A ‘jive talking’ political reform consultation
The government released its public consultation document on constitutional reform on Dec 5, with Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor as the front woman. Titled “Let’s talk and achieve universal suffrage”, the document gives the impression that all it takes to give our city universal suffrage is “jive talking”. The government frames the issues in such a way the consultation process is likely to be tiring and unproductive. “Subject to conformity with the Basic Law and the Decision of the NPCSC in 2007, in discussing the method for selecting the CE in 2017, we may consider the following key issues,” the document reads. These issues are “size and composition of the nominating committee”; “electoral base of the nominating committee”; “method for forming the nominating committee”; “procedures for the nominating committee to nominate CE candidates”; “voting arrangements for electing the CE by universal suffrage”; “procedures for appointing the CE and linkage with local legislation”; and “political affiliation of the CE”.
While the list of issues is quite exhaustive, the premise is wrong. When collectively designing our new constitutional arrangements, people in Hong Kong not only have to discuss in “conformity with the Basic Law and the Decision of the NPCSC in 2007”, but also take account of the central government’s views as expressed by top officials.
SAR government officials have the tendency to think the law is the only thing that matters and the law is somehow isolated from politics. Therefore, the consultation document talks about the “constitutional basis of the constitutional development” and nothing else.
However, the “constitution” is not an autopilot. It is not self-evolving. Any progress will have to be the result of politics before it becomes codified as law.
The entire process of the constitutional reform is a tango between two partners: people in Hong Kong and people in the mainland as represented by the central government. It was called a “Five-Step Process” by the Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted on April 6, 2004.
The consultation document has also mentioned the “Five-Step Process”, but it does not tell us its true significance. If this consultation is a “talk”, then it is a talk among Hongkongers in preparation for the next round of talks with the central government. In a sense, it is like European Union member countries forming a common position before they negotiate as one single entity in multilateral settings. In discussions like these, it is not enough that an EU country knows what it wants or what other EU countries want, but also what other countries expect of the EU.
Before this piece ends, I would like to offer some substantive suggestions to substantiate my concept of dual accountability (for further information of the concept please refer to my piece “The framework is clear” published here on Nov 25).
The nominating committee’s size, composition, electorate base and “formation method” (by this the consultation document means the existing voting, nomination and ex-officio arrangements of the committee subsectors) should be left largely untouched unless strictly necessary. The nominating committee is the key vehicle through which the Chief Executive’s accountability towards the central government is ensured. Major changes will be impossible. This would undermine the central government’s sense of security; minor changes will not bring any marginal benefits to the perceived legitimacy of the Chief Executive who is nominated. This is a dead end — we should not waste our time here.
We should instead work on “Voting Arrangements for Electing the CE by Universal Suffrage” as this process creates the Chief Executive’s legitimacy in the eyes of Hongkongers.
The consultation document asks “should we require a candidate to obtain more than half the total number of valid votes in order to be elected?” Yes, we should indeed. The document suggests having two candidates with the highest number of votes (if none of them obtain more than 50 percent of the votes) proceed to the second round election and the candidate with the highest number of votes in the second round elected. Let us go a step further and have the third round and the forth, and so on, until one candidate obtains more than half the total number of valid votes.
In essence, combining a more conservative nomination mechanism with a more liberal election mechanism to create a fair and balanced game, where both the central government’s and the Hongkongers’ concerns will be adequately addressed, is necessary to ensure dual accountability.