Message from the Chairman

Will Hong Kong come up with the right answers? A roadmap for universal suffrage and a new positioning for Hong Kong’s democratic reform

by Alan LUNG Ka-lun, Chairman
Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
29 December 2009

Several questions relating to the current constitutional reform debate were raised in a public forum hosted by Alan Leong of the Civic Party on 19 December 2009. The first question was if there should be screening of the Chief Executive candidates. The answer is a simple "No" as it would destroy the legitimacy of the winner.

The second question raised by Alan Leong was whether there is a relationship between democracy and people's livelihood. This is a difficult question as one could easily argue that there is no direct relationship. What was practiced in Hong Kong under very experienced British administrators was "Meritocracy" - it was not "Democracy". A form of "Meritocracy" closer to "Rule by Elite" is also favoured in Singapore and in Mainland China. Whether the democrats in Hong Kong could argue convincingly that "Democracy" is the best way to bring "Meritocracy" back to Hong Kong is yet to be seen. While I would like to avoid this question now, it is probably fair to say that Hong Kong has lost the ability to change because of the deadlocks built into our current political systems. This is why it is a good time for Hong Kong to come up with the right answers now.

HKSARG's responsibility and why "Five District Resignation" sounds attractive

It is incredible, though not surprising that a proposal rejected in 2005 was brought back by the Government with only minor changes. While one side - the democrats -- are arguing for Universal Suffrage by 2012 and a Civic-LSD Coalition was formed to carry out the "Five District Resignation" scheme, the other side - the Pro-Government Camp -- is arguing for retention of the Functional Constituency seats and for "moving forward". In reality, the District Board (DB) Scheme as proposed by the HKSAR Government will benefit no one except the DAB(i), so many amongst the Pro-Government Camp may also find the DB Scheme difficult to accept.

The current administration, particularly Stephen Lam Sui-lung who has been involved in the task of constitutional reform since 1994, must shoulder some responsibility for allowing the "DB Scheme" to be proposed as the only scheme possible under the constraints set out the NPC Standing Committee on 29 December 2007. Unlike C.Y. Leung, who warned that the HKSAR Government must take note of the "…clear message" voters sent by returning "Long Hair" and two other members of League of Social Democrats (LSD) to Legco in 2008 (see CY Leung speech at HKDF luncheon on 24 September 2009), the current administration seems to be ignoring the "Political Helplessness" amongst the disenfranchised young professionals and young grass roots organsations.  One way to look at it is as a kind of "Learnt Helplessness" such as is usually acquired from unreasonable parents who frustrate all healthy aspirations of their children or abuse them when they were young. In such a situation, it is far better for the frustrated ones to reject and rebel against the parents than to keep quiet and run the risk of getting a mental illness. This observation could explain why "Five District Resignation" sounds attractive to young professionals - supporters of the Civic Party and to young grass root groups - supporters of LSD.

Handling of the Functional Constituency (FC) seats in Legco

The more difficult issue to solve relates to the handling of the Functional Constituencies. Professor Tony Carty of the University of Hong Kong made four points at a HKDF speaker luncheon on 21 December 2009. Firstly, equal and universal suffrage on its own is an insufficient guarantee of a political system working in a truly democratic way. Secondly, that due to low elector turnout, in the UK and many other jurisdictions, governments could be elected by as little as 25% of the registered voters and therefore did not have strong mandates. His third point was that in the UK particularly, but elsewhere also, the commercial elite had succeeded in subverting the main political parties (Labour and Conservatives) so that their agendas took precedence over that of the people in general (Functional Constituencies without formally enshrining FCs in the system). Professor Carty's last point was that this "market imbalance" needed to be redressed, preferably by restoring the institutional protections against malign actions enjoyed by representative democracies, with strong parliaments, a free press, an autonomous civil service, powerful judiciaries. We agree with Professor Carty's viewpoint.

Against such complex background and conflicting views, a transition toward a "One-person-two votes Proposal" could be feasible. The FCs would be phased out, and Legco elections would comply with ICCPR and Basic Law's stipulation of "Equal and Universal Suffrage":

  1. 2012 -- FCs to be organised into 5 groups. FCs to have nomination rights for the 5 new seats for election by One-person-two-votes by all registered voters. Current FC voters will also have two votes (i.e. must choose between voting in the "Old FCs" or "5 New Seats").
  2. 2016 -- FCs to be organised into groups for 35 FC Seats (e.g. in 5 or 7 sectors). FCs will only have nomination rights. 35 FC seats to become "Sectors Seats" and elected by one-person-two-votes by all registered voters.
  3. 2020 -- FCs (or Sectors) to lose nomination rights. Legco to be elected by 35 Geographic Seats and 35 Single-territory seats by One-person-two-votes.

Our estimation is that the Pan-democrats could agree to 1) and 2) above provided the Government guaranteed the outcome for 2020. For the Pro-Government side, 1) above could be achievable. But 2) and 3) are likely to be more difficult for the Pro-Government Camp to accept.

So a more rational approach might be to suspend the discussion on ultimate fate of the FCs in 2020 and bring back the discussion on the "Bi-Cameral System" as proposed by Professor Carty, HKDF, Sir David Ackers-Jones of Business and Professionals Federation (BPF) at a later stage. Perhaps Hong Kong could come to an agreement on converting the "FCs" or "Sector Seats" into an upper house that has limited consultation power but will act more like a public policy think tank to check against short term thinking of the lower house or the executive branch. The upper house should be given the resource to do research, formulate policies and think of longer term strategic issues. This also provides a platform and incentives for social and business groups to work together. This is not utopia -- but a constitutional framework to connect the society to government.

A new positioning for Democracy in Hong Kong needed

According to Professor Carty, an international law expert, it is feasible for Hong Kong's sovereign power - China -- to clarify International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) for the territory of Hong Kong alone through the Standing committee of the National People's Congress (NPC-SC). To avoid confusion and suggestions that the rest of ICCPR is not already applied to Hong Kong, perhaps it is better for NPC-SC to clarify the position and reservation taken by the HKSARG: "... Article 25 (b) of the ICCPR is not applicable to the HKSAR"(ii).

Whether the HKSARG will accept this proposal and how this request could be made to NPC-SC is still unclear. But if the proposal to clarify ICCPR were accepted, it would reconfirm the Central Government's commitment to allow Hong Kong to implement true "Equal and Universal Suffrage" by 2020. It would also reconfirm the "One Country, Two Systems" concept and signal that Hong Kong is acting with full consideration of China's viewpoint. From this point onwards, the debate on Constitutional Reform could continue in a more informed and rational manner and Hong Kong could refocus on the important tasks of solving economic development and social issues. After all, the democratic moment in Hong Kong cannot continue to position itself along the outdated concept of "Democracy against Communist China". The Central Government and many people in the mainland will simply question Hong Kong's loyalty.

Since China is also going through rapid changes and will have no choice, but to look into democracy and a more representative form of government to solve many social conflicts and governance problem in its economic development. Perhaps the Mainland can borrow successful ideas from Hong Kong in future. Both Hong Kong and Mainland China will have much to gain if democrats in Hong Kong would position Hong Kong as a more advanced territory in China that is more ready than the Mainland for democracy - not a place that could subvert China.

"Democracy for China" is a much easier concept to sell to the Central Government than "Democracy against China".
 
(i). Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

(ii). The current position taken by HKSARG is: "… in 1976 when the ICCPR was applied to Hong Kong, a reservation on Article 25(b) had been made for it not to be applied to Hong Kong. In accordance with the notification given by the Central People's Government to the United Nations Secretary-General in 1996 and Article 39 of the Basic Law, this reservation continues to apply".

 


 

香港能否就政改得出正確的答案？普選路線圖及考慮為香港民主改革重新定位

龍家麟
香港民主促進會主席
2009年12月29日

2009年12月19日，由公民黨主辦的政制改革的公開論壇中，主持梁家傑提出了幾個問題。第一個問題是：將來對普選行政長官的候選人，應否有篩選機制？答案是「不」，因為這將會破壞這特首的認受性，使他失去了人民的授權和面對更多不必要的困難和他自已也不能解决的認受問題。

梁家傑提出的第二個問題比較難答—「民主」與「民生」有沒有直接關係—因為其他人很容易認定兩者是沒有直接關係的。事實上在香港回歸祖國前所實行的並非「民主」政制，而是實施由很有經驗的英國官員管理下的「德政管治」(Meritocracy) 觀念。而中國内地和新加坡推崇的，是一個比較接近「精英管治」(Rule by Elite) 的「精英德治」觀念。民主派能否令人信服地說明「民主」是達到「德政管治」的最好的方法還有待觀察。現在我想迴避這個問題，但可以說，我們現行的政制僵局，已使香港失去了自我完善和自我改變的能力。這正是香港就現時的政改問題必須得到正確解决方法的主要原因之一。

特區政府的責任和為什麼「五區總辭」有吸引力

我們不應對香港特區政府只輕微修改2005年被否決的提案，並重新提出成為2012政改主導方案感到奇怪，這早在半年前已是意料之事。現在一方面有民主派正在爭取「2012雙普選」和「公社聯」成立推動「五區總辭」計劃；另一邊親政府陣營說要「保留功能組別議席」，並推動他們所説的「政制走向前」。事實上特區政府的「區會方案」，除了對民建聯有利之外，對任何人都沒有好處。因此許多其他親政府的陣營也可能感到「區會方案」難以接受。

本屆政府，特別是自1994年以來巳經參與香港政制改革任務的林瑞麟局長，提出「區會方案」，並把它推銷成唯一可以符合全國人大常委於2007年12月29日所定下規定的方案，林局長必須承擔一些責任。現屆政府的取向，好像明顯地與梁振英先生對「長毛」和另外兩位社民連成員在2008年成功返回立法會的取向有所不同（見梁振英2009年9月24日在香港民主促進會講話）。梁先生警告說，特區政府必須注意並把這視為選民向政府表達的「...一個明確的信息」。但政府似乎忽視了在現行憲制下得不到重視而感到權利被剝奪和「政治無奈」的年青專業人士和年青基層團體。在心理學上， 這一種「知悉無奈」通常是子女從不合理的父母，在子女年輕時候便開始破壞他們一切合理的願望或意志或虐待他們而「學」回來的。在這種沮喪的情況下，選擇反抗父母，總比「認命」、放棄，保持沉默或想不通而得到精神病好得多。如果這種看法成立，多少也可以解釋為什麼「五區總辭」的聲音吸引年輕的專業人士(公民黨支持者)，和基層青年團體(社民連的支持者)。

如何處理功能組別

如何處理功能組別，相信是最困難的問題。香港大學的人權及國際法專家卡蒂教授(Professor Tony Carty)曾提出四點(見2009年12月21日香港民主促進會午餐演講)。首先卡蒂教授提出，平等和普及選舉本身是不足以保證帶來一個真正民主的政治制度的。其次，由於選民投票率低，在英國和許多其他國家或地區，可以以低至25％的登記選民的支持、便選出及成立政府。因此，這些政府都沒有強而有力的人民授權。他的第三個觀點是，在英國(但在其他地方也有同樣情況)，商界精英往往都能成功地「顛覆」主要政黨（工黨和保守黨），使他們的商業目標和議程得到了優先處理，這就是説在沒有正式功能組別的政制中，「功能組別」的影響也在系統中運作。卡蒂教授的最後一點是，這些「失衡」是需要某種方式去糾正的。最好的方法是採取某些行動，例如建立具遠見而且強而有力的議會，以新聞自由、獨立的公務員隊伍、強大的司法機構等，對民主體制的原意進行保護和恢復，並打擊有意從代議政制中得到特權的人士和存有不良意圖的議程。我們同意卡蒂教授的觀點。

在這種複雜的背景和意見分歧下，過渡走向「一人兩票的建議」相信是可行的。功能界別將被淘汰，而立法會選舉將遵守聯合國公民權利和政治權利國際公約和基本法的規定進行「平等和普及」的選舉：

  1. 2012 — 所有「功能組別」分成5組(或5個「界別」)。所有功能組別選民增加了對5個新增功能組別席位的提名權,新增功能組別5席選舉由所有登記選民，以「一人兩票」的方法選出。但現時功能組別選民也只有兩票（即必須選擇在「舊功能組別席位」或「5個新功能席位」投其中一票）。

  2. 2016 — 35個「功能組別」議席，改為35個「界別議席」（例如把35個「組別」重組成5或7「界別」）。「界別選民」將只有提名權。35個「界別議席」由所有登記選民一人兩票的選舉方法產生。

  3. 2020 —「界別選民」到時將喪失提名權。立法會選35個地區議席和35個以全港為單一選區的議席，以「一人兩票」的方法選出。

我們的估計是，如果政府能保證2020年的「終極方案」(以上的第3點)，泛民主派很有可能同意以上1.和2.所提出的「中途方案」。對於親政府陣營來説，以上第1.點也不是完全不可以談的。但是親政府陣營可能較難接受以上2.和3.。

因此，比較理性的方法可能是暫停討論「功能組別」在2020年的最終命運。並在稍後階段重新提出由卡蒂教授、香港民主促進會和香港工商專業聯會的鐘逸傑爵士提出的「兩會制」方案。也許香港各界和政團將來能協議把「功能組別」或「界別議席」改變成為權力有限制，功能像一個「政策智囊團」的上議院，目的是對下議院或行政部門的短視思想或行為作出制衡。上議院應擁有資源進行研究，從較長遠的戰略問題角度去制訂政策。這也提供了一個平台，鼓勵社會各界共同一起工作。這不是烏托邦式的空談，而是一個把社會和政府連接起來的政制框架建議。

香港民主發展需要一個新的定位

卡蒂教授是一位國際法律專家，他指出由香港的主權國—中國—經全國人大常委，為香港特區(即中國部份領土)確認聯合國公民權利和政治權利國際公約(ICCPR)中的公民及政治權利是可行。為了避免混亂或引起對公約的其餘部份尚未適用於香港的誤會，全國人大常委可以只是向聯合國為香港特區確認現時特區政府所採取保留的:「...第25（b）該公約並不適用於香港特區」（註），確認為不再是中國政府的立場。

特區政府是否會接受這項建議，並如何向全國人大提出這要求，目前還不是很清楚。但是，如果建議被接受，將重申中央政府允許香港在2020年實行真正的「平等和普及選舉」的承諾。更將重申了「一國兩制」的概念中之「一國」，並且表明香港的政改是有充分考慮中央政府的觀點和立場的原則下進行。從這一個新的起點開始，政制改革的辯論便能夠繼續以理性的態度去進行，香港也可以重新關注一些解決經濟發展和社會問題的重要任務。畢竟，香港民主發展是不可能繼續沿用陳舊的「民主抗共」觀念和定位來希望得到主權國的認同。這種舊觀念只會使中央政府和內地許多人士對香港是否效忠中國提出質疑。

事實上，中國内地也正在經歷迅速的變化之中，中央政府也並沒有太多的選擇，而且有需要研究實行民主和代議政制的方法，以解決諸多社會矛盾，和在經濟發展中所產生的管治問題。未來内地也許可以從香港借用成功的方法和經驗。無論如何，香港民主派如願意將香港定位為中國領土之中的先進地區，並以這點向中央政府提出為什麼要在香港實行民主「先行先放」的理由，香港便成為全國推行民主的先鋒地區，而不是可能顛覆中國的地區。如果能建立這論說，香港和內地將同樣地大有收穫。

對中央政府來說，「民主建國」這概念，總比「民主抗共」這説法容易接受。


（註）：香港特區政府現時的立場是：「...該公約在一九七六年引申至香港時，加入了保留條文，使《公約》第２５條（ｂ）段不適用於香港。根據中央人民政府於一九九六年向聯合國秘書長發出的照會和《基本法》第３９條，該項保留條文在香港特區繼續適用」。

Reproduction of this paper is permitted with proper attribution to the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation.

 by Alan LUNG Ka-lun, Chairman