated on immediate winning or losing, and encourage people to express their wills through civil referendums, if other legislators can also mobilize their supporters to voice out their opinions through various means including participation in civil referendums, and if the government can take an open attitude to conduct a wide-based consultation with different options listed out, I believe that a consensus proposal with the support of a two-thirds majority will naturally appear in not more than 3 months.