Intergovernmental Relations Between Mainland China and the Hong Kong SAR 271
Mainland in Hong Kong can easily be translated into political influence, which further reinforces Beijing’s strategy in co-opting the business and professional elites. In order to jumpstart Hong Kong’s economy in the aftermath of the political and economic crisis in mid 2003, the central government not only relaxed the inflow of Mainland tourists to Hong Kong through the Individual Visit Scheme, but also launched the CEPA initiative after July 2003. In addition to measures facilitating trade and investment between Hong Kong and the Mainland, the CEPA agreement offers zero tariff treatment to goods of Hong Kong origin and preferential treatment to Hong Kong services entering into the Mainland market, and promotes the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Such policy measures were requested by Hong Kong’s business community and the government, and the central government also believed that they helped to reduce the popular discontent against the Hong Kong SAR government. As Hong Kong’s economy has become more dependent on capital and investments from the Mainland, economic integration between the two areas would further weaken Hong Kong’s bargaining power and erode its autonomy (Holliday et al., 2004: 254–70).
Last but not least, the central government has played an increasingly powerful role in influencing elections in Hong Kong (Poon, 2008: 86–88). For instance, the central government had made its preferences over the candidates known in the 2002, 2005, and 2007 elections for the chief executive. It was also widely believed that Beijing was behind the coordination of the different pro-Beijing political forces before the 2004 legislative elections (Lo, 2008: 58–59; Poon, 2008: 86–87). The Liaison Office of the central government could mobilize community associations, trade unions, and other united front organizations to support pro-Beijing parties and candidates in legislative and district elections (Lo, 2008: 44). In order to prevent the splitting of support for the pro-Beijing political camp, the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, a conservative political party composed of businessmen and professionals, did not field any candidates in the 2004 legislative elections and even merged with the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (the DAB) soon afterward. On the contrary, the exposure of the problems and scandals of politicians from the pan-democracy camp could be regarded as part of Beijing’s strategy to weaken these critics of the Hong Kong SAR government and the central government (Lo, 2008: 58–59). Indeed, the pro-Beijing DAB had replaced the Democratic Party to become the largest party in the legislature by winning 12 seats in the LegCo elections in 2004.
13.4.2.3 Contention over Political Reform
The key point of contention in the relations between Beijing and the Hong Kong SAR since mid 2003 concerns the pace of democratization.22 There are many voices in Hong Kong arguing for a faster pace of democratization, but the pro-government and pro-business sectors tend to follow a more conservative view. The Hong Kong SAR government has collaborated closely with the central government in steering the consultation and debate over political reform. As mentioned earlier, in order to dispel any illusion about the prospect of earlier introduction of democracy, the NPCSC promptly interpreted the Basic Law on April 6 and made a ruling on April 26, 2004, that the selection of the chief executive in 2007 and the formation of the LegCo in 2008 would not be carried out by universal suffrage. A modest reform proposal was released by the Hong Kong SAR government in October 2005. This proposal recommended the expansion of the Election Committee that selects the chief executive from 800 to 1600 and all District Council members would become members of the Election Committee. The number of seats in the LegCo would
22This section draws from my short essay, “Hong Kong Politics after (C.H.Tung)”.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
272 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
expand from 60 to 70. T he geographical constituencies and functional constituencies would increase by five seats each, and the five additional seats in the functional constituencies would be allocated to the category of District Council members, who would be elected by the members of the District Councils themselves. However, the government would have to obtain the support of the pro-democracy legislators in order to obtain the two-thirds majority for the passage of the government’s reform proposals because the pro-democracy legislators still held 25 seats in the 60-seat LegCo. However, all but one of the 25 legislators in the pro-democracy camp voted against the legislation on December 21, 2005. Only 34 legislators voted in favor of the government’s proposal, 24 voted against, and one abstained. The political reform proposal from the government was thus defeated because it failed to obtain the support of a two-thirds majority. This defeat, however, meant that the electoral arrangements of the 2007 chief executive election and the 2008 LegCo election would remain the same as before.
The challenge from Alan Leong of the pro-democracy Civic Party had not changed the preordained outcome of the 2007 chief executive election, although his candidacy did compel Donald Tsang to engage in electioneering as in a competitive election. Tsang finally won 649 votes out of the 800-people Election Committee. As soon as Donald Tsang began his 5-year term as chief executive in July 2007, his government issued a consultation on the roadmap and timetable toward universal suffrage. Instead of allowing the general public to indicate their preference toward different models of electoral reform, the consultation only invited the people to indicate their preference on individual items, such as the composition and size of the nomination committee for the chief executive, the method of nomination, or the method of universal suffrage. This has largely inhibited the public from indicating a clear preference on the way forward in political reform while allowing maximum flexibility for the government to manipulate the outcome of the consultation. Consequently, in mid December 2007, Donald Tsang submitted his summary of the views solicited and recommendations to the NPCSC, maintaining that “implementing universal suffrage for the Chief Executive first by no later than 2017 will stand a better chance of being accepted by the majority in our community.”23 He proposed setting a timetable for achieving universal suffrage on the basis that there were a lot of diverse views and suggested that the methods for selecting the chief executive and forming the LegCo might be amended in 2012.
Soon after receiving the report from the Hong Kong SAR government, the NPCSC rendered its decision on December 29, 2007, rejecting the possibility of universal suffrage in the fourth term of the chief executive in 2007 and the fifth term of LegCo in 2012. Instead, the NPCSC determined that the chief executive may be elected by universal suffrage in 2017 and that the LegCo may be returned by universal suffrage after that of the chief executive, i.e., in 2020.24 There may also be changes in the electoral method for both the chief executive and the LegCo in 2012. Although this central decision could not fully satisfy the demands of the pro-democracy camp and other people who favored more democracy, there were no longer massive protests. After all, this is the first time that Beijing agreed to a timetable for universal suffrage. Nonetheless, future constitutional reforms would still require the approval of the NPCSC and the specific electoral arrangements to attain universal suffrage are yet to be formulated. For instance, Beijing may still
23Report by the Chief Executive of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the Public Consultation on Constitutional Development and on whether there is a need to amend the methods for selecting the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and for forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 2012, Dec. 2007.
24http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/29/content_7334596.htm.
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC