From cqyang@chemistry.umass.edu Mon Aug 15 16:48:59 1994 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:47:52 -0400 From: YANG Chang-Qing Subject: Re: CCF.9444 To: weihe.guan@sfwmd.gov Hmm..... Did not know what was happening to me. Normally I do not save anything for that long (more than a week). Guess too busy to clean up the disk. Here you go, Weihe. ==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Sunday, August 7, 1994 (Issue No. 9442, Weekend Edition) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is an e-journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion on the issues related to the Chinese community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= # of Table of Contents Author | Lines ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== --*--Hong Kong: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow--*-- 1. Development of Democracy in Hong Kong...................Wing C. Ng 232 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- From The Editor -- In less than three years, Hong Kong will return to the sovereignty of the People's Republic. Since the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, especially after the 89 democratic movement in Beijing, the transition of Hong Kong to China's sovereignty has been everything but smooth. Chris Patten, the last Governor of the colony proposed to "increase" the degree of democracy in Hong Kong in 1992, a proposal whcih has cast some long shadows on the certainty of a stable transition. While having gained support from some people in Hong Kong, Patten's proposal has sustained some furious attacks from Beijing. From Beijing's point of view, it is hardly impressive to propose democracy at the end of a 150-year colonial era. The true intention of the proposal is interpreted as to institute instability after Year 1997. Is Beijing's view legitimate? Mr. Wing Ng, who is from Hong Kong himself, in his article recounts the development of the events in Hong Kong and tells us that the democratic process is the only way to ensure Hong Kong's long term stability and prosperity. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. Development of Democracy in Hong Kong.....................Wing C. Ng 232 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On June 29, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong passed the election arrangement for the 1995 Legislative Council election which was first proposed by Hong Kong Governor Christopher Patten back on October 7, 1992. There has been a lot of discussions on the various electronic forums about the Patten plan for political reform. Apparently many of our PRC compatriots don't know the basic facts about HK, so here are the facts, and I have also included my own opinions and comments. Let's start from the very beginning, in 1840 or so, U.K. had a profitable trade in opium with China. Chinese official Lin Zexu tried to stop it, then U.K. started Opium War, and HK was ceded to U.K. In 1898, the U.K. obtained a "lease" of more land from China in an unequal treaty, which lease expires on 6-30-1997. By the way, this history is taught fairly objectively in HK schools, (my own personal experience) and Lin is a great national hero in HK. In 1982, U.K.'s prime minister Thatcher tried to negotiate the future of HK with PRC, and was told PRC wants HK back, but on the "one country, two systems" basis. Panic ensued in HK, with big drops in property prices and stocks markets. Then Chinese premier Zhao Ziyang assured some HK students who had written to him that "HK people will democratically rule HK" after 1997. In December 1984, the Joint Declaration (JD) was signed between U.K. and PRC, which provides for "a high degree of autonomy" for HK after 1997 and continuation of present system for at least 50 years. A rather surprising provision in the JD was that "ALL members of the legislature shall be constituted by election", since it is assumed that CCP is generally against multi-party democracy, although it is in line with Zhao's promise. After the Joint Declaration was signed, the U.K. administration in HK implemented the "election" feature by using "functional constituency". Doctors, lawyers, teachers, chambers of commerce, labor unions etc. are "functional constituencies", which elect some members of the legislature. This essentially gives such "privileged" people more say than ordinary people not in such functional groups. In some groups, like teachers, the votes are by individuals as members, in which case there are several thousand voters, while in other groups like chamber of commerce the votes are by corporations who are members, in which case there are only a handful of "voters" in their groups. Some such groups happen to be liberal, and Martin Lee and Szeto Wah (who later became activists for the democracy cause) were elected as representatives of the lawyer and teacher functional constituencies respectively. PRC started drafting the Basic Law, through a Drafting Committee composed roughly 60-40 of people from PRC and HK. Martin Lee and Szeto Wah were selected by the PRC to the Drafting Committee, possibly through the influence of Xu Jiatun, the liberal head of Xinhua in HK then. The pair pushed for a more democratic system. But PRC wanted a more conservative system, with more functional constituency elections than direct elections. When the 1989 Democratic Movement occurred, an astonishing number of 1.5 million (25% of the population) HK people demonstrated on the streets in support the Movement. Lee and Szeto were active in the support movement, formed the nucleus of the Hong Kong Alliance, and were subsequently kicked out of the Drafting Committee by PRC. PRC now hates HK democracy advocates. Even liberal Xu Jiatun escaped to Los Angeles. The PRC became much more hardliner against all democracy after 6.4, regarded HK as a hotbed of subversion of the mainland, and inserted many more restrictive clauses in HK Basic Law, which was promulgated in April 1990. In 1991, the first direct election to the Legislative Council was held in HK. The group United Democrats for HK (this merged in 1994 with other liberal groups to become the Democratic Party of HK) headed by liberals Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, many of whose members were also activists in the HK Alliance, won many of the seats contested, and together with other liberals, made a sweep victory in the election, winning 16 of the 18 seats. The CCP concluded that direct elections in HK would lead to more power and influence for the advocates of democracy, who, the CCP believed, would also want to subvert their authoritarian rule on the mainland. In the Basic Law, the PRC introduced election by an "election committee", which is a nebulous concept not further elaborated, but clearly designed to be anti-democratic. Basic Law still provides for election of all members of the Legislative Council: 1991: 18 seats direct election 21 seats functional constituency 21 seats appointed by HK governor 1995: 20 seats direct election 30 seats functional constituency 10 seats "election committee" LAST election still under U.K. rule. 1999: 24 seats direct election 30 seats functional constituency 6 seats "election committee" 2003: 30 seats direct election 30 seats functional constituency After 2003, there is vague promise that all seats shall become directly elected. Even PRC thinks that "election committee" is inglorious (bu guangcai) and the Basic Law provides that they will be phased out after 1999. Appendix II of Basic Law says: "except" for 1995, the election committee shall be composed of: business people 100 professionals 100 labor, soc. srv, religion 100 members of legislature, of NPC from HK 100 Amazingly enough, there is no detailed provision of how these people get into this election committee. According to the Basic Law, the details of the election procedure, which ones should be functional constituencies, and how the election committee should be constituted, shall be proposed by the government of HK and passed by the HK legislature. In order to comply with the provisions of Basic Law after 1997, the U.K.-HK government must find 9 more functional constituency seats, and 10 new "election committee" seats for the 1995 election. This is something the U.K. Administration must do for HK, and this is also not within the sovereign power of PRC central government to decide. Even after 1997, it is explicitly provided in the Basic Law that this shall be a matter of the HK government and legislature only, not of the PRC central government. Patten's proposal on Oct. 7, 1992 to assign these 19 seats led to thunderous responses from the CCP/PRC, which threatened to abrogate the 1984 treaty, and almost threatened to go to war. The furious opposition led to HK stock market dropping by 8%. The Patten plan is: For the 9 more functional constituency seats: divide almost all occupations by 9, and assign all job-holders into one of the nine. Instead of being a few dozens to a few thousands in number like the existing functional constituencies, each of these big groups number several hundred thousand people. By making functional constituencies so big, these elections become similar to direct elections. PRC prefers functional constituency elections with small number of "voters", as they are easier to control. Another factor is that those functional constituencies can be selected that are conservative or pro-CCP; for example, it was revealed that the PRC proposed a functional constituency for the "PRC-owned enterprises in HK". The PRC at this point is allergic to broad-based direct elections. It consents to all direct elections after 20xx in HK because it assumes that after a number of years, HK people will get used to the PRC system and be easily controllable even in a broad-based direct vote. The prior functional groups were all very narrow, chambers of commerce, lawyers, teachers etc. Under the Patten plan, almost all those who have a job can vote in these functional constituencies. If the old narrow functional groups represented narrow special interests in society, these new broad-based functional groups represent broad, indeed "proletarian" sectors in society. It is most ironic that the CCP, wants more power in HK to the minority wealthy bourgeoisie and opposes more power to the majority middle-class and proletariat, and the reason is that the wealthy in HK wants less democracy and they naively believe they can make their own private deals with the CCP to protect their own interests. For the 10 more "election committee" seats: there are now local District Boards numbering several hundred people. Make them all directly elected, and then these District Board representatives become the "election committee" that elects those 10 election committee seats. Basic Law provides for composition of election committee after 1997, but not for election committee of 1995. It is specifically the duty of the U.K.-HK government to decide on the composition of the election committee for 1995. Making election committee members themselves directly elected means they are responsible to voters. PRC's idea of the "election committees" seems to be 800 people mostly appointed by them. Now according to Joint Declaration, ALL Legislative Council seats are supposed to be elected. How can an election by an appointed committee still be an election? It stretches the concept of "election" too far already. How about have an "election committee" of one member, Deng Xiaoping himself?! It is clear that an election by an appointed "election committee" cannot possibly be an election. Patten's plan calls for all District Board members to be directly elected, and then they become members in the "election committees". At least that's true indirect election. Indeed, that's almost precisely the system in the PRC itself: the village/locality elects a local Renda, the local Renda's elect the provincial Renda, and the provincial Renda's elect the national Renda. It is most surprising that the PRC is against its very own election system! Those Patten proposals were supported by 57%, and opposed by 17% in the polls of the HK people by the end of 1992. The furious PRC opposition caused some erosion of popular support of the election plan in HK, but there was always more support than opposition. The hope of the HK people was for the PRC and U.K. to come to an agreement that gives more democracy and openness for HK elections, but the hope is not to be realized. In April of 1993 the PRC and U.K. began negotiations to find common ground acceptable to both. The talks dragged on for many months and ended in failure by January 1994. The U.K. then stated that it will unilaterally implement the election plan, and the PRC vowed that it will dismantle and roll back these reforms, by disbanding the Legislative Council and all other elected local councils on July 1, 1997, and then it will implement its own schemes for the make-up of these Councils. The PRC proposals are not published and indeed they probably don't even know the details themselves yet. Because the PRC considers the 1995 election arrangement to be null and void and to certainly terminate on June 30, 1997, it did not lobby vigorously against it. Indeed, on June 29, the original Patten election plan was indeed passed by the HK Legislative Council. Most recent polls (after the Legislative Council vote) of the HK people indicates that even if these reforms do not survive 1997, more people support them than oppose. An open, fair, broad-based election is obviously preferred by the people of HK, and will be better guarantee for the true implementation of "one country, two systems" autonomy in HK. It will be in the interest of the HK people to make the 1995 election plan work well, right up to June 30, 1997, and to convince the PRC to allow the election plan features to survive intact after 1997, and to allow the legislators elected by the people of HK to serve out their four-year term beyond 1997, in order to minimize disruption at the transition of sovereignty and to continue with a preferred system. [From: wing@pegasus.com] +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Changqing Yang + + Executive Moderator: Huang Tang + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name" + + to LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet) or listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu (internet) + + For unsubscription: mail "UNSUB CHINA-NT" to the above e-address + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to: cnd.org[132.249.229.100]: pub/community/CCF + + gopher to cnd.org: 2. English Menu --> 14. Community --> 1. ccf + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++