Business and Democracy - Contradictory or Complementary?
The Honourable Ronald Arculli, Legislative Councillor, was the Foundation's guest speaker on 29 May 2000. This is a summary of his remarks.
There were many definitions of democracy, Mr Arculli began, but the nature of business was clear. The late Nikita Krushev of the former Soviet Union, once addressed a group of businessmen on his visit to Britain. "Your business is to skin the public," he told them. "If I were you, I would leave some skin on them, so that it will grow back, and you can skin them again." There were some insights here, Mr Arculli felt, from which all present could benefit.
Was business in Hong Kong so different from business elsewhere, Mr Arculli wondered? He felt qualified to speak to the question: his father's family had arrived in Hong Kong from India in the 1840s, and his mother's from Canton 30 years later; he had quite deep Hong Kong roots. We might like to think that after 150 years of colonial rule, there were differences between business in Hong Kong and business in its neighbouring territories. Most of these neighbours had also been under colonial rule. But Hong Kong was the product of British colonialism, perhaps its most successful product. The colonial tradition had fostered an apolitical culture, and this applied to business too. As Hong Kong had entered the 1980s, business had had to come to terms with democracy. The question now was, how things were to go forward.
One characteristic of Hong Kong was the dominance of employment by small and medium enterprises. One should therefore not overemphasise the role of big business; the role of the SME and the professionals was not to be overlooked.
ritain had done Hong Kong very well in two respects. One of these was the rule of law. The other was the excellent Civil Service.
It was fair to say that Hong Kong had gained more democracy from the interaction with China than from Britain. There had been little progress towards democratisation during the period from the 1840s to 1980. Then with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law negotiated with China, Hong Kong had made relatively big strides forward. Even at this late stage the progress towards democratisation had been delayed by Britain. The original proposal was for direct elections by 1998. If that proposal had been adopted, Mr Arculli was not sure whether he would still have got into Legco in 1998. However, mistakes were made all round.
Nonetheless, Britain had done Hong Kong very well in two respects. One of these was the rule of law. This had played a very important part in the development of business in Hong Kong and in the relationship between business and government. The law was sacrosanct, and the principle of equality before the law was also crucial. The accountability of the Hong Kong Government to the British Government, and that of the British Government to its Parliament, and of Parliament to the British people, was also important.
The other key contribution made by Britain was the excellent Civil Service. It was perhaps stretching words to use the term, "excellent", Mr Arculli conceded, but on the whole he felt that the adjective was still justified.
The legislature had an important role in scrutinising legislation, monitoring Government, forming policy and checking public expenditure. A critical issue was the power of the legislature to amend legislation. This power resided in Article 74 of the Basic Law, but the Government had taken a strict line on this with the 1998 legislature, and had resisted amendments.
Another issue was the Legco-Exco relationship. Governor Patten had severed the two bodies in 1992, and the relationship had not functioned well since. Tung had carried on this practice, with the exception of one person who had a place in both bodies.
Overall, there was uneasiness over Hong Kong's constitutional arrangements, and uncertainty as to how to go forward. The opportunity to change the composition and voting arrangements within Legco would come in 2007. But these were not issues that could be decided in 3 months or 6 months. There should be public discussion, involvement of the community. Expectations needed to be sounded out, and met. The debate should start after the coming Legislative Council elections. If it should start before, the debate would be muddied by politicking.
Mr Arculli supposed that it would take a few years for the community to properly digest the idea of constitutional reform. Was Hong Kong going to develop into a democracy as understood by other communities in the world? For example, would the Chief Executive be elected by universal suffrage? The Chief Executive still had to be appointed by Beijing. One had to look at the nominating arrangements under Article 45 of the Basic Law. Mr Arculli suspected that the nomination process would be somewhat like the Electoral College now. Many people might think that once elected, the Chief Executive's appointment would be confirmed by Beijing automatically. But the judgement was out on that. It might be that Hong Kong people were given a choice of two candidates, or of twenty, but they would be screened by Beijing first.
So going forward, one would have a Legco with the mandate of the people but no power to amend legislation and no significant role in Government - except perhaps appointment to various quangoes like the Housing Authority. And one would have a Chief Executive appointed by Beijing wielding the real power.
Mr Arculli welcomed input from the international members present. Overseas countries had much experience with different forms of constitution, and many were still developing. For example, Australia was going through an interesting debate over the role of Aborigines. And they could contribute their ideas on different forms of election, of voting, of bicameral legislatures, and many other complex issues.
There was no doubt that business should play a bigger role in the constitutional debate. You could not buy politicians in Hong Kong, in fact it was no exaggeration to say that elections in Hong Kong were squeaky clean, so much so that it was boring. Mr Arculli recalled that in a previous election he was distributing leaflets on behalf of a candidate, and in one block had come across the leaflets of another candidate sticking out of the letter boxes. One of the group had proposed pulling these rival leaflets out and disposing of them. But the rest of the group had been aghast: "You can't do that; it is not fair play." So the rival leaflets had been left as they were, and, Mr Arculli did not doubt, his own candidate's leaflets would also have been left undisturbed by subsequent canvassers.
As a community we had to develop a sense of participation in public life, in government. This sense was sadly lacking at present. Legco was not playing any great role. It tended to bury itself in papers. Yet there were important policy questions on which public debate should be taking place. Some current examples were, the Financial Secretary's concern about structural deficits, the way 3G mobile phone licences were to be allocated, and housing and land policy - whether we should assume with the Government that every citizen had a God-given right to own his own home, and such homes be built by the Government.
As a community we had to develop a sense of participation in public life, in government. This sense was sadly lacking at present.
Democracy aside, Hong Kong was the freest community in Southeast Asia. The community respected the law and the authorities upheld the law, except in certain minor instances. And one should remember that mishaps would happen. Sometimes through mishaps the values of the community would solidify and beliefs become stronger.
Would think tanks be important in contributing to informed public debate on policy? Mr Arculli thought so. And this was a way in which business could participate in public discussion. He himself had been approached on the question of funding think tanks. It would take money, but not large amounts, and not money from the public purse. It was important for well-researched and considered alternatives to Government policy to be put forward. And the media had a part to play as well. Without the media, these alternative viewpoints could not be communicated widely.
Was there an unhealthy closeness between Government and business? The Government believed that it had religiously abstained from this sin, Mr Arculli said. The Government entered into commercial arrangements only in cases like the MTRC, the Airport and Disney where the private sector was not prepared to come forward. If one put aside instances like the 1998 intervention in the stock market, and the Housing Authority, the issue was simple. Admittedly, in 1973/74 when the stock market had fallen more than 90%, the Government had not intervened, but the impact in today's economy was different.
Mr Arculli conceded that there was a perception of big business enjoying special favour from Government. However, this was no different from the colonial days. In those days the British houses had the edge: the big companies more or less automatically had a seat on Exco. Nowadays whether that would be an advantage was a moot point.
After the elections in September, Legco would surely start the constitutional debate. Overall, Mr Arculli hoped that the Government would take the lead in the debate rather than be led. There would be more chance of a fair and open discussion. However, he feared that the Government would stick its head in the sand. He urged members present to contribute their ideas to the debate.
The above does not necessarily represent the views of the Foundation.