Hong Kong's 'Rotten Boroughs'

On its return to Chinese sovereignty, Britain insisted on the inclusion of provisos for democratic evolution of their former colony within the Basic Law,  its new constitution under Chinese rule. However, China opposed any firm timetable. The agreed wording in the final document was a very weak "gradual and orderly progress" (Articles 45 and 68).

In the meantime,  the first Chief Executive ("CE") was selected by a "broadly representative" (sic) nomination committee, but which actually consisted of 800 people chosen in a rather opaque manner. ^{[boo hiss]} Through what is commonly dubbed "small circle elections", the 800-member business elite voted to chose one of their own – a second generation shipping tycoon – to become the Chief Executive.^{[boo hiss]} He was unopposed, and proved to be an unmitigated disaster. The second, a top civil servant who manifests better political leadership, is faring better than his predecessor; it should be noted, however, that he is unable to convincingly dispel growing suspicions of official collusion with big business, and complicity in human rights violations of the PRC –  political activists continue to be blacklisted by immigrations, a dissident 'repatriated' to the PRC during his watch. Official announcements are bland, like statements we are accustomed to reading from the PRC which insist they "engaged in lengthy consultations", "comply with the law", or "do not comment on individual cases" or "is highly transparent"^[blah!]

Legislative Council of Hong Kong (LegCo), on the other hand, is split into Geographical Constituencies ("GC") and Functional Constituencies ("FC") of 30 seats each. In LegCo, the GCs and FCs vote on the same motions but independent of each other; legislation will fail unless it receives the support of a majority of both groups.

Since 2004, five Geographical Constituencies return 30 representatives based on direct popular vote – the 20 seats in 1998 were increased in two stages to 30 in 2004. During the last legislative elections in 2008, the electorate returned 19 legislators from the Pan-democracy camp, as they are known (with 59% of the popular vote), one independent, and 10 legislators from pro-Beijing parties (with just under 40% of the vote). The Pan-democrats took 61% of the popular vote in 2004.^[1] While it is true that the pro-Beijing DAB has overtaken the Democratic Party as the largest party, democratic voices have become more diverse; some are left and some right. However, all these "Pan-democrats" are overt and united on their platform of universal suffrage at the earliest possible opportunity, although the degree of pragmatism/radicalism varies. The DAB's declared support for 'moderately paced democratic reforms' –  much like the government proposals –  is certainly motivated by the desire to underpin its electoral support.

The 30 Functional Constituencies, which represent various sectoral interests of the economy, return legislators in "elections" whose transparency and competitiveness vary enormously depending on the sector: approximately one third of FC legislators are theoretically returned each by corporate block vote only, a mixture of corporate and individual votes, and individuals only.^[2] In those sectors with mixed voting, four have a greater number of block votes than individual electors. Common sense will indicate there is a problem when there are 14 uncontested seats, one of which returned a convicted fraudster. Of the 16 contested seats, the number of electors, corporate and individuals combined, ranged from between 112 and 52,894 voters.^[1] Four of the FC legislators – mostly those returned in fiercely contested elections – are aligned with the parties which support universal suffrage; two are independent and the rest (24) are pro-government. Government minister Stephen Lam confirmed that no government bills failed to pass through the legislature, demonstrating that the government is supported in legislature largely by unelected Beijing-aligned legislators in Functional Constituencies. This effectively makes Functional Constituencies the  'rotten and pocket boroughs' of Hong Kong, propping up a government with no electoral legitimacy. The very controversial High Speed Rail Link project was steamrollered through LegCo in this way in January 2010 ignoring requests for more debate, greater transparency and prudence.^{[boo hiss]}

Nevertheless, in line with its constitutional obligations, and because of sustained pressure from the Pan-democrats, the Hong Kong Government put forward its reform proposals to LegCo in 2005 which were decisively (quite rightly, in my view) blocked by Pan-democrats that December. An Electoral Reform Green Paper was put forward in October 2007.

The government put forward proposals and embarked on another round of public consultations on 18 November 2009: its recommendations, heralded by CE Donald Tsang as "more democratic than the 2005 proposals", were still widely seen to be a rehash of the 2005 proposals, which include:

1/. Method for selecting the CE in 2012 ^{[boo hiss to them all]}

• Increasing the number of members of the Election Committee ("EC") from 800 to 1,200;
• admitting a greater proportion of District Councillors to membership of the Election Committee;
• Retain the 1:8 threshold for nominating candidates for the office of the Chief Executive (in the expanded EC);
• Neutralise political affiliation of the CEafter his/her election
• allowing for one person, one vote in the election for CE in 2017, subject to successful nomination by the nominating committee.

2/. Method for forming the LegCo in 2012^{[boo hiss to all these too]}#

• Increasing the number of seats in the LegCo by 10 (five each for GCs and FCs) :
• Five new FC seats to be elected by elected District Council representatives:
• Impose nationality requirement of LegCo Members and those allowed to vote

The key differences between this and the failed 2005 plan is that originally, all District Council members can vote for their representatives at Election Committee and at LegCo; now only the elected District Council members get no vote. Big fucking deal: 'more democratic than the 2005 proposals' doesn't mean squat when these were a horizontal move in terms of 'democraticness'. Due to an apparent stipulation by the NPC Standing Committee, we are once again moving horizontally; there was no proposal to further increase the size of the directly elected legislature independent of the Functional Constituencies.^{[boo hiss]} The insipid proposals motivated the 'referendum movement' in which one legislator from each GC resigned to force a de facto referendum in by-elections; these by-elections take place in May 2010.

I hope it is now beyond obvious that the Functional Constituencies are elitist, totally unrepresentative of and unaccountable to the people, yet they enjoy a power to initiate any legislation by themselves; furthermore these "undemocrats" could potentially act against the will of any democratically elected Chief Executive elected should any measure conflict with their own interests. Although the CE is to be elected by the people in 2017 (according to the November proposals), the prior screening of a candidate by an opaquely selected  committee which will be retained going forwards and membership expanded to 1,200 people^{[boo hiss]} – in open voting (not secret ballot)^{[boo hiss more]} –  remains an unacceptable impediment to the free choice by the people.

Forgetting just for one moment that proposals for genuine and early democracy will have to pass LegCo by a double majority –  Functional Constituency representatives will welcome this like turkeys welcome Christmas –  pro-Beijing politicians refer to those who support their snail-paced circuitous proposals as 'moderates', implicitly labelling those wanting a faster pace of reforms as "extremists". I am totally sickened by this pretence that the government wants people power in a manner which is backed by consensus. Chief Secretary Henry Tang, a front-runner for the next CE, is on record saying that he supports retaining the FCs –  that makes him an Undemocrat in my book. It is understandable that those in power may fear not being able to govern if the pro-democracy camp dominates the legislature, but it seems to me that they are petrified by democracy. They are unaccustomed to seeking genuine consensus and unused to being asked tough questions. Like its colonial predecessors, the government pays greater attention to form than substance when it comes to the Hong Kong citizens' views – it goes through the motions, putting up faux-consultations, presenting fait-accomplis, and repackaging and selling 'new lamps for old'. The November 2009 consultation is no exception. The way in which the government is "moving towards the declared aim of broadening representation and increasing democracy" is an utter sham. Not only is there no timetable, there just isn't a clear roadmap. I would prefer to think of the Government as incompetent when their actions/inactions might actually point towards bad faith. There was a suggestion to move from corporate votes to directors vote (although not proposed), but the notion that that would enhance democracy is risible; to say we needed to have indirect elections (through District Councillors) in order to get to universal suffrage is akin to saying we need to go via the Tierra del Fuego to get from Hong Kong to Macao. This is not a government for the people, but a government for big business as many have alleged. However, if the current administration, like those which have preceded it, treat the people more like partners and less like untrustworthy foes, it would go a long way to building a "Harmonious society". Democrats are right to be suspicious of the "candy tomorrow" proclamations of the Hong Kong and PRC Governments as mere stalling tactics when there is institutionalised corruption at a constitutional level. Our struggle mirrors that which culminated in British parliamentary reform in 1832, and the abolition of slavery in 1833. I believe that if we are to achieve that goal of universal suffrage, we must remove the blinkers the faux-democrats want us to wear, and be prepared to keep pushing for our rights as human beings - for Hong Kong's own sake and for.China's. To that end, I made a submission to the public consultation on 19 February 2010.^[3] I did it because I needed to do it for myself and the city I live in and care about. I'm not holding my breath.

See also:

• David Webb (28 November 2005), Corporate Voting in HK Elections - because not much has changed, this information remains as pertinent as ever.

Join Facebook Groups:

AFC - Abolish Functional Constituencies 廢除功能組別
鏟除功能組別!!!!!!!!

Airport security

Recent discussions on the subject of airport security reminded me of an email I received from a friend in early 2003. The email (more of which later) wasn't a serious one, but was in the aftermath of the attack which turned the World Trade Center in New York into two very large smouldering scrap heaps.

It seems that the issue is once again gaining political attention following security lapses which allowed the "underpants bomber" to board a plane with his explosives stuffed into his Y-fronts. As security has improved, it seems that terrorist tactics and methods have also evolved. Politicians are demanding use of leading-edge intrusive technologies, such as the Millimeter wave scanner, which has increased fears for violation of privacy and civil liberties. Ironically, Amsterdam leads the way by having adopted such scanners at Schipol in 2007. These machines are already being installed at all major airports in the United States and the UK; they are being rolled in at other major airports around the world.

Hong Kong has announced that all passengers would be 'patted down' (subject to full-body searches) from now on; according to the press, passengers dislike the intrusion, but "understand the situation." However, I question whether people would "understand" so well once they realise the implications of the full-body scan? My friend's email contained a link to a spoof animation – one which is remarkably "close to the bone". (note:Shockwave is required for your browser to view it). I wonder if guards will be scrapping with each other to man the security monitors when  Brad and Angie pass through airport security– having this job when such good-looking people step through the scanner could be better than looking at skin mags all day!

But seriously,  this is just one increase in intrusion we have to experience when travelling by air these days. I hope that the authorities realise they will kill air travel if airlines demand cavity searches in future.