Building blocks needed in

Hong Kong’s political

development
By YueChim Richard On 2014/09/17 ∙ Add Comment ∙ 190 views

(This essay was published in the South China Morning

Post on 17 September 2014.)

The political reform framework decided by the Standing

Committee of the National People’s Congress has evoked
strong reactions in Hong Kong. The pan-democrats have
denounced it as undemocratic and incompatible with
“genuine popular elections”. For me, it is consistent with
many critical elements of the Basic Law – the agreement
between the Chinese sovereign and the people of Hong
Kong that was promulgated by the National People’s
Congress in 1990.

To be sure, all interested parties and groups have pushed

the envelope, but this is not the same as saying one side
abrogated a promise. The implications of the announced
framework deserve to be carefully analyzed and
understood.

The Basic Law allows for one country-two systems but

debates over the future political framework to sustain this
have split into three narratives.

The first narrative traces back to the Sino-British Joint

Declaration of 1984, when there were fears Hong Kong’s
fundamental commitment to limited government, a free
enterprise economy, civil liberties, and the rule of law
would inevitably be overwhelmed by populism, through
the development of democracy.
This narrative sees democracy as unnecessary to
preserving the rule of law, a free economy and civic
freedoms because they flourished here under a colonial
ruler without democracy, and also in Singapore, which is
not a free polity.

Populism in this argument would contribute to a growing

redistributive and regulatory state and, eventually, to
curtailments on economic and civic liberties, and thus
would erode the commitment to limited government and a
free enterprise economy.

The second narrative also arose after the Joint

Declaration, but sees the threat coming from the Chinese
sovereign, as a non-democratic state. It is favored by
those who strongly support a “bottom-up approach” to
building democracy in Hong Kong and want to anchor
political decision-making with the people and no one else,
even though the people of Hong Kong under one country-
two systems are not a sovereign people. Nor is Hong Kong
a sovereign polity.

The third narrative fears that the current deep political

divisions between these two camps will become even
more difficult to bridge as society continues to polarize.
The Standing Committee’s announced framework
therefore comes as a disappointment to them.

These folks wish to see Hong Kong have a popularly-

elected Chief Executive in 2017. Their fear is that the
Standing Committee’s framework does not allow
sufficient room for political differences to be bridged.

To them, progress in 2017 would be an important step

towards reducing the uncertainties of political
development. This could improve governance, restore the
capacity to adopt sound policies to address Hong Kong’s
deep economic and social contradictions, and sustain
long-term prosperity and stability.

Alternatively, failing to make progress on political reforms

would precipitate a continuing process of gradual decline
– politically, economically, and socially.

Many of those who hold a moderate middle ground

embrace this third narrative. They believe one country-
two systems can only work if both sides of the political
divide are patient and tolerant. But increasingly they find
themselves sandwiched between the intransigent
narratives of the pan-democrats and the establishment.
They do not subscribe to the “bottom-up approach”, but
wish to see a democratic arrangement develop without
unwarranted confrontations with Beijing.

Although the Standing Committee’s framework is

restrictive, I think the prospects of finding a moderate
middle ground have not yet vanished, despite the limited
room to maneuver. Such room was never going to be very
large given the boundaries laid down in the Basic Law,
which had to accommodate a great diversity of opinions
and conflicting interests.

As the differences of opinions and interests have widened

over the years, some have turned to political innovations
as a solution. But are they within the Basic Law?
Citizen nomination of candidates for Chief Executive is an
innovation outside the Basic Law, as is changing the four
sectors of the Nominating Committee. But other
innovations fall within the Basic Law, such as changing
the thirty-eight sub-sectors of the Nominating Committee
and how they are to be constituted.
Growing economic and social contradictions have to be
addressed by sound policies. Political innovations that
facilitate the adoption of such policies should be
accommodated. There should be room within the Basic
Law and the resolutions of the Standing Committee to
allow for changes over time that contribute to a better
future for Hong Kong.