A think tank, Wisdom Hong Kong, yesterday held a Universal Suffrage – Seeking Our Consensus forum. Several speakers were invited to attend. This is a very successful and inspiring activity.
First of all, the five speakers, Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, the Secretary for Justice, Raymond Tam Chi-yuen, the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Maria Tam Wai-chu, a member of the Basic Law Committee, and Ronny Tong Ka-wah and Joseph Yu-shek Cheng from the Alliance for True Democracy, are from three different sectors. Rimsky Yuen and Raymond Tam are principal officials of the SAR Government and both also members of the trio task force on political reform consultation, and as such they surely speak from the perspective of the SAR Government's constitutional role in universal suffrage. Maria Tam is an authority of the Basic Law in Hong Kong and one of the few Hong Kong representatives who had participated in the drafting of the Basic Law from the beginning to the end, now being a member of the Basic Law Committee. She is also a Hong Kong deputy to the National People's Congress (NPC) and a senior legal professional. As such she could be well regarded as a spokesperson for "universal suffrage in accordance with the law". As for Ronny Tong and Joseph Cheng, they both belong to the "pro-democratic camp", but at least Ronny Tong agrees on pursuing universal suffrage in accordance with the law and has proposed an instant-runoff voting method within the power and structure of the Nominating Committee as stipulated in the Basic Law, while Joseph Cheng has set up the Alliance for True Democracy and proposed so-called "three-track nomination" consisting of "nomination by petition", "nomination by political parties", and "nomination by the Nominating Committee". Their positions are noticeably different.
Now, after the SAR Government kicked off political reform consultation, such five persons representing the government, pro-establishment camp and pro-democratic camp could get together in a forum to speak out each other's opinions from their own positions. And in their speeches, each reasoned without making any attack on others, and they discussed without rejecting each other. They all spoke objectively though insisting on their own positions. The atmosphere of the forum was serious but also humorous. This could be said as setting an example for future discussions about the political reform. It should be congratulated delightfully that there could be such a rational debate in the first week after the start of the political reform consultation.
In fact, the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 must follow laws and not be without constraint. Despite this, since now the matter is on public consultation, people must be allowed to speak out. In particular, people who hold different opinions must be allowed to speak out. The truth becomes clearer the more it is debated. Why fear of debate and contest?
Even Joseph Cheng who keeps talking glibly about "true democracy" has made efforts trying to prove that his so-called "three-track nomination" also accords with the Basic Law. Fine, let Joseph Cheng explain to the public how on earth his "three-track nomination" accords with the Basic Law. Article 45 of the Basic Law stipulates clearly in black and white: "The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." Here, (how to attain) "broad representativeness" is open to further discussion, and "democratic procedures" open to further studies. As for the nomination rights and channels, there is only the sole "track" of Nominating Committee from the beginning to the end. Joseph talks about "double-track" or "three –track", perhaps because he has some hidden agenda.
Needless to say, according to the overall plan for the political reform, during the first round of public consultation at this stage, the focus of discussions should be more on principles, legal grounds and the framework instead of concrete arrangements. The purpose of this is to let the public understand the rationale that universal suffrage must be pursued following the Basic Law and interpretations and decisions of the NPC's Standing Committee, so that the discussions won't become aimless. But at the same time, as the universal suffrage also concerns the change of the method to select the CE, discussions inevitably will touch on concrete arrangements, methods and measures for the election. It is impossible to just talk about principles without coming down to earth. Otherwise, the consultation cannot lead to reaching consensus and thus will accomplish nothing.
Therefore, facts are before our eyes. As Secretary Raymond Tam well said yesterday: Is there anyone who does not want the election of CE by universal suffrage in 2017? If the answer is everyone wants it, then all of us should move toward the same direction and make efforts to achieve the same goal. The general direction of universal suffrage in accordance with the law is unshakable, but concrete arrangements should be open to suggestions and criticisms, so as to narrow differences and reach consensus through consultation and debate and to achieve the ultimate goal of election of CE by universal suffrage in 2017.
12 December 2013
