I was pleased to see my hopes spelled out in my article “LegCo election should be postponed to avoid unfairness”(China Daily Hong Kong Edition, July 28) fully realized with the government’s announcement that the Legislative Council election will be postponed for one year. The justifications are similar to the reasons I gave — i.e., the very real dangers of election campaigning during a full-blown pandemic, the unfairness resulting from people being reluctant to come out to vote and those eligible voters overseas prevented by pandemic restrictions from returning to Hong Kong to vote, etc.
One of the strongest arguments for the postponement is that it conforms with international best practices. According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, at least 68 countries or regions had postponed their national or regional elections between Feb 21 and July 26 due to COVID-19 concerns. In particular, the United Kingdom had passed an emergency law to postpone its local council elections in 118 constituencies, including the London mayoral race, for one year. Then recently, US President Donald Trump suggested the presidential election in November should be postponed, although his motive may not be what he wants us to believe. These two examples should silence those local critics who are devoted followers of their foreign masters in London and Washington, who viciously lambasted the postponement without making due reference to the justifications given.
The opposition and their media supporters, citing Singapore’s recent election in the midst of a pandemic, had demanded that the LegCo election should proceed as scheduled. But they conveniently ignored the crucial difference of the two election systems. Singapore has a compulsory voting system and all eligible voters are required to come out to vote, whether they like it or not, or else face a heavy fine. It also allows overseas voters to vote at their respective overseas embassies. But this is not possible for many eligible Hong Kong voters due to the pandemic, thereby greatly distorting the fairness of the election results. Furthermore, Singapore suffered an upsurge in COVID-19 cases after the election, which confirmed the risk of electioneering during a pandemic.
While the postponement is done for health concerns, the administration can use the opportunity to undertake a whole slew of communitywide improvements, thereby taking our city from the gloom and doom atmosphere of the past 12 months to the unlimited promises of a rejuvenated Hong Kong
I have also proposed that the term of office of incumbent LegCo members should be extended for one year with the endorsement of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. This simple arrangement would best serve the public interest as it will allow a total of 99 outstanding bills, as well as funding approval amounting to HK$60 billion ($7.7 billion), which would greatly affect peoples’ livelihoods, to continue to be processed rather than for them to be delayed for another year and debated all over again by another group of newly elected lawmakers. This will have enormous benefits not just for ordinary citizens, but for the economy, which has suffered an unprecedented downturn as a result of last year’s violent social unrest and the pandemic lockdowns since early this year.
It would, however, be a mockery of our election registration laws if those four incumbent LegCo members who have recently been disqualified in the election registration were allowed to stay on, having demonstrated their refusal to uphold the Basic Law. In approving the one-year extension, the NPCSC should specify clear criteria for allowing the incumbent lawmakers to continue their service. At the same time, a new oath for LegCo members to swear to uphold the Basic Law as well as the National Security Law should be a prerequisite for their continued service.
Those incumbent opposition LegCo members who are allowed to stay on would unlikely to be as disruptive as before in the coming year, as the new oath has the effect of the court order of “bound over in good behavior for 12 months”! They probably would no longer be going overseas to lobby foreign governments to meddle in Hong Kong’s internal affairs in the next 12 months.
Police can take advantage of these 12 months to break the backbones of the violent social unrest movement and separatist groups by bringing their masterminds and radical supporters to book. The recent arrest of some separatist group members and the issue of international arrest warrants for the six fugitives for national security offenses is a move in the right direction. Coupled with the stepped-up efforts of the Public Prosecution Department, to be led by a new head, in the expedited prosecution of the outstanding 7,000 arrests during the social unrest, the coming 12 months will hopefully see a restoration of peace and order to our community.
The SAR’s secretary for civil service and all public bodies should use this one year to remove all anti-government elements in the public sector, and conduct housecleaning on departments such as public broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong and the Legal Aid Department. The secretary for education should order a review of teaching materials and practices which previously have given students distorted views on democracy, human rights, freedom and, most of all, patriotism. Prompt implementation should be made to require a pledging of loyalty to both the Hong Kong and central governments among all civil servants.
Meanwhile, a greater effort should be made to educate the public on the true spirit of the National Security Law and to raise their sense of national identity in contrast to the opposition’s promotion of Western superiority and separatism. Public relations experts should be engaged to dispel the common misconceptions about the National Security Law both locally and overseas and to reiterate both the central and Hong Kong governments’ commitment to the “one country, two systems” principle.
The radical opposition has vowed to pursue their “revolution to the bitter end” and that if elected with a majority, they would veto every bill as well as the annual budget, which would paralyze all government services. The administration and Hong Kong society must use this one-year breather to ensure that such a dystopia will never materialize.
The best way is to prevent them from gaining a LegCo majority in the election next year. There are many eligible voters who voted for the opposition not because they support separatism, but because they are dissatisfied with the government’s performance. Hence the government should redouble its efforts to revive the economy, bring down the unemployment rate and demonstrate its determination through actions to solve the longstanding social and housing problems before the next election.
The chief executive should consider a major reshuffle of her cabinet as some of her principal officials appeared not to be up to the challenge of their respective portfolios. The reshuffle will give her an opportunity to reboot her administration and to gain stronger public support.
The Electoral Affairs Commission can also take the time to launch the electronic voting system to rectify the abuses that occurred in the last District Council election. It must introduce preferential courtesy queuing for the elderly and explore the possibility of postal voting for the elderly which would save them from queuing altogether. They can also adopt the Singapore system, which would allow overseas voters to cast their ballots from the nearest Hong Kong representative offices. There are plenty of international best practices that we should consider and selectively adopt to modernize our antiquated election system.
In short, while the postponement is done for health concerns, the administration can use the opportunity to undertake a whole slew of communitywide improvements, thereby taking our city from the gloom and doom atmosphere of the past 12 months to the unlimited promises of a rejuvenated Hong Kong.
The author is an adjunct professor at HKU Space and a council member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
