Quotes of the Day
Hong Kong is headed for political gridlock after a huge rally on Dec. 4 in favor of greater democracy for the city. The unexpectedly big turnout—250,000 claimed by the organizers, 63,000 by the authorities—has hardened the positions of both the pro-democracy camp and the Chinese leadership in Beijing. The democrats are emboldened, and more determined than ever to push for "universal suffrage": a Chief Executive chosen by the people and not a narrow electoral college; and for a fully elected legislature, not the mixed bag of members currently chosen by either popular vote or professional groups. Beijing, for its part, refuses to be swayed by what it regards as "mob rule," and is resolute in its intention to delay democracy in the former British colony.
The Basic Law, Hong Kong's constitution since its handover to China in 1997, stipulates that the earliest possible date for a directly elected Chief Executive is 2007, and that a fully elected legislature must wait till at least 2008. In 2004, however, China's leaders exercised their power to interpret the Basic Law to decree that those dates were no longer acceptable. Now, Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang, the man in the middle, is trying to bring the two sides together with a limited reform package scheduled for a vote in the Legislative Council on Dec. 21. For the 2007 ballot for a Chief Executive, Tsang, the current frontrunner, proposes doubling the electoral college from 800 to 1,600; for the 2008 legislative ballot, he wants to expand the number of directly elected seats from 30 to 35—still just half of the total number. For a city of 6.9 million well-educated, well-traveled and well-informed people, the changes fall far short of their aspirations and add up to meaningless gestures. Who can blame Hong Kongers for rejecting such a plan?
The Legislative Council looks likely to reject the bill too. It has no hope of securing the required two-thirds majority unless one of the following two things happens: either six of the 25 pro-democracy lawmakers are successfully arm-twisted to switch their stand, thus ensuring at least 40 votes for approval, or Beijing gives in to the demands of the people of Hong Kong and accelerates the roadmap to democracy. Neither will occur. Tsang has warned that, should the package be voted down, constitutional development "would come to a halt." Pass the proposals, he argues, and Hong Kong will at least be a step closer to full democracy.
It's not only democracy that's at stake. So is Tsang's own future. Earlier this year the Chinese leadership replaced the ineffectual Tung Chee-hwa with the more competent Tsang, hoping his popularity could persuade Hong Kongers to accept a slower pace of democratization. As they grow increasingly frustrated with Beijing, however, they may come to direct their anger at a more accessible target: Tsang. (Massive street protests played a part in Tung's departure.) This would be bad for the city. Tsang does seem to have Hong Kong's best interests at heart. After the Dec. 4 demonstration, he remarked: "I am 60 years of age. I certainly want to see universal suffrage taking place in Hong Kong in my time. My feeling and my wish is the same as most other people participating in the rally." But political reform is beyond his jurisdiction. That's Beijing's call. Its attitude to Hong Kong is: Trust us; you will, someday, get your democracy. For those who marched, their rejoinder is: Trust us by giving us democracy now; we are not out to overthrow you, we just want a say in running our own city.
Beijing may not be unhappy to see gridlock, because it would act as a delaying mechanism. To expect China's leaders to back down is wishful thinking. They don't want people in Shanghai, Guangzhou or any other mainland city to start asking: "If Hong Kong can, why can't we?" Letting democracy run amok in Hong Kong is simply too risky.
After they reject Tsang's proposals, the democrats should try to find allies in the local business community, Hong Kong's most influential group. Many businessmen are open to the idea of direct elections as early as 2012, when a Chief Executive, who serves a five-year term, will again have to be chosen. But they are concerned, with some justification, that certain policies advocated by the pro-democracy camp—like minimum wages and maximum working hours—might hurt Hong Kong's competitiveness. In order to have a better chance to advance democracy, the democracy fighters must assure the business community, which has Beijing's ear, that what they want won't undermine Hong Kong's economy. So far, the democrats have failed to do so. Politics is the art of compromise. Both those for and against greater democracy for Hong Kong should start playing it.
- Kin-ming Liu
- Only compromise will satisfy the interests of both Beijing and Hong Kong