The Future of Hong Kong

The question of the future of the Hong Kong political system is raised on the occasion of the 13th anniversary of the handover.

by Juliette Thibaud-Rebaud writes from Hong Kong

(July 02, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian) This first of July has marked the 13th anniversary of the return of the British colony to China. Maybe even more strongly than the previous years, this anniversary has been punctuated by the ongoing debate about the future of the Hong Kong political system.

The 1st of July 1997, Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, retaining its capitalist economic system and preserving the fundamental freedoms of its citizens. The Basic Law, following the principles established in the 1984 Sino-British Declaration, introduces the ‘one country, two systems’ principle, grants a high degree of autonomy in the administration of its internal affairs –except in its foreign and defense policies- to the territory and guarantees the inviolability of the fundamental freedoms of the Hong Kong people. The Basic Law notably specifies that the ‘ultimate aim’ is the selection of the Chief Executive and the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage ‘in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress’.

_________________________

“The current system undoubtedly benefits the commercial and financial interests at the expense of other issues, some of which may be indispensable to the well-being and harmony of the community. Some recent policies have perfectly illustrated the impact of this political system on the life of the Hong Kong inhabitants.” [Click here to read this article in French]
_________________________

Although the Basic Law makes provision for the ultimate adoption of universal suffrage, it does not specify the timeframe within which the evolution should take place. In 2007, after having twice postponed the introduction of universal suffrage, Beijing specified two dates for the first time: 2017 for the election of the Chief Executive, 2020 for the election of all the members of the Legislative Council.

Currently, half of the 60 members of the Legislative Council are elected by popular vote, on the basis of geographical constituencies. The other half are elected on the basis of ‘functional constituencies’ representing the different sectors of the economy (Banking, Transports, Real Estate, Tourism, Commerce, Finance…). The Chief Executive is elected by an electoral committee composed of 800 members among which 664 are nominated among the representatives of the different economical sectors on the basis of the functional constituencies, 40 among religious organizations and 96 among the members ex officio of the government.

Last June, the Legislative Council has adopted a Beijing-backed reform, which makes provision for 10 additional seats, elected by universal suffrage in 2012 and the augmentation of the number of the electoral committee members up to 1200. This reform package which has introduced limited democratic progress, has divided the pro-democratic camp, a part of it offering its support to this evolution, the other part refusing to accept a compromise which is by far not up to their objective of full democracy.

Is it necessary to state the obvious? This system lacks representativeness and in it, the votes of the Hong Kong citizens do not weight the same: the number of people composing electorate of the functional constituencies being much lower than in the geographical constituencies, sometimes only a couple of hundreds votes are enough to elect a Legco member from a functional constituency. Moreover, within that system, some of the most influential voters are not individual citizens but big corporations.

The current system undoubtedly benefits the commercial and financial interests at the expense of other issues, some of which may be indispensable to the well-being and harmony of the community. Some recent policies have perfectly illustrated the impact of this political system on the life of the Hong Kong inhabitants. For instance, some environmental activists have linked the political system to the lack of progress in terms of much-needed environmental reforms, some economical sectors benefiting from loose environmental regulations.

Moreover, while the economical crisis continues to loom, the project to devote 67 milliards of Hong Kong dollars, or almost 10 000 HKD per inhabitants, to the construction of a high-speed railway linking Hong Kong to Guanzhou, interpreted by the government as beneficial to the vitality of trade and tourism, has outraged a large part of the population.

If, previously, the dynamism of the economy, the stability of the society and the respect of the fundamental freedoms had led a majority of the population to adjust its expectations and to satisfy themselves of the current system, it seems that a change, reflecting the growing politicization of the population, is slowly taking place. Although this change may not be reflected in the opinion polls, the growing number of demonstrations or expressions of discontent in which a larger number of people is taking part is a sign of it. On 4 June 2009, the 20th anniversary of the TianAnMen events had assembled 150 000 people for a candlelight vigil in Victoria Park. This year, following a governmental decision to seize a statue symbolizing the ‘Goddess of Democracy’, 113 000 persons gathered on that occasion. Moreover, according to certain observers, tensions had appeared during the previous month’s demonstrations between the activists and the police, leading to the arrest of several demonstrators suspected of having assaulted some policemen, sign of the growing frustration of the Hong Kong activists.

On this first of July 2010, it remains difficult to predict the future evolution of the Hong Kong political system. A recent opinion survey showed that a majority of Hong Kong people did not think that Beijing will keep its promise to ‘grant’ them the universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020.

Nevertheless, the concretization of that promise would undoubtedly be seen as a sign of good will by the rest of the international community. Notably if we keep in mind that China has mentioned that the ‘one country, two systems’ principles could be applied to Taiwan, a prospect which has been welcomed with a lot of reticence, to say the least, on the other side of the strait, where the political evolution of Hong Kong is not seen as reassuring.

(The writer is studying a master degree in conflict analysis and peace-building in the Institute of Political Sciences of Lille, in France. The views expressed by the author are her own)