Please Select ----------------------- Fourth Meeting of the Task Group on Constitutional Development of the Commission on Strategic Development 29-05-2008 HKDF 10-03-2008 Forum by Professional Commons & LegCo Office of the Hon. Anson Chan 18-02-2008

Fourth Meeting of the Task Group on Constitutional Development of the Commission
on Strategic Development
Presentation by Mrs. Anson Chan’s Core Group
29-05-2008 

Chief Secretary for Administration, Members,

On behalf of the members of my Core Group I would like to thank you for your invitation to present our views to you this afternoon. With me is Liz Bosher.

As time is limited I propose to dispense with any preamble and move straight to the key points I would like to make.

During his campaign for re-election, the Chief Executive made a firm commitment that [if re-elected] he would resolve, before the end of his second term of office, the issue of when and how the promise of full universal for the election of the CE and for all members of the Legislative Council would be resolved. However, at the first meeting of this Task Group the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs clarified that the remit of the third term CE would be confined to dealing with issues relating to the two electoral methods for 2012. Far from the issue of universal suffrage being resolved once and for all by 2012, it seems that Hong Kong people are expected to wait until after 2017 to see clearly the final model of governance to be applied to them.

Putting aside the fact that, for whatever reason, the CE is now unable to fulfill the commitment he made to Hong Kong people in the run up to his re-election, such a situation is both unreasonable and unworkable. Specifically, I can see no way for this Task Group to fulfill that part of your terms of reference to lay [and I quote] “..a solid foundation for attaining universal suffrage for the Chief Executive in 2017 and for the Legislative Council in 2020..” without placing your recommendations squarely in the context of a firm and final roadmap to achievement of full universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020. The package of electoral changes to be introduced in 2012 must, clearly and unequivocally, pave the way for the achievement of full universal suffrage no later than the prescribed dates.

Please be mindful of why the Government’s 2005 package of proposals failed to gain the necessary support of two-thirds of the Legislative Council. Quite simply, it was not obvious to the critical observer how the measures it proposed would result in real progress being made towards attainment of full universal suffrage. It is in no one’s interest that the package of proposals which emerges from this consultation process meets the same fate; this is why it must be capable of securing the broad based endorsement of all the major political parties represented in LegCo.

I would now like to set out what we consider to be the key elements of a package capable of securing the necessary support of LegCo Members.

First, the Government must assure Hong Kong people that they will be governed in accordance with an internationally accepted definition of universal suffrage. Bearing in mind that Article 39 of the Basic Law provides for the terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to be implemented through the laws of Hong Kong, we believe that the Government should state clearly that the definition of universal suffrage to be applied in Hong Kong will be consistent with that laid down in Article 25 of the ICCPR which states that:

‘Every citizen shall have the right and opportunity ……

(a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.

I believe our view - that Functional Constituency (FC) elections are fundamentally inconsistent with this definition and must therefore be abolished - is well known. Far from being alone in this view, I note that there is a broad consensus across political party lines, including leading members of the Liberal Party and the DAB, that FCs must be abolished before we can honestly say that universal and equal suffrage has been achieved. It was therefore extremely surprising to hear the CE state, during a recent Members’ Question Time in the Legislative Council, that he believes that under certain arrangements, functional constituencies can achieve the principles of equal and universal suffrage.

It is frankly hard to see how any real progress can be made until the Government makes a firm statement in principle that FCs will be abolished and by what date. Then the community will be able to focus squarely on the practical issue of whether they should be removed in phases or all in one go.

Let’s not forget that, when FCs were initially introduced in 1985, they were never conceived of as anything other than a halfway house between the previous government appointment system and one-man-one-vote. Given that some have electorates numbering only a few hundred and that others quite shamelessly seek to promote their own vested interests rather than the common good, how can it be argued that they contribute to ‘balanced participation’. In a true democracy the balance of participation will find its own level naturally, because no particular grouping will have an unfair advantage when it comes to representation in the Legislature.

As regards possible changes in 2012 to the LegCo electoral arrangements our views are:

• As we firmly believe that FCs should be abolished to make way for full universal suffrage, we see no particular benefit in increasing their number in 2012, particularly as this raises the problem of which additional groups should be included.

• We do not support adding more FCs elected from among District Board members, because DCs do not actually represent any functional sectors and their constituencies overlap with those of LegCo Members directly elected from geographical constituencies.

• In 2012 the emphasis should be on increasing the franchise of existing FCs and broadening the mandate of those Councillors elected by them. Along the lines of the recommendations in the report by my Core Group: ‘The Road to Universal Suffrage’ published on 5 March 2007, we recommend two specific measures:
- that the concept of corporate voting be redefined to encompass all members of the Boards of Directors, Executive and/or Management Committees of those companies, associations and organizations which currently exercise a single corporate vote. If this measure is implemented, we estimate that the overall number of voters for FCs would increase from the current some 215,000 to approximately 450,000;
- the existing 30 FC seats be organized into ten groups for the purpose of electing LegCo Members, the rationale being that this will strengthen the mandate and representativeness of those elected in preparation for making way for full universal suffrage.

I note that while this last recommendation, namely of grouping FCs together for electoral purposes, has also been proposed in submissions from other groups and individuals, yet the concept has not been included as a possible option for consideration in any of the papers so far submitted for your consideration.

As regards the mechanism for election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, I can also confirm that the views expressed in my Core Group Report have not changed. In essence these are:

• We are in broad agreement with the concept that the present Chief Executive Election Committee evolve into the Chief Executive Nominating Committee specified in Article 45 of the Basic Law.
• We see no particular advantage in increasing the size of the Nominating Committee, but we do consider it essential that the Committee be made more genuinely representative of the Hong Kong community by broadening the franchise along the lines we have suggested for broadening the franchise of the LegCo FCs.
• To enhance the prospects for genuinely contested election of the CE we recommend that the minimum number of nominations required by each candidate be fixed at 10% of the total size of the Nominating Committee.
• There should be no requirement on candidates to obtain a minimum number of nominations in each of the four sub-sector groupings, as this will reduce voters’ choice and possibly quite unfairly and unreasonably lead to a filtering out of candidates who enjoy widespread popular support.

On a final point, I note with some unease suggestions that there should be moves to reduce and perhaps progressively phase out the currently permissible quota of LegCo Members who are not Chinese Nationals or who have right of abode in foreign countries. In this regard I would like to make two observations:

• First, the provision that up to 20% of LegCo Members may fall into the above categories is set down in Article 67 of the Basic Law, not in Annex II. There is therefore no implication to be drawn that this was intended to be a short term or transitory measure.
• Secondly, it is a fact that the majority of non-ethnic Chinese Permanent Residents of Hong Kong are unlikely to qualify for Chinese Nationality under present criteria. Therefore, to impose a requirement that all Members of LegCo be of Chinese Nationality would effectively bar these groupings from the right to stand for election and fly in the face of any true concept of fair and universal suffrage.

Mr. Convenor, Members, this concludes our presentation. Thank you for your attention.