Last month the National People’s Congress Standing Committee voted unanimously to make important changes to the electoral framework in Hong Kong. This is not unexpected. Over many years we have witnessed political gridlock, and a lack of meaningful progress on important issues. The unrest in 2019 took Hong Kong to the point at which it became very clear that the electoral arrangements beginning in 1997 could not be maintained. Many years of politicians refusing to compromise and refusing to enter into dialogue have led inexorably to this point. Something had to break. The NPC decided to act.
As would be expected, there are those in the Hong Kong community who believe the changes to the electoral system are for the best. On the other side of a very large divide are those that feel the changes are to the detriment of Hong Kong and so should be rejected.
I was therefore amused to read that Lo Kin-hei, chairman of the Democratic Party, stated recently that “for many Hong Kong people, they have lost hope in LegCo”. I think it’s fair then to say that Mr. Lo’s view is very much in line with the NPC. Otherwise, the NPC would not have taken steps for such a drastic overhaul. Perhaps this alignment of views between the Democratic Party and the NPC bodes well for the future!
I am, of course, speaking somewhat in jest. Mr. Lo also said: “the overhaul has effectively brought the Hong Kong political system to a pre-1997 stage.” This is an interesting comment. Is Mr. Lo actually suggesting that the overhaul is equivalent to the structure in Hong Kong before the Joint Declaration between China and UK was signed?
Perhaps the overhaul creates an opening once again to have people representing different sectors of society honestly and openly discussing the issues that Hong Kong needs to address, and not be distracted by petty politics and self-interest
If so, this would be entirely inaccurate. Clearly, there are still elections, and still different sectors of society involved in debating and deciding the future of the HKSAR. Such a setup is very different to the state of British rule over Hong Kong.
For those with short memories, and those born after 1997, let us not forget that for the entire history of Hong Kong under British rule (except for the last few years leading up to 1997) there was NO direct democracy. There was no one-person-one-vote system to choose the leader of the territory. Rather, a governor was appointed by Britain to administer the territory, and local Hong Kong people had no say in the choice of who that governor was to be.
There was also an Executive Council (ExCo), and a Legislative Council (LegCo), both made up of government officials and non-official members selected based on their contributions to the community.
Changes to Hong Kong’s political system wherein the people of Hong Kong could be involved in electing legislators and the leader came in only as a result of negotiations on the Joint Declaration.
For those who remember the many years of hard negotiations between China and the UK for the return of Hong Kong to China, the common theme was always 50 years no change. From what I could see at the time, from the China point of view this meant exactly what it says — the handover of an operating colony with a governor, an unelected ExCo and an unelected LegCo. It’s a little like mergers and acquisitions in business. When you buy a unique company that is profitable and operating well, the biggest mistake you can make is to try to “integrate” it into the mother ship. The right thing to do, therefore, is to leave those ventures that create the most value to operate without any major changes, based on their already successful model.
In the case of Hong Kong, the UK had a different idea and insisted that Hong Kong should be bestowed with the gift of “democracy”. Why that gift was not bestowed in 1950, or 1960, or even 1970 is hard to say. But it’s important to ask why the first direct elections to LegCo only happened in 1991, after the Joint Declaration had been signed.
Whatever the reason, over the past 30 years or so, the governance of Hong Kong has deteriorated year-by-year, culminating in the violence of 2019. The leadership in China have clearly come to the conclusion that the direction previously chosen was a mistake, and changes are needed. If Mr. Lo is correct, these changes represent a partial shift back to the old British way of governing Hong Kong, but with a lot more democratic engagement than was ever the case under British rule.
One could argue that the more “authoritarian” approach pre-1997 was not all bad. Pre-1997 there were many examples of critical social issues being addressed quite effectively by the government of the time. The rapid construction of new towns during the 1960s and 1970s to deal with a massive population influx is a case in point. I’m sure that the dialogue between various sectors of society represented in LegCo and ExCo of those times contributed to quite positive outcomes for Hong Kong society.
As I have written before, the only meaningful way to meet the real needs of Hong Kong is for the various sectors of society to come together and dialogue in a respectful way. The structural changes that were introduced since 1997 clearly have not supported such an approach. Perhaps the overhaul creates an opening once again to have people representing different sectors of society honestly and openly discussing the issues that Hong Kong needs to address, and not be distracted by petty politics and self-interest.
Is the new structure going to be enough? Clearly the structure of the last 23 years hasn’t worked. Continuing to try the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Perhaps it’s time to give the changes the benefit of the doubt. Time to accept that there is an intention for Hong Kong to have its own unique system, and that working together respectfully is the best way to achieve good outcomes for the entire community. It is time for Hong Kong to become sane again.
The author is a psychologist, linguist, educator, entrepreneur, dialogue facilitator and corporate adviser with over 30 years’ experience doing business in Asia.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.