Robert Carroll
of the key issues facing voters here is whether the reform package on electing the chief executive, as proffered by the government is the final version of Beijing’s definition of universal suffrage, or whether it will be the first in a progression of steps. The signals coming from various officials and those who have commented are confusing because they are not in unison. There have been a number of urgings to “pocket” the deal and work on improvements later, but will there be any?
The latest comments from Li Fei, Chairman of the Basic Law Committee, reportedly declare that there has been no decision to revise the proposed package at a later date. The comments indicate that only if the package is implemented and “experienced and observed for some time can there be a decision whether it needs amending. Any law could be improved as long as it complied with the Basic Law.” Those were the reported comments from Li to a delegation of barristers from Hong Kong in Beijing gathered to discuss the political reform package.
Judging from those statements, there doesn’t seem to be any guarantee at all that there will be movement towards a more representative election of the chief executive. Unsurprisingly, there was no hint either that the package was anything less than satisfactory.
Given that Hong Kong society is sharply divided over political reform and that the government has launched an all-out public relations campaign to win over the public, it is a pity that Li did not place greater emphasis on future openness to change.
If there is a flexible attitude in Beijing to future electoral system improvements, it would be very helpful to know so. If not, there is probably minimal chance of getting support from the few wavering pan democrats from whom four votes are needed to pass the reform bill. The Basic Law requires such changes to the existing electoral system to be passed by a two-thirds majority. One of those closest to Beijing in the pan-democrat camp, barrister Ronny Tong Ka-wah, said a few months ago that he thought that this package could be the end of the line as far as future changes to the chief executive elections was concerned; that unless some agreement was reached to have flexibility in the future, there would be no change. Tong’s opinion is based on his many years of following – as closely as one can at a distance – the process of how decisions in Beijing are made, and what he hears from the more reformist camp in China is it’s the doves, as he puts it, not the hawks, who have the upper hand.
Talking of flexibility, neither was there much movement in the government’s recently announced reform proposals. So, why conduct two public consultations when we end up with more or less the same plan as before the consultations?
While property developer Joseph Lau Luen-hung may have been convicted in Macau of bribery, these charges do not appear to have affected the chances of his rising star son, Lau Ming-wai, who took over the helm at the family firm, Chinese Estates Holdings, after Lau senior’s fall from grace. He has been appointed to chair the Commission on Youth by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. What is interesting here is that Lau junior was deputy secretary-general for Henry Tang-Ying-yen, Leung’s main rival in the CE election campaign, during which much bitterness and harsh words were exchanged between the two candidates. Lau, although social-media savvy and clearly identified with the establishment at a mere 34 years old, may be the sort with perhaps enough sensitivity on his side who can build bridges as an insider with youth.
No Comments