Page 140 of 182
270
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
public is allowed to elect their Chief Executive directly by general election. Compared with the idea of Grand Electoral College mentioned above, these two proposals have a basically different nature. The difference lies in whether the public is allowed to participate or not. As the latter view is adopted in the mainstream proposal, no compromise is made in this proposal to allow the public to participate in electing the Chief Executive. The difference between the proposals of the Group of 190 and the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions is in fact only a matter of two years because the aim of the election committee proposed by the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions is to elect a caretaker government with a term of only 2 years. According to the Federation's proposal, the Chief Executive shall be elected directly by general election in the third year. Hence the mainstream proposal only shows a compromise between methods of indirect election which do not allow the public to have a share in electing the Chief Executive. It has basically adopted the approach of the ‘Grand Electoral College' advocated by the Group of 89 but has dropped the spirit of allowing the public to select the Chief Executive directly by general election.
With regard to the mechanism and time limit for the transition to the selection of the Chief Executive by general election suggested in various proposals (Table 4), the greatest difference lies between the proposal of the Group of 89 and the proposals of other groups. The Group of 89 proposed that the trigger point system be used to determine when to start the general election of the Chief Executive. Initially the Group of 89 proposed that the trigger point should be determined by the voter turnout rate for the Legislature. Later it was agreed that the trigger point should be decided by a referendum (as proposed in the mainstream proposal). The point in common between these two methods is that no conclusion has been reached on when to start the general election of the Chief Executive. The difference between them merely lies in the timing of the trigger point!
Other models proposed, however, affirm the need to elect the Chief Executive by way of universal suffrage. The only discrepancy is when should we introduce universal suffrage. The Group of 190 and the University Graduates' Association suggest that universal suffrage should be held for the election of the first Chief Executive, but the Progressive Hong Kong Society thinks that we should have it at the time between the 3rd and 5th term of office. Considering one term lasts four years as suggested, the discrepancy in terms of time is 8 to 16 years.
The mainstream proposal, however, only accepts the trigger point mechanism of the proposal championed by the Group of 89 and ignores other models which propose that it should lay down in the Basic Law when will the general public be allowed to directly elect the Chief Executive.
In conclusion, the mainstream proposal accepts the Group of 89's idea in terms of the proposed mechanism and the way of electing the Chief Executive and does not make any compromise with the other proposed models.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 140 of 182
271
It is reflected in the proposed method for constituting the Legislative Council that the mainstream proposal rejects the ideas of 'grand electoral college' and indirect election. The only options left are district general election and election by functional bodies. Regarding district general election, the mainstream proposal starts with a conservative proportion of 27% which will rise to no less than 50% within 6 years (i.e. the 3rd term) as recommended by 'Proposal 190’. If the rejection of the ideas of both grand electoral college and indirect election a concession to the requirements made by the ordinary proposals, the only problem left is when should the public be allowed to elect half of the Legislative Council, or even more. The point of controversy is the time 6 years. The mainstream proposal 'does not allow having more than half of the Legislative Council elected by universal suffrage.' This cannot be achieved until after a transitional period of 6 years. It also leaves another problem of principle, i.e. when should all members of the Legislative Council be elected by a district general election, for determination of the trigger point mechanism. Since none of the alternatives proposed make any clear recommendations in this regard, determination by means of the trigger point mechanism will become a controversy which involves not any matter of principle. It will only be the trigger point mechanism itself that has to be considered.
In conclusion, as far as the method for constituting the Legislative Council is concerned, the mainstream proposal can comparatively, play a compromising role which means both losses and gains from the points of view of the advocators of the various proposals.
3 points can be concluded from the whole issue:
(1) An invisible hand in the minds of the Basic Law drafters:
There are 2 possible factors contributing to the formation of Mr. Louis CHA's proposal judging from the process of its approval. One possibility is that Mr. CHA was requested by Chinese officials to put forward such a conservative proposal. Another being that Mr. CHA and other Basic Law drafters have already begun to control themselves subconsciously and make proposals which they think Chinese officials (or Basic Law drafters) favour. Whichever possibility it may be, the issue clearly shows an invisible hand in the minds of the Basic Law drafters. I hope that such an invisible hand is not created under the former situation, otherwise our dream of 'one country two systems and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong' will be dashed. If it is created under the latter situation, then it is better for the Basic Law drafters to clear their minds because every single word they speak will contribute to the future life style of the people of Hong Kong. Furthermore, it will also give Hong Kong people a wrong concept that Chinese officials are manipulating from behind the scene. Instead of Basic Law drafters who are only enthusiastic in ‘flattering' the Chinese officials, I think what we need are people who have their own way of thinking; whose main concern is the interest of the people of Hong Kong and who will act in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Page 140
Page 141
Page 141 of 182