full democracy would produce chaos in Hong Kong, which would be dangerous to its future relationship with the PRC;
any delay in developing democracy will be fatal as PRC will seek to influence the 1995 elections;
Hong Kong needs to develop sensibly towards a party big enough to appoint the Chief Executive.
10.7
We do not have any position on the nature of the choices Hong Kong citizens should or should not make. Our concem is to suggest ways of achieving the optimum conditions for the electors to be able to make those choices freely and influentially. The prime opportunity is the first direct LegCo election in September and it is therefore crucial that there is every possible encouragement to participation and involvement. The regulatory framework has a role to play in this but it can do little more than hold the ring if the general tone and style of campaigning by the competing political forces deters rather than attracts the electorate.
10.8
No single significant political force can of itself guarantee a bealthy political atmosphere but it can unilaterally spoil that atmosphere. A version of Gresham's Law applies to politics in that bad politics tend to drive out good. Debate and argument between those supporting competing philosophies and programmes lies, at the heart of political campaigning but it is not always carried out without rancour or bitterness. We sense that in the Hong Kong situation the prevailing attitude towards politics is such that the electors are even more sensitive to abuses of party politics than many people elsewhere.
10.9
No regulations, nor codes of conduct, can ensure sweetness and light in the hustle and bustle of an election campaign but those at the head of the major political forces can do a great deal, both by setting the tone of the debate themselves in public, and also by keeping a gentle but firm influence behind the scenes on their more volatile colleagues. We were particularly impressed, in this regard, by the willingness of leading politicians from different parties to meet together during our visit without fudging the issues nor blurring their identities. Key politicians being seen to disagree publicly without losing respect for opponents is a valuable image for electors who face a party political choice at the ballot box for the first time over the territory as a whole.
10.10
There are nevertheless a number of areas where the authorities can help or hinder the democratic processes. We were told of problems in relation to the District Board elections, such as candidates' posters being torn down, of difficulties in gaining access to appartment blocks to canvass electors individually, and that churches and schools often refuse permission for political meetings. Practice on matters such as these varies considerably from country to country but we recommend that as permissive an attitude as possible be adopted. In this the support of the major political parties is important. It is not always easy for over enthusiastic supporters to realise that political pluralism involves the open promotion of opposing views and candidates, but if leaders demonstrate their robust commitment to this it will assist the authorities to avoid taking unnecessarily restrictive action.
10.11
We therefore recommend that:
there be a general "freedom to campaign" in public places durin the election period, subject only to sensible restrictions as to obstruction, public nuisance, etc;
there be a requirement on a candidate or agent to notify the appropriate public authority of an intention to place election material on appropriate public land or property during the election period, subject to the test of "reasonableness" as to over-dominance of any one party or the defacing of other legitimate advertising etc; any posters etc must be removed within fourteen days of polling day;
apartment blocks owned by public authorities or by housing associations supported by public funds should be open to bona fid candidates or their workers who wish to call door to door to canvass support;
there should, however, be a ban on political activity within the immediate precincts of the polling stations themselves in order to avoid the possible jostling of electors on their way to vote;
the Election Commissioner be empowered to adjudicate on these matters during the election period, subject, of course, to challenge in the courts by injunction or by election petition.
10.12
We further recommend that the UK rules be adopted regarding the free availability to candidates of schools and other public buildings for public meetings during the election period. We also hope that other organisations that own suitable halls, such as churches, will take a public spirited attitude and assist the democratic processes by encouraging meetings - perhaps even promoting public meetings at which all the local candidates are invited to answer electors' questions.
10.13
There are two further aspects of the election process which were raised with us. First, concern was expressed that the amount of finance available to the different candidates and parties would vary considerably and that this could give an illegitimate -- advantage to groups with money. This issue is usually tackled in one of two ways. In the USA, for instance, there are tight controls on income but not on expenditure. In other words there are limits on the maximum amounts that can be given by individuals and companies, policed through an obligation to declare all gifts above a certain level. Allied to these restrictions, in a further attempt to equalise resources between candidates, are rules determining the release of matching public funds at certain levels. In the UK there are no limits on income as such, nor an obligation to disclose the identity of individual donors to parties or candidates, such funds usually being channelled through the local party, but instead there are tight controls on expenditure (including that in kind) in constituencies.
10.14
In the Hong Kong situation it is probably preferable to encourage donations but to inhibit excessive expenditure. We recommend therefore that the UK system be continued but with limits for each constituency based partly on a fixed amount and partly per capita by reference to the size of its electorate. We further recommend that an additional restriction be placed on expenditure by a party beadquarters on behalf of its territory wide campaign, this to be based on the number of candidates each party fields.
10.15
We are concerned that the high level of deposit to stand in the LegCo election - $5,000 per candidate, forfeited if polling less
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.