Eric Sautedé
For a reason that escapes any logic primarily concerned with fairness, only 22 members of the Legislative Assembly will participate in the Election Committee responsible for the designation of the Chief Executive (CE) this year. It is at the very least an aberration. After all, in Hong Kong, all members of the LegCo — the 70 of them — participate in the Committee, so why not in Macao?
Are arithmetic and proportionality to be blamed? The Election Committee in Hong Kong is made up today of 1,200 members against 400 only in Macao. But then, why would “all” members representing the SAR at the National People’s Congress be included instead of a selected few: the whole lot, that is 12 of them, are entitled to participate, just like in Hong Kong — 36 altogether in the latter case. Does it mean that NPC members are more legitimate to elect the CE than members of the local legislature? Does it comply with the rationale of the “one country-two systems” formula?
What about the members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference? Almost half of the delegates — 14 out of 29 in total, that is 48.3% — representing the Macao SAR in this toothless consultative body will participate in the Committee, proportionally more than in Hong Kong where the electoral law indicates 51 members out of a total of 124 (41.1%). Why would they be more “entitled” in Macao than in Hong Kong? And how does it reflect on the very idea of a “high degree of autonomy”?
The anomaly of the situation becomes even more obvious if one starts to look into Annex I of the Macao Basic Law, in which we are being told that “principles of democracy and openness” should prevail over the designation of the members of the Election Committee. How is it even possible to exclude the very few members of the community returned via universal suffrage in really competitive elections?
The Electoral Law for the Chief Executive only makes a passing reference to the way legislators should be designated to the Election Committee: an “internal vote” has to be organized (art. 14), but just like in the case of legislative elections for functional constituencies, an actual vote becomes optional if the number of candidates matches the number of seats.
At the very least, one could imagine that all legislators directly elected via universal suffrage — 14 out of 33 — should make the cut. However, only ten will participate. Three democrats — Au Kam Sam, Ng Kuok Cheong and Sulu Sou Ka Hou — abstained from even running for political reasons: they denounce what they have been calling for years the tragic embodiment of “small circle” elections — the “happy few” co-opting a single candidate — and advocate for really “democratic and open” elections in which the whole citizenry would be called to the voting booths.
But then, why is Si Ka Lon, a directly elected legislator and Mr Chan Meng Kam’s henchman, absent from the list of the 22? What does it say about his standing? Could it be a political statement? A deal for another to take his spot? Not quite: contrary to 2014, Mr Si Ka Lon is now entitled to a seat in the Election Committee because he is concurrently one of the twelve designated delegates representing Macao at the NPC! And talking about shrinking small circles, the same goes for Ho Iat Seng, Chui Sai Peng and Kou Hoi In, all NPC delegates as well.
Ultimately, indecency is really championed by the appointed members of the Legislative Assembly: the very people appointed by the CE will get to elect the CE by representing the one and only institution with a democratic component! True, they were appointed by Chui and will get to vote for Ho, but again, beyond a mere farce, what message does it convey? And will Wu Chou Kit and Fong Ka Chio (the only two appointed lawmakers left aside) prove better? Not exactly, as Mr Wu and Fong will most probably be among the 43 members representing the “professional sector” on the Committee. Clearly, the circle is tightening, almost to the size and shape of a single dot.
No Comments