Chan Tak-leung says that if the 'pan-democrats' really have the interests of Hong Kong at heart they must now support the electoral reform package
There is less than two months to go before the Legislative Council (LegCo) will vote on the electoral reform package proposed by the government. It is time for the 5 million eligible voters to consider why "pan-democratic" legislators and other activists are still saying "No" to the proposal which will deliver universal suffrage in 2017. This is a mere 20 years after its return to China's sovereignty under the unique and imaginative "One Country, Two Systems" policy.
Their opposition will undoubtedly suffer as a result. It will also mean the much anticipated election of the next Chief Executive (CE) by "one person, one vote" will no longer be available to voters but remain the responsibility of the Election Committee.
How "pan-democratic" legislators can persistently claim they want to increase democracy for the people of Hong Kong when their actions will actually strip eligible voters of their right to vote?
There are, I believe, only four votes required to achieve a two-thirds majority in the LegCo for the proposed electoral reform package to be accepted. Vetoes by "pan-democratic" legislators will mean an uncertain future with an unpredictable timetable for the next constitutional consultation to occur in Hong Kong. It will also mean further delays to the election of LegCo by universal suffrage.
Locally, "pan-democratic" legislators have always portrayed themselves as protectors of freedom, the lifestyles and living standards of Hong Kong people. Their actions in and out of LegCo were, however, far from what they promised voters. Disruptive and abusive behavior at meetings, filibustering, consorting with foreign powers and support for illegal subversive activities can only be considered wasteful to the public purse. Such activities achieve nothing in return.
It is patently clear that a stalemate on electoral reform will not deliver universal suffrage for Hong Kong in 2017. If it does, it will be a historical milestone in democracy by the standards of any country.
"Pan-democratic" legislators, however, will not say openly that they were against the policy and legislative framework that set up the SAR - but deep down they are. That is why they are against the proposed election framework which adheres to the principle of "gradual and orderly progress" as stipulated in the Basic Law.
The "pan-democratic" legislators' stance is obvious. One, they are for "Two Systems", but not for "One Country"; two, they want to garner public support by telling half truths; and three, they use LegCo as a political platform to achieve their ulterior motives.
Outwardly, they will claim that the National People's Congress Standing Committee's (NPCSC) decision of Aug 31 2014 is too restrictive. The process being proposed now will enable five to 10 candidates with at least 120 votes each to be on the Nominating Committee's initial shortlist. The second round of voting will result in two or three candidates with more than 600 votes to run for the position of CE by universal suffrage. This is hardly "restrictive" for potential candidates, who eventually will be voted in as CE. The subtext of the opposition, if one looks closer, is their outright opposition to the legal authority of the NPCSC or to put it more plainly, the sovereign authority of China over Hong Kong.
As for half truths, the Civic Party which championed "civic nomination" also advocated it on its website. They say such an electoral system is being practiced in Britain and the United States. It is true all candidates who want to stand in local or parliamentary elections in Britain only require the signatures of 10 local residents whose names appear on the electoral register. Hence, the current election has a total number of 3,971 candidates standing for the 650 seats. It is only superficially democratic; it practices "civic nomination" in name only. The millions of British voters do not actually directly elect the next prime minister. It will be either one of the leaders from the two major political parties, voted in by their respective elected members of parliament and party members rather than by universal suffrage.
Election procedures for the US president, on the other hand, were established by conventions rather than enshrined in its constitution. Its electoral system was labeled as "chaotic and undemocratic" with different states adopting different forms of electoral colleges. During the last 13 presidential elections, there were independent candidates who stood in less than half of them and all with nil returns.
Do "pan-democratic" legislators still want Hong Kong to adopt these malfunctioned "international standards" to elect the next CE?
As for ulterior motives, the facts speak for themselves. Who gave evidence to the British Foreign Affairs Committee and the US Senate? Who had closed doors meetings at the British consulate-general's office? Who attended training sessions either overseas or locally on how to organize illegal civil disobedience activities? These activities are all well-documented and now available on YouTube.
Let's wake up to all these follies and urge those "pan-democrats" who still have the interests of Hong Kong at heart to consider giving their support to the electoral reform package so Hong Kong will continue to grow economically, morally and politically.
The author Chan Tak-leungis is director of the Chinese in Britain Forum. He was the first-ever Chinese British citizen to be elected mayor of the Greater London Borough of Redbridge (2009-10) and served as a member of the city council for over 10 years.
