Beijing had promised Hong Kong universal suffrage under the specific terms laid out in the Basic Law. If all parties played by the rules, we would have had universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 or even earlier. Unfortunately, some Hong Kong people chose to sideline the Basic Law. By eroding mutual trust, Hong Kong regressed into chaos. It is clear to any objective observer that the self-inflicted damage, as witnessed by “Occupy Central” in 2014 and the riots of 2019, must end.
Some people blame Beijing for not following through with its promise. The truth, however, is that it is the agitators who are not following through with the Basic Law. On the day of the Handover on July 1, 1997, the Basic Law took effect. Since the Basic Law is the embodiment of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, all stakeholders should uphold it.
On RTHK’s Backchat phone-in program, in which Mrs Anson Chan, the former Chief Secretary, and I joined the discussion, Mrs Chan said the Basic Law was her Bible. If that is the case, why didn’t she openly support the political reform package offered by the SAR Government in 2015?
I recall that on October 6, 2013, at a forum organized by the Alliance for True Democracy, I kept telling the audience that Beijing has worries and that these worries are real and must be acknowledged. If we want a “low threshold” race for the Chief Executive election, we should do what we can to reduce Beijing’s worries. I warned that if, instead, we did things that increased Beijing’s worries, the quest for a low threshold for would-be candidates to enter the race would never succeed.
The proposed electoral reform will screen out those who do not have the long-term interest of Hong Kong and that of China at heart. This, it should be stressed, does not mean that dissent is disallowed
The theme of that forum was “Civic nomination: What is there to fear.” But civic nomination clearly sidelines the Nominating Committee. Those who argue that the Nominating Committee could include all Hong Kong people can only be described as disingenuous. The sad thing is that by insisting on introducing civic nomination, and nomination by political parties, and then agitating and even violently and riotously calling for the SAR government and Beijing to grant the “five demands”, and even inviting sanctions from foreign powers against SAR and Beijing officials, the alliance completely shattered Beijing’s trust in Hong Kong people’s willingness to respect Beijing’s sovereignty. With trust thus completely shattered, Beijing is compelled into taking action. The introduction of the National Security Law through Annex 3 in the Basic Law should not surprise anyone. It is the agitators, the rioters, and the campaigners for foreign sanctions that forced Beijing’s hand. All these developments are sad and unfortunate. If we had followed the gradualist approach as prescribed in Basic Law Article 45, and acted to gain more and more trust from Beijing, we would have had more peace, more prosperity, and a faster track to universal suffrage. We would have legislated what it takes to comply with Article 23. There would have been no need to introduce the National Security Law through Annex 3.
Perhaps the agitators and the rioters and even those who asked for foreign sanctions were themselves misled by ideology and by Western propaganda. Today I still hear people saying China is authoritarian and oppressive. But the truth is that in 2014, outgoing tourists from China exceeded 100 million, and continue to grow every year, and reached 154.6 million in 2019. These tourists all went back to China. If China was so oppressive, many would have chosen to seek refuge elsewhere. Similarly, among the 2.51 million Chinese students studying abroad between 2016 and 2019, 2.01 million (80 percent) returned to China after graduating. This represents a tremendous increase over the years. Between 1978 and 2006, the China Statistical Yearbook reported that only 230,045 out of 919,012 students and scholars returned to China.
Different countries have different political systems, and which political system works better should be subject to scientific inquiry and critical analysis, not beliefs. Moreover, a political system may work well in one country but not so well in another country. One can, of course, personally prefer one system over another, but that is one’s personal choice. No one should dictate one’s personal choice on others. Unfortunately, some people define “true democracy” to be ballot box democracy and seek their version of “true democracy.” As a result, any political regime other than ballot box democracy is considered authoritarian or dictatorial. This kind of thinking is not conducive to civilization advancement. A political system should be “fit for purpose”, which means that it should serve the purpose intended, and the purpose of course is better governance. A government that can serve its people well and that is free from power abuse for personal gain is a government under good governance. Whether an elected government serves people better than a government formed by an alternative process based on established and reasonable criteria needs to be studied objectively.
The proposed electoral reform will screen out those who do not have the long-term interest of Hong Kong and that of China at heart. This, it should be stressed, does not mean that dissent is disallowed. However, allowing dissent should never be understood as allowing a challenge to Beijing’s sovereignty over the SAR or the CPC’s rule over China.
The author is a senior research fellow at the Pan Sutong Shanghai-Hong Kong Economic Policy Research Institute, Lingnan University.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
