This year’s 1 July protest march - held less than a week after the electoral reform proposals for 2012 were passed by Legco - was the first march to be held amidst internecine warfare in the pan-Democratic camp. While the Democratic Party was a natural target for criticism, the repercussions of the League of Social Democrats’ more extreme tactics also became increasingly apparent - both during and after the march.

Members of the Democratic Party received near-universal condemnation from protest participants after voting for the electoral reform proposals - funds raised during the march tumbled from $300,000 to $45,000 (link in Chinese), and Democratic Party stations were dogged by disenchanted Party supporters playing back Democrats’ previous statements on electoral reform through loudspeakers. A survey showed that, of the participants in the march, 67% saw the Democratic Party in a poorer light after the electoral reform votes (link in Chinese).

The Democrats were - as they should have been - well aware of the possibility of a backlash. But - leaving aside the instance where Party veteran Szeto Wah comparing his interlocutors to livestock for suggesting that the Hong Kong public could be “sold out” - nobody in the Party made an attempt to explain or justify the Party’s position. The Democrats are now moving to disclose details of negotiations with the Central Government (link in Chinese), but this damage control may well prove to be “too little, too late”.

However, the more radical League of Social Democrats - superficially the party with the most to gain from the Democrats’ volte-face - have troubles of their own. LSD legislator “Long-hair” Leung Kwok-hung was doused with water by irate protesters at the march; a subsequent counter-demonstration (link in Chinese) hints at a wider backlash. Worse from the LSD’s perspective, the League is drawing in young radicals who the League itself cannot bring to heel (link in Chinese). Facing the possibility of a backlash over its radical antics, the LSD is likely to find its most enthusiastic young members to be an increasing liability.

Stephen Vines’ column in today’s SCMP, and the Editorial column in the Ming Pao, both sounded a note of caution over the perceived victory of the Government in the political reform votes.

The Ming Pao editorial observed that, while the Chief Executive and his Cabinet had reason for excitement after the arduous passage of both proposals, the characterisation of their passage as a “victory for rationality” is hubristic given the heavy price paid by the Democratic Party. The column cited the belated adoption of the Democratic Party proposal by the Tsang government as the primary reason for the difficulties faced by the Democrats. Informed of the Governmental go-ahead a mere 2 days before the legislative debate, the Democratic Party lacked the time to build internal consensus, let alone explain the modified proposal to others in the pan-Democratic camp - resulting in the subsequent intra-party and inter-party divisions.

The Ming Pao editorial further noted that the Government’s belated adoption of the Democrats’ proposal also offended Royalist politicians, many of whom made their sourness at being taken for granted known in the legislative debate - and took the opportunity to snipe at the Government’s “Act Now” (also referred to on Nathan Road as “Weigh Anchor” from the Chinese) campaign. As the column noted, the execution of the campaign was botched from start to finish, resulting in increased social division rather than the building of consensus. For the Chief Executive to invite the Civic Party’s Audrey Eu to a televised debate after the disastrous 17.1% voter turnout of the Civic Party’s and League of Social Democrats’ de facto referendum could have been a prime opportunity for Tsang to spring a surprise on Eu. However, as the paper noted, the debate significantly diminished public support for the proposals - and highlighted the paucity of Tsang’s political ability and judgment.

In such circumstances, the Ming Pao editorial argues, it is blatantly inappropriate for the Government to gloat - what it should be doing is to display humility and act to heal social divisions. The paper criticised Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Minister Stephen Lam for his arrogant gloating in Legco after the vote, which did nothing but aggravate existing social rifts.

Stephen Vines’ column, while touching on many of these points, focused more on the winners and losers of the entire process. Vines noted that the Central Government’s direct involvement in negotiations had “shattered” any vestige of authority and credibility the SAR Government might have had and had fatally undermined “One Country, Two Systems”. The swift volte-face by members of the Royalist camp, Vines further argues, had the effect of reducing the rule of law to nothing more than political expediency. [Palmerston: This does not strike your corresponding as being terribly surprising, or even new - any objective study of the previous NPCSC interpretations of the Basic Law will reach exactly the same conclusion.] Vines considered it likely that the Democratic Party would lose its mantle of political leadership as disillusion set in over the modified proposals amounting to little more than entrapment. However, Vines noted that the Civic Party - one likely successor as the vanguard of the pan-Democratic camp - was itself divided by participation in the referendum and by its perceived closeness to the LSD. Ultimately, Vines concluded, the only political force which had indubitably improved its position was the LSD.

After half a day’s continued acrimonious debate, the Government proposal (as modified by the Democratic Party) on Legco electoral reform in 2012 has been approved 46:12. (Tsang Yok-sing [HKI; DAB], as Legco President, did not vote; Leung Kwok-hung [NTE; LSD] was absent, having been expelled from the chamber for interrupting Minister for Mainland and Constitutional Affairs Stephen Lam.)

So, what exactly, has been passed?

Chief Executive election, 2012

The Electoral Committee has been increased from 800 to a whopping 1200 people (a decrease from the 1600 proposed in 2005), with no change in the relative proportions taken up by Beijing politicians and special interest groups. The threshold for nomination has increased proportionately from 100 to 150 electors - rendering it effectively impossible for any pan-Democrat to be nominated.

Legislative Council election, 2012

The Legislative Council will expand to 70 seats. 5 of the 10 new seats will be elected by geographical constituency. The remaining 5 seats are open to elected District Councillors (nominated by other elected District Councillors) and voted on by all registered electors who are not currently registered with any other functional constituency.

There is otherwise no change to the existing functional constituencies - in other words, the privileged classes can continue to wield their multitude of functional constituency votes acquired through directorships, companies and other organisations.

The risks of this proposal are clear. Candidates for the new functional constituency seats are nominated by District Councillors - who are at liberty to engage in political horse-trading in deciding whom to nominate. Worse, the cloaking of any functional constituency seats in a veneer of democracy legitimises the entire functional constituency system, in which many candidates run unopposed, representing small groups with entrenched vested interests. Many Royalist legislators, speaking in support of the reform, argued that some benevolent functional constituency legislators exist. This, however, does nothing to falsify the fact that functional constituency legislators who put their narrow electoral base above the common weal are often impossible to campaign against, let alone vote out.

And in return for supporting this watered-down proposal, what have the Democratic Party - and other “moderate” pan-Democrats - obtained in return?

The Central Government has given no undertaking on election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, or on election of Legco by universal suffrage in 2020. Nor has there been any mention of a roadmap. Put more bluntly, the Democratic Party has obtained nothing tangible in return for these minimal concessions by the SAR and Central Governments. This appears to be movitated by a mindset of defeatist, “This is as good as you’re going to get”.

As columnist Poon Siu-to warned in yesterday’s Ming Pao (link in Chinese), the Communist Party of China has an abysmal track record on living up to its promises on civil liberties and democracy. To wit:

Other than [the inherent demerits of the proposal], my reason for opposition is simple: the history of the Chinese Communist Party tells me that it rarely lives up to its political promises to its people, and to the weak. Back in the 1940s - when the Communists were still engaged in the Civil War - its organs the Liberation Daily and Xinhua Daily wrote innumerable articles in praise of liberal democracy. On American Independence Day and on the birthdays of American Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln, both papers would urge the introduction of American-style elections in China and debunk the myth that the Chinese people were of unsuitable calibre for democratic elections. In late 1945, Mao Zedong attended CPC-KMT peace talks in Chongqing. In answering a written question from a Reuters correspondent, he made clear that the CPC pursued a democratic New China in which all levels of Government were elected by universal suffrage. Before the PRC’s establishment, the CPC undertook to form a coalition government with other parties; in the “Common Memorandum” it made clear that representatives at all levels would be elected by universal suffrage. Democracy, human rights and civil liberties likewise made an appearance in the Constitution.

But after the CPC took power, these solemn political promises either went sour or were entirely denied. For decades, the State has gone the other way to defend its one-Party hegemony.

As Poon (and, in the debate against Donald Tsang, Audrey Eu) observed, in an interview with the People’s Daily in 1993, Lu Ping, then head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, clearly stated that the development of democracy in Hong Kong after 2007 was a matter for Hong Kong and one in which the Central Government would not interfere. This (as Poon also points out) evidently did not deter the NPCSC from “interpreting” the Basic Law to deny universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008, and to limit the scope for electoral reform in 2012.

More recently, the Central Government’s liaison office in Western has taken an increasingly proactive role, particularly in connection with the current set of reform proposals. This has led to widespread concerns that Hong Kong now has two governments - as shown when a secondary school student asked Financial Secretary John Tsang whether Hong Kong was ruled from Western. (Ming Pao, 2 June 2010)

With the existence of a Regency in Western, one might wonder whatever happened to “a high degree of autonomy”.

And what of the Democratic Party’s role in all this? Perhaps Palmerston may be allowed a slight digression - into the global calamity that is the credit crunch.

In exploring the origins of the credit crisis, radio programme This American Life referred to a “NINA Loan” - a “No Income, No Assets” loan. In short, anyone was eligible for such a loan - without the need to prove income, or assets. So how is this relevant?

The Democratic Party, in engaging with the Liaison Office, has invested its electorate’s political capital. This, in itself, is unobjectionable - provided that it obtains a sound return on its investment. However, faced with the Central Government - an entity with a notoriously poor political credit rating - it has backed down from its initial position to the current state of affairs without obtaining so much as an undertaking from the Central Government as security. What the Democratic Party has done, in other words, is to grant the Central Government the political equivalent of a NINA loan.

The difference is that, once the Democratic Party exhausts its political capital, there will be nobody left to bail it out.

Yesterday (24 June) evening, Albert Chan (NT West; LSD) said that the LSD was a follower of Marxism and was therefore obliged to both give and accept criticism.

If the LSD subscribes to dialectical materialism, where is the possibility of synthesis?

The political infighting between the Democratic Party and the League of Social Democrats continued yesterday, during the second day of legislative debate on the 2012 political reform proposals. What follows is a partial summary of the day’s proceedings, gleaned from the Ming Pao text feed.

Miriam Lau (FC-Transport; Liberal Party) argued that the Chief Executive Electoral Committee should be expanded to 1600 people (instead of the proposed 1200). She added that, after the proposals were passed, the electoral base of the functional constituencies must be broadened.

Priscilla Leung (Kowloon West; Professional Forum [nee the Alliance]) proceeded to condescend to the younger generation as romantic idealists deserving of particular protection, in the course of condemning such “extremist” measures as the legislative by-elections from May.

James To (Kowloon West; Democratic Party) argued that the addition of “Super District Council Functional Constituency Groups” would make it increasingly difficult to reduce the number of functional constituencies. He further argued that the current proposals would numb the populace and erode the impetus towards full universal suffrage and were only acceded to by the Central Government to maintain social harmony. In speaking, To (citing an unnamed official) referred to widespread rumours that NPC Standing Committee member Rita Fan had commenced preparations for a Chief Executive bid. However, To confirmed that he would remain in the Democratic Party.

Lam Tai-fai (FC-Industrial; Independent) expressed concern that the Central Government Liaison Office (which had taken a leading role in negotiations with the Democratic Party) would become a second government for Hong Kong and that subsequent disputes would be referred directly to Beijing. Lam criticised the Government’s publicity campaign in favour of the reform proposals and expressed concerns as to the requirement that candidates for Chief Executive have no party affiliations and as to the number of nominations required for District Council Functional Constituency seats.

Chan Kam-lam (Kowloon East; DAB) compared the protesters outside Legco to Thailand’s “red shirts” and argued that extremist conduct would not garner international support. [Palmerston: This from a Royalist party which routinely condemns foreign intervention in domestic affairs.]

Leung Kwok-hung (NT East; LSD) attempted to distance his party from his personal attack on Szeto Wah on the 23rd, saying that the dispute between him and Szeto was a private matter. Later in the day, however, fellow LSD member Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Kowloon West) publicly distanced the LSD from the Democratic Party. Wong, in implicitly blaming the Democratic Party for the pan-Democratic schism, stated that he knew the LSD would inevitably be marginalised.

A recurring theme amongst Functional Constituency was the implicit assertion that functional constituencies would - or should - remain a permanent legislative fixture. Paul Tse (FC-Travel; Independent) argued that Western methods were not necessarily best suited to Hong Kong. [Palmerston: The hackneyed - and long-since discredited - “Asian Values” argument.] Vincent Fang (FC-Wholesale and Retail; Liberal Party) argued that functional constituencies were not merely present to protect vested interests and denied that their existence had led to increased collusion between Government and Big Business. Fang further argued that bias was not exclusive to functional constituency legislators and voiced concern that the wholesale abolition of functional constituencies would adversely impact Hong Kong’s economy. Philip Wong (FC-Commercial; Independent) complained that, despite the functional constituencies having endorsed Government proposals for many years, they had never been recognised by Government for their efforts. Not surprisingly, Wong argued that functional constituencies should be preserved. Others speaking in favour of the role of functional constituencies included Samson Tam (FC-IT; Independent) and Jeffrey Lam (FC-Commercial; Economic Synergy).

Another recurring theme amongst Royalist legislators was trenchant criticism of the SAR Government’s conduct. In addition to Vincent Fang (see above), Regina Ip (HKI; Savantas) noted that the Government campaign had been an abject failure and referred to the routine resort to “cheat sheets” by officials. Miriam Lau noted that the Democratic Party had achieved what even the Liberal Party could not and claimed that, had the Liberal Party suggested the same modified proposal, they would have been summarily ignored. Wong Kwok-kin (Kowloon East; FTU/DAB) echoed Regina Ip’s complaints and seized on the debate between Donald Tsang and Audrey Eu as a situation where the Government chose to put itself in a poor position. Tellingly, Wong criticised the Government for treating the Royalist parties as litter-bearers. Lam Tai-fai blasted the Government for urging the public to “weigh anchor” on a two-man canoe carrying only Government and the Democratic Party and said that the DAB could, at best, hope to cheer them on from the sidelines.

Civic Party legislators Tanya Chan (HKI) and Alan Leong (Kowloon East) warned that the Devil was in the details and criticised the hasty, 11th-hour manner in which the Democratic Party’s proposals were adopted. Both legislators slammed the proposals for entrenching the vested interests represented by functional constituencies.

The actual vote on the Chief Executive electoral proposal (which took place in the early afternoon) was almost anticlimactic, with 46 votes in favour and 13 against (Tsang Yok-sing [HKI; DAB] as Legco President not voting).

What follows is a brief English-language summary of the legislative debate on the 2012 political reforms (derived from the Ming Pao text feed), with a few brief comments.

Synopsis:

Pro-establishment groups have booked out Chater Garden for their pro-reform “carnival” - which is closed to anybody who doesn’t have an admission pass or a press pass. The irony of the Royalist camp claiming that a majority of the public is on their side - then excluding members of the public at large from their events - is palpable.

An early challenge by Audrey Eu (HKI; Civic Party) to the current proposals on the ground that they are fundamentally different to the proposals originally tabled by the Government (thereby necessitating an adjournment of at least 12 days) was overruled by Chairman Tsang Yok-sing, on the basis that the wording of the proposals as tabled before Legco remained unchanged.

A motion by Cyd Ho (HKI; Civic Act-Up) to adjourn the debate for 2 weeks for further deliberation was voted down by Royalist legislators. For the duration of the day’s proceedings, the pan-Democratic camp managed to be consistent in stance on this issue alone. Lau Kong-wah (NTE; DAB), speaking on the issue of adjournment, stressed that the prolonged political argument was affecting Hong Kong’s economic competitiveness. (Palmerston: As if nothing else mattered.)

Leung Kwok-hung (NTE; League of Social Democrats) blamed Szeto Wah’s recent support of the Democratic Party’s proposal on his cancer. Fellow LSD legislator Wong Yuk-man (KW) asserted that the Democratic Party had done an under-the-table deal with Beijing, while candidly admitting he had absolutely no evidence to support that contention. Ronny Tong (NTE; Civic Party) and Lee Cheuk-yan (NTW; Confederation of Trade Unions) subsequently spoke in Szeto Wah’s defence.

Margaret Ng (Legal FC; Civic Party) set out her grounds of opposition to the current proposal:

• The failure of the current proposal to address the iniquity of the functional constituency system;
• The political dishonesty of the Government throughout the reform process and the fact that the current modified proposals were arrived at behind closed doors; and
• The continued absence of a road map for the abolition of functional constituencies.

Andrew Cheng Kar-foo (NTE; Democratic Party) announced his departure from the party which he had helped to found 16 years ago.

Related commentary:

Columnist Lo Chi-kin, writing in this morning’s Ming Pao, queried if recent developments heralded a fundamental change in the Hong Kong political landscape. Lo pointed out that Beijing would never truly allow the Hong Kong people to govern Hong Kong, and mooted the possibility of a “coalition” between the Royalists (supported by about 40% of the vote) and “moderate” pan-Democrats (carrying about 30% of the vote).

Lo’s column is, in several senses, particularly telling. Lo accepts as read that there will effectively be an unimpeachable, permanent 40% party of government (namely the Royalist factions), with which the “moderate” pan-Democrats will be expected to side. This, however, completely fails to address the fundamental structural problems with the Hong Kong polity - many of which are to do with the fact that Royalist incumbency is institutionally guaranteed. As even Lo admits, a “grand coalition” would still face fundamental difficulties due to the entrenched interests of Big Business, represented by the functional constituencies; in the absence of any concerted effort to remove functional constituencies altogether, or even a timetable for doing so, the newfound collaboration between “moderate” pan-Democrats and the Royalists may well be short-lived.

It is entirely possible, of course, that no such collaboration is in fact on the cards, and that some (if not all) Royalists are counting on “divide and conquer” to achieve political domination. The most virulent expression of these sentiments came from Chim Pui-chung (Financial Services FC; independent Royalist), who suggested that opponents of the current proposals engage in armed insurrection - or emigrate. The wholesale abolition of functional constituencies might not make Chim’s ilk entirely unelectable, but would certainly force them to clean up their political act - a step which certain Royalists would, it seems, be singularly reluctant to take.

Previously Nathan Road used the (admittedly rather rudimentary) “Question posts” system on Tumblr to allow for user comments. The fact that absolutely nobody has posted any answers has not deterred efforts to tinker.

A Disqus system has now been cobbled together and will be fettled with over the next few days. It is currently set to allow users registered with Disqus or OpenID to comment without going through a moderator; unregistered users may comment, but their comments will be moderated before posting. (Out of distrust of Facebook’s privacy policies, Facebook Connect has not been implemented.)

Re-posted to test comments system.

A week is a long time in politics. Since the last Gunboat Diplomat on electoral reform, much of the political terrain has changed. Mere hours before Audrey Eu went toe-to-toe with Donald Tsang in Thursday night’s debate, former Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung made a swift volte-face in support of the Democratic Party’s variant of the Government’s reform proposal, with other Royalists soon following suit. This morning, in a meeting with Democratic legislators, Li Gang of the Central Government’s Liaison Office all but confirmed Beijing’s endorsement.

Why the sudden (and unpredicted - at least by your correspondent) change of heart? Reports are emerging (on which see Sunday’s Now TV News and Saturday’s South China Morning Post, among others) which suggest that intense lobbying efforts by Elsie Leung, Donald Tsang and others prompted Beijing to reconsider its previous opposition of the Democratic Party’s proposal. The SCMP, in particular, alleges that Tsang wrote to Xi Jinping to the effect that a rejection of the proposal would ultimately have the effect of making Hong Kong ungovernable. One can safely assume that the letter referred to the risk that a rejection of the proposal would marginalise the “moderate” Democratic Party at the expense of the Civic Party, League of Social Democrats and other “radical” elements.

In short, the Royalists were against the Democratic Party variant before they were for it. But what of the current state of play (as of Sunday evening, before subsequent events overtake your correspondent’s prognostications)?

At this point, Beijing’s concessions appear to have been a massive tactical success. The support of the Democratic Party currently seems likely (subject to an 11th-hour turnaround at the all-hands party meeting tomorrow) - which will be sufficient to secure the passage of the modified proposal. Perhaps more importantly from the Royalist perspective, the internecine warfare between pan-Democrats has further intensified, with the rift between the Democrats and the other pan-Democrats growing ever wider.

In the longer term, however, this Royalist feat of jujitsu may prove to have been a case of “too little, too late”. This is for the simple reason that, no matter what the fate of the modified proposal is, the Democratic Party will fare badly.

If the reform passes, the Democratic Party loses credibility with the broader pan-Democratic movement - credibility which has already been on short supply after the party backed out of the by-election campaign. (Not forgetting the failed effort in 2004 to coordinate electoral strategies with what later became the Civic Party.) Today’s protests against the Democratic Party (link in Chinese) - largely spearheaded by the League of Social Democrats - arguably represent pan-Democratic sentiments that will persist long after the proposal is passed.

On the other hand, if the modified proposal is voted down at the all-hands Democratic Party meeting tomorrow (as unlikely as this might seem), the party loses all credibility in the eyes of the public - and, crucially, Beijing. A party with no public political legitimacy to speak of, and which is known to turn on a dime, will have absolutely no leverage with Beijing. (In this context it is also worth noting how the Liberal Party fell from grace after rapidly resiling from its support of Article 23 national-security legislation in 2003.)

In either case, however, the internal differences within the Democratic Party (link in Chinese) have now become a matter of public record. It is entirely possible that tomorrow’s party meeting - or the debate of the proposal on Wednesday - may blow these rifts wide open, spelling the end of the Democratic Party as a viable political entity.

The upshot is that, even if the Government’s proposal (as modified by the Democratic Party) is approved, the broader political landscape may shift in favour of the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats - precisely the outcome the SAR and Central Governments have sought to avoid.

The following is a translated transcript of the televised debate between Donald Tsang and Audrey Eu prepared by your correspondent, motivated by the belief that official translators are somewhat less than infallible. Items in square brackets are editorial comments or interpolation. All errors are, of course, your correspondent’s.

Moderator:

Welcome to this historic debate. Our topic is the constitutional reform package.

This programme is divided into five parts. Apart from the Cantonese and English Q&A sessions, there is a public participation section.

Participating in this debate today are Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, and leader of the Civic Party, Legislator Audrey Eu Yuet-mee.

First, I invite each side to give a brief opening statement. Each side has 3 minutes; there will be a 10-second warning at the end. The speaking order was previously decided by random selection. First, Chief Executive Tsang.

Donald Tsang (opening statement):

Members of the Hong Kong public:

This televised debate has only one objective: as the pace of democratic development in HK has reached a critical juncture, I must make every effort to secure support for the proposal for political reform in 2012.

Universal suffrage is our common ideal. To fulfil this ideal, firstly, I have obtained a timetable for universal suffrage from the Central Government. We can elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, and we can elect [members of the] Legislative Council by universal suffrage in 2020.

Secondly, in order to pave the way for universal suffrage, I have proposed the reform proposal for 2012. This proposal is not only consistent with the Basic Law and the NPCSC’s Decisions; it also greatly increases the democratic elements in both elections. First, the proposal increases the Chief Executive Electoral Committee’s members and the number of legislators. It increases their representativeness, and it allows more people with political ambitions to participate in politics. Secondly, of the 10 new legislative seats, 5 are produced by geographical constituencies. The other 5 are elected by district councillors who have themselves been elected in popular elections. We will not increase traditional functional constituency seats.

This is a proposal which represents a democratic improvement. It is consistent with law, consistent with reality, and is the most likely to pass through Legco.

Everyone must know that any proposal faces a challenge: whether it will secure approval from 2/3 of the legislature, namely 40 votes. Otherwise all effort will have been wasted, and we will have marked time [translit: 原地踏步; to march in the same place without progressing]. We are only short a few votes. A few votes, and this proposal will pass through Legco.

If the proposal is vetoed, Hong Kong will have again marked time on the path to democracy, having been hamstrung again after the 2005 proposal was vetoed by the pan-Democratic legislators. We will have wasted a decade.

Public sentiment is clear: 75% of people do not want to mark time. A majority want Legco to pass this proposal. History has also shown that criticism, slogans and vetos will never bring about democratic development. If Audrey Eu and her fellow travellers again exercise their veto, resulting in political development marking time, the public will be very disappointed – and they must bear responsibility for the veto.

I sincerely call upon the pan-Democrats to shake off their fetters for the good of Hong Kong’s citizens – to take the brave and responsible step to support the 2012 political reform proposals. History will show that this was the right step to take.

Moderator:

Thank you. Now, Legislator Audrey Eu.

Audrey Eu (opening statement):

Moderator, Chief Executive, citizens, good evening.

First, I thank the Chief Executive for giving me the opportunity to discuss political reform with him. This problem is one which has been argued about for many years. This evening the Hong Kong public does not want to hear an exhausting barrage of slogans. What they want are answers – how will the Government’s proposal lead us to universal suffrage?

You must have seen the Government’s commercial - “Trust makes dreams come true.” Now, trust has always been about the Government trusting its people. The Hong Kong Government in particular likes to praise the Hong Kong people as being rational and pragmatic – so why doesn’t it trust us to elect the CE and Legco by universal suffrage? Why has there been such a long delay? And universal suffrage shouldn’t be compared to a dream – like something which one can only get in one’s dreams. This is the solemn promise enshrined in the Basic Law. What we are fighting for is a right which should belong to everyone.

In 1993 the head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office Lu Ping was interviewed by the People’s Daily. He said that the ultimate goal was for all members of the Hong Kong legislature to be elected in universal direct elections. He also said that the composition of the legislature after 2007 was for Hong Kong itself to decide. As long as two thirds of the Legislature passed it, as long as the CE agreed, and as long as the NPCSC made a memorandum. Because HK’s democratic development is within the scope of our autonomy – the Central Government would not interfere. But as we have all seen recently, the people discussing this with us are officials from the Central Government’s Liaison Office. And our Chief Executive has been trying to shout down people in the districts, armed with a megaphone and a cheat sheet. I want to ask the Chief Executive: how can you still have face? Have you defended “One Country, Two Systems” on our behalf?

Originally it was promised that we would have universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008. Then it was pushed back to 2012. Now they are saying it will happen in 2017 and 2020. We ask: is that for certain? No answer. Will the candidates for Chief Executive be pre-vetted? Still no answer. Will there ultimately still be Functional Constituency seats in Legco? Still no answer.

Recently Vice Secretary General of the NPCSC Qiao Xiaoyang said that the meaning of “universal suffrage” may change; it may have Chinese characteristics; it need not comply with international standards. The Government has brought the 2012 proposal before us. It adds 5 functional constituency seats - with no explanation of how they will be abolished. This takes us further and further away from universal suffrage.

The other day the Chief Executive and other officials went to Shatin. They encountered a member of the public, Mrs Chan. She asked: “Weigh anchor [起錨]? Where is our destination?” Chief Executive, you did not answer her on that day. Today, we have an hour – I hope you can explain to all those members of the Hong Kong public who are watching: how can your proposal lead to universal suffrage? Will our destination involve functional constituencies?

Moderator:

This next section is a Q&A. There will be 6 rounds of questions and answers. Each round involves 2 questions and 2 answers. Each person has 9 minutes for all of their questions and answers. However, no person can speak continuously for more than 2 minutes.

The speaking order was previously determined by random selection: I invite the Chief Executive to ask the first question.

Donald Tsang (question):

[Michael de Gaulia] is, I understand, a Civic Party member. He recently conducted a study which found that 75% of the Hong Kong public do not want to mark time. 60% hope the pan-Democrats will compromise and allow the proposal to pass. These are clear expressions of the vox populi. I believe you must explain to the Hong Kong people why you have ignored these expressions.

Audrey Eu (answer):

First, I must clarify that [Michael de Gaulia] is not, to my knowledge, a Civic Party member. You like citing survey results to us. You can see, first, that 75% of the public wants gradual progress. I think that’s an understatement – I, too, want gradual progress rather than marking time. But how many people support your proposal? Less than 75%. What that shows is that your proposal does not bring about gradual progress. Otherwise at least 75% would be in support of your proposal, would there not?

Moderator:

Follow-up question.

Donald Tsang (follow-up question):

There are different reasons for [the survey results]. Recently - I’m not sure if you’re aware of this - the United Kingdom, the most democratic country in the world, made a statement that the proposal is a good opportunity to bring about greater democracy, and is a positive step towards universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020. Do you understand that, and do you agree?

Audrey Eu (answer):

I’m surprised that the Chief Executive is using the United Kingdom against us. What is important is that you convince the Hong Kong public. For some reason, the more the [Weigh Anchor] campaign progresses, the more your supporters dwindle.

Let me make it clear that my opposition is for a reason. First, the CE elections. Your current proposal is even worse than the 2005 proposal. In 2005, you proposed changing [the Electoral Committee] from 800 people to 1600, including all District Councillors. Now you suggest changing from 800 to 1200, with only 75 additional District Councillors. If you’re talking about Legco elections – yes, you’ve added 5 directly elected seats. But you’ve also added 5 functional constituency seats. Think about it: we have 30 functional constituencies which we can’t get rid of – and you’re still adding 5 more. We are moving further and further away from universal suffrage. Don’t deceive the Hong Kong people: you say these 5 additional seats are not traditional [functional constituency] seats. That’s deceptive. Why? We already have one seat which is returned by District Councillors electing other District Councillors – the DAB’s Yip Kwok-him. Think about it: you’re letting them elect 5 more. Not just one Yip Kwok-him. 5 more. So you have 400 District Councillors electing 6 Legislative Councillors. That’s an average of 68 District Councillors electing each legislator. This is the smallest possible “small circle”. This will lead to political horse-trading; this is absolutely not desirable. So don’t keep saying that we oppose purely for the sake of opposition. I oppose for a reason.

Moderator:

This is a new round. I invite Ms Eu to ask the next question.

Audrey Eu (question):

Now, Chief Executive, you have refused to allow a live audience to be present, so I have asked the public to give me their suggestions and questions. This question comes from a Form 3 [Grade 9] student called Wai Suet. She says that she has to pick her subjects now with a view to her future university studies, and she has to enrol for public examinations, and so on. And she doesn’t understand why, on the important subject of political reform, you as Chief Executive can say that nothing after 2012 is up for discussion. You tell us to weigh anchor, and we don’t even have maritime maps. What if we end up adrift and can’t reach the shore?

Donald Tsang (answer):

It’s very difficult if you harbour distrust, even though it’s all there in black and white. In 2007 - I thought you’d understand this as a lawyer – the NPCSC made it clear that we could elect our CE in 2017 and - if we elect a CE then, Legco in 2020. These are set dates - these are clearly what we are aiming for.

Moderator:

Follow-up question.

Audrey Eu (follow-up question):

Now, Chief Executive, you have to tell the truth to young people. We’re not just talking about whether we believe [you] or not. You have fingers; you can count. CE elections - just 2 opportunities; 2012 and 2017. There will be just 3 Legco elections - 2012, 2016 and 2020. You’re now asking us to take a step for 2012. For Legco elections, that leaves only 2 steps. If, as CE, you say you will only discuss 2012 and nothing after that - even a Form 3 student knows that one must plan for the future, that one must have a direction. As CE, how can you play it by ear?

Donald Tsang (answer):

The most important thing we face is that if the 2012 plan succeeds, this is an intermediate step towards our ultimate goal. The greatest difficulty, the greatest conflict, arises if we say that we don’t want to take even a single step; that we don’t want to move. So we retain all the elements of the system that you have criticised. So people think you are the guardian of the functional constituencies.

Moderator:

In this next round of questions, the Chief Executive will ask the next question.

Donald Tsang (question):

Ms Eu, you have unilaterally brought about legislative by-elections in support of your so-called “de facto referendum”. The result has been dismal. The voter turnout was the lowest in history. But you tell the Hong Kong people that this was a success. If you lie to the Hong Kong people, how can you lead them? How can you convince them that you are leading them to genuine democracy?

Audrey Eu (answer):

Chief Executive, a voter turnout of 17.1% is obviously not ideal. But here’s the thing: you cannot overlook the fact that 500,000 people went to the polls. Remember the last time 500,000 people took to the streets - the Government retracted Article 23 [national security legislation]. I note that yesterday the HKU released the results of a poll - since you like talking about percentages so much - according to the HKU study, 70% of the public demands the abolition of all functional constituencies in 2016. 65% of the public demands that you retract the current proposal. Will you listen to them?

Donald Tsang (follow-up question):

What matters is that we listen not only to those who run for election and to those who vote, what is most important, I feel, is that if you mislead people now, they will not trust you in future. How can we listen to you talk about universal suffrage? What you’ve just said has all been distortion, you can see that. So you break [up] the NPCSC’s statements. It is very difficult if you speak like this. You simply didn’t answer my question: if you continue to lie to the Hong Kong people, nobody will trust you.

Audrey Eu (answer):

Chief Executive, I think there’s a bit - I think you’ve memorised that answer and just said it by rote, regardless of what I said. Where have I distorted? I’ve said - yes, a voter turnout of 17.1% isn’t ideal, but you shouldn’t overlook the fact that 500,000 people voted. I’ve asked you about the HKU poll results from yesterday - you simply didn’t answer at all, and you say I’ve been distorting the facts. I thought you were here today to narrow the differences between us, not to perform ad hominem attacks. So I hope you’ll return to the question - what I’m talking about is very clear. Yesterday HKU released the results of a poll. 70% of Hong Kong people demand the abolition of all functional constituencies no later than 2012 [sic]. 65% of people demand that you retract the current proposal. Please answer my question.

Moderator:

In this round the first question will be from Ms Eu.

Audrey Eu:

Moderator, is this to be in English?

Moderator:

Not yet. There’s one more round.

Audrey Eu (question):

Chief Executive, this question I want to ask is from an overseas student named Alfred. He says he wants to return to Hong Kong after his studies, but once he thinks about how Hong Kong has been held hostage by useless officials in league with Big Business, he feels that the future is bleak. He asks: if the HK Government acknowledges that the current functional constituencies don’t meet do not meet the principles of universality and equality, and if the existing functional constituencies can be amended by local legislation without permission from Beijing, but this has not been done for all these years - what he wants to ask is whether you are in league with the powerful?

Donald Tsang (answer):

In truth we see that the current tradition in Legco - Legco has been around for 167 years, and functional constituencies have been around for a quarter of a century. If we make a sudden change, you will see how many difficulties there are.

As I told you earlier, any change requires 2/3 of legislators to support it - that’s 40 votes. This is the most difficult problem. So how can we use the best method to do so? This current proposal uses - even though there are still functional constituency seats, how can we get popularly elected District Councillors to participate in Legco? The entire democratic content, the entire directly-elected content, would now reach 60%. The traditional functional constituency seats will only amount to 40%. This is a better plan than before. So Alfred should relax.

Moderator:

Follow-up.

Audrey Eu (follow-up question):

You have the nerve to tell us that functional constituencies have existed for a quarter of a century? Do you remember, in 1999, the SAR Government submitted a report to the NPC - to the UN - telling them that functional constituencies were a transitional arrangement? The original design was for a gradual progression, for the addition of directly elected seats. You have the nerve to tell us a quarter of a century - Alfred is asking you why you’re not abolishing them. Actually, functional constituencies are a topic relevant to daily life. I want to tell you - I know [so many of] [fellow Civic Party legislator] Tanya Chan’s slogans, I couldn’t say them all in an hour. You yourself know full well. Think about it: it divides Hong Kong people into classes. The public at large; each person has one vote. Those in functional constituencies? Those in the privileged classes? Think about it. Some of them don’t just have one vote or two votes; some of them - Human Rights Watch has counted - some of them have as many as 41 votes. And the law allows them to “plant” votes - you can open a new company that has no relation with your profession, and you’ll still get a vote. Through the [transliterated: separate group vote-counting; the system by which certain measures require a majority in both Geographical Constituency and Functional Constituency sections of Legco to pass], this means that 15 functional constituency legislators can block all the legislators directly elected by 3 million registered voters throughout Hong Kong. They place the interests of their industry sectors above that of the public at large. Think about it: for example, the minimum wage was vetoed 3 times. If not, it would have been passed long ago. Now we’re talking about the minimum wage - Tommy Cheung Yu-yan [Liberal Party; Catering Functional Constituency], he says $20 - and if that isn’t enough to subsist on, he’ll encourage people to apply for subsidies from the public purse. The Lehman Brothers debacle - have you seen the Banking representative do anything? And your old friend Albert Cheng King-hon. He tabled a motion in Legco - that the calculation of square feet when buying flats should be in line with the Surveyors’ Institute’s unified standards. But the functional constituencies opposed it. So can you explain to the Hong Kong public: why, if you fiddle with the scales in a market, you will be prosecuted - but there is no legislation regulating something as important as buying a property?

Donald Tsang (answer):

Don’t cast all of the functional constituency legislators as criminals. Don’t forget that your party member Margaret Ng is also a functional constituency legislator. And core Democratic Party member Cheung Man-kwong is also a functional constituency legislator. They also represent [their constituencies]. But we are not here to defend the existence of functional constituencies - the 2012 proposal makes it perfectly clear that half [of the new seats] are functional constituency seats, and half are directly elected. But, most importantly, we must understand that the functional constituency seats - we have made this perfectly clear - Qiao Xiaoyang made it perfectly clear; when we have universal suffrage, when we have universal suffrage in 2020, all seats must be returned by equal and universal means. By that time all of our existing functional constituency seats will have completed their historic mission.

Moderator:

After four rounds, I’ll say how much time each of you has left. Audrey Eu, you have 2 minutes left. Chief Executive Tsang, you have 4 minutes and 48 seconds left.

The next section will be conducted in English.

[In English] The following part will be conducted in English.

The first question, from Mr Donald Tsang, please.

Donald Tsang (question in English):

The package we have proposed suggests that we are going to have 10 more seats in the legislature. 5 of them will be directly elected, and 5 of them will be chosen from directly elected District Councillors. These are obviously an advancement [sic] on the present arrangement and a further step [of] democratisation, and it goes nearer to universal suffrage election. Why are you so irrational and reject [sic] this proposal and let us again waste another 5 years of our time?

Audrey Eu (answer in English):

At the moment we already have one Legco member elected by District Councillors. What the CE is proposing is to give the District Councillor a right to elect 5 more instead of the current one. This becomes the smallest of all “small circle” elections because 68 District Council member [sic] will be able to elect one Legco member. This will lead to political trading.

Moderator (in English):

Follow-up.

Donald Tsang (follow-up question in English):

Again, you mislead the public. You don’t look at the people who elect the District Councillors in the first place. There are over 3 million electors who chose these people to represent them in their district. And, in other words, they represent a large number of people. In other words, they have to also carry a lot of people’s opinion. And I am sure it will [be a] contribution [to the] Legislative Council. And just - again, that I stress this is not the traditional functional constituency member. They do have district sub - uh, district following, and they have a strong Hong Kong following.

Moderator (in English):

Your turn to ask [a] question, Audrey.

Audrey Eu (question in English):

Mr Tsang, you say that you have obtained for Hong Kong a universal suffrage timetable. Is such a timetable without a roadmap or a clear definition for universal suffrage, like a promise writ in water?

Donald Tsang (answer in English):

It is quite clear: universal suffrage has been explained quite clearly by […] by Mr Qiao recently, saying it must be universal, it must have equal representation - and this is, I think what he explains goes to practically all other most advanced democracies in the world. And I don’t see [that] there are any major difference [sic]. As far as roadmap is concerned, I have presented a roadmap - and that roadmap is the 2012 package! Which gives us more democratic seats in Legislative Council, and lead us closer to universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020!

Moderator (in English):

M: Supplemental?

Audrey Eu (follow-up question in English):

If we have a roadmap, that would make the timetable meaningful. Mr Tsang, would you be ready to give us a roadmap -

Donald Tsang (interjecting):

The roadmap -

Audrey Eu (follow-up question in English):

- leading us to universal suffrage?

Donald Tsang (answer in English):

The roadmap is clearly the passage of the package of 2012. That takes us closer to universal suffrage election [sic]. In 2017 we are going to universal suffrage election for the Chief Executive; in 2020 we are going to have universal suffrage election for the legislature. This is a clear roadmap. There are things to be ironed out, definitely. But we can only do so after we have passed this package!

Moderator (in Cantonese):

After 6 rounds of Q&A, let me calculate the time [remaining]. Now, Chief Executive Tsang, you have 2 minutes and 38 seconds remaining. You may use up your remaining time in one speech.

Donald Tsang (pre-intermission summary in Cantonese):

D: Firstly, what we see now is that Hong Kong faces a big decision. The decision is whether we can choose democratic improvement - to acknowledge that the 2012 proposal is a good improvement of a proposal, and approve it. The other [choice] is to mark time. As Ms Eu said, we have wasted 5 years - we will waste another 10 years. There is another choice - how to achieve a three-win situation: a win for Hong Kong, a win for the country, and a win for democracy; or an all-lose where everybody loses [and where] the Hong Kong people are disappointed. The choice is, to me, absolutely clear.

If we do not do it properly now, it will be another 5 years. We will waste another 5 years. It will be a bitter situation for the Hong Kong people. They will lose faith. We faced one tribulation last time in 2005; I think that really should not have happened. We paid a heavy price. We should not do that again. Why can’t we all act like we’re in the same boat and [think about] how we can make it better? This 2012 proposal is the consensus result after lengthy discussion - most of the political factions in HK [support it]. I have 30-odd votes; I only need a few votes. Just a few votes. If we can get these few votes now, democracy in Hong Kong will achieve genuine progress.

Moderator:

Ms Eu, you have one minute and 5 seconds. You may use your remaining time in a single speech.

Audrey Eu (pre-intermission summary in Cantonese):

Chief Executive, you are not merely missing a few votes. You must gain the support of the Hong Kong people. You speak of wasting time - you are the one who is wasting time, Chief Executive, not the Hong Kong people. Think about it - a salesman peddles an expired product. Defective goods. The customer doesn’t accept it - how can you say the customer is in the wrong? That sort of attitude doesn’t cut it today. [This is a slogan commonly associated with the Hong Kong Tourism Board endorsing a quality-service initiative.] Look at your plan - all the surveys show that support for it is falling. It’s because the public understands. They know that you’re not asking us to do [calisthenics], where [you just do a few stretches and that’s it]. Everybody must see how you lead us, step by step, to universal suffrage. You have spoken for a whole 9 minutes now. Have you told us - if we support your proposal, how do we get to universal suffrage? You can’t just say “trust us”. This is not simply a question of faith - even though I know you’re a Catholic. You must show us - this is what 2012 will be like, and the meaning of universal suffrage is very clear: universal and equal. So everybody gets to vote, and every vote is equal. The current functional constituencies are terrible -

Moderator:

Time’s up.

Audrey Eu:

- you haven’t done anything.

Moderator:

Thank you. We will now take a short break.

[Intermission]

Moderator:

This evening’s debate also involves public participation. Members of their public submitted their questions in advance to RTHK. A 3-person committee was tasked with [pre-] selecting questions and picking [the] questions [to be asked] by ballot. For this section and the next Q&A, each person has 9 minutes. However, each person may only speak continuously for a maximum of 1 minute and 30 seconds. The questions are confidential, and neither person knows in advance what the questions are.

I shall now ask the first question. This question is for the Chief Executive. I will now read out the contents of this question.

Chief Executive, are you a Chief Executive, or a marionette? Why not let the Central Government negotiate directly with Legco? To tell the truth, “One Country, Two Systems” is defunct in all but name.

Donald Tsang:

We have now reached a stage where the Central Government has said that Hong Kong can, for this 2012 [election], our system, our elections, can be more [advanced]; [defining parameters] have been laid down. So now it falls to Hong Kong, to the Hong Kong people, to decide what to do. So we must negotiate, we must discuss, we must consult about, the arrangements for the 2012 elections. That must be done by the Hong Kong people. We must secure the approval of two thirds of the legislature. So this problem we cannot shirk. It must be done by Hong Kong. “One Country, Two Systems” is still being successfully implemented.

Moderator:

This next question is for Audrey Eu. The problem is this:

I believe you sincerely hope that democracy in Hong Kong can progress. The Government’s proposal is indeed more democratic than what we have now. If the Government’s proposal ultimately does not meet your demands, will you choose death before dishonour [closest idiomatic translation: 寧為玉碎，不願瓦存] and veto the proposal? Also - after you veto the plan, what do you intend to do?

Audrey Eu:

I absolutely do not intend to “choose death before dishonour”. Our demands are perfectly reasonable. All we are saying is: you are asking us to wait another decade - 2017, 2020. At the very least, the Government has a responsibility to tell us, to tell the Hong Kong public, that after the wait, what they will get is genuine universal suffrage. This must be universal and equal. This must not have the functional constituencies that we have now. Because - the experts have all said this already; it has been argued over for many years - however you try to change functional constituencies, they will not meet the criteria of universality and equality. All we are doing is taking them at their word. As to what I will do after vetoing it - do you remember, in 2005, after the veto, the Chief Executive made a report to the Central Government saying that 60% of the public supported universal suffrage for both the CE and Legco. Then we were given a timetable, saying that in 2017 and 2020 we could have universal suffrage. I very much hope that, this time, the Chief Executive can also explain to the Central Government - tell them to trust the Hong Kong people, and let us discuss a roadmap amongst ourselves, to reach a roadmap to universal suffrage that will genuinely solve the problem and bring about universal suffrage.

Moderator:

The next question is for the Chief Executive.

Bowtie, it’s almost showtime [alternative translation: the time for your performance is almost over]. Why have you and your team been scuttling around? Why haven’t you directly explained your rubbish political reform plan to the public? There hasn’t been a single sentence. You’ve constantly called on people to support it. They don’t even know what they’re supposed to support - how can they support it? Your conduct is dictatorial and authoritarian. It shows no democratic sincerity. Your rubbish political reform plan must surely be a sham!

Donald Tsang:

The very tenor of that question shows that democracy truly exists in Hong Kong. That freedom truly exists in Hong Kong - for someone to ask the Chief Executive a question in such a manner.

This - everyone must understand that when I and my colleagues go into the districts to explain, we were surrounded by tens of reporters. In such circumstances they insisted we disclose the times [at which we would make these visits]. So Audrey Eu’s fellow travellers could gang up, like snipers, to take pot shots at us. There were very few of them, but they made a huge racket. So it becomes very difficult to explain the plan to members of the public, one-on-one. So I have had to resort to other methods - just this past Sunday, I went by myself to several districts in which I had lived to meet the locals, to explain to each of them what was going on - why this plan is so important, why passing this plan is so important. This opportunity we have taken. To the extent possible - I agree we must explain the proposal to the public. One of the key objectives of this evening’s televised debate - for me to, as I have done just now, explain the virtues of the plan, why - if we do not pass this plan, the problems we will encounter. I hope and believe the person who asked that question will have his answer.

Moderator:

This next question is for Audrey Eu. This is the question:

You have implemented the radical five-district referendum, and failed. Shouldn’t you abandon your extremist tactics?

Audrey Eu:

Voting is not an extremist tactic. It’s very interesting - just now the Chief Executive, in answering the previous viewer’s question, said - Audrey Eu’s fellow travellers sniped me. I’ve found that today the Chief Executive’s strategy is clearly to label me as an extremist. I’ve tried looking - which part of me looks extremist? On what basis do you say that those who sniped at you are my fellow travellers? I’ve found that a lot of the people opposed to your plan are teachers, Chief Executive. Ng Mei-lan, Yung Chi-ming, a “Tsik Sir”, and in Kwun Tong there was a “Leung Sir”. I don’t know if General Studies teachers are especially adept at critical thinking and can see things more clearly, and think that you’re now - directionless, (chuckles) this plan is really leading people astray. So - really, we Hong Kong people are reasonable. I am a reasonable person. This request is simply - Chief Executive, you tell us whether a roadmap to universal suffrage will ultimately involve functional constituencies. What happens in between - we’re completely open, we’re completely open to discussion.

Moderator:

In respect of two questions, we have invited members of the public to pre-record their questions. This citizen has a question for the Chief Executive.

Q [recorded voice of a young man]:

Donald Tsang, if this reform package doesn’t pass, please resign. Will you? If you will not, how can you implement your campaign pledge to “go for broke” on political reform?

Donald Tsang:

This time, in 2007 when I was campaigning for election, I promised the Hong Kong people that I would do everything in my power to bring about democratic progress. In December 2007, I received the support of the Central Government to use legislation - Audrey Eu didn’t mention this clearly earlier - to use legislation to state that we could elect our Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, and Legco by universal suffrage in 2020. These are very clear. They are solemn decisions. As a lawyer Ms Eu should not cast aspersions, giving the impression that the rule of law does not exist.

This time round, in respect of 2012, this proposal was launched after consultation. It is a proposal for improvement. My responsibility is to, in accordance with the will of the Hong Kong people, find a proposal and try to get the vast majority of legislators to support it. That is where my duty lies. Of course, if this time Ms Eu and other legislators choose to fetter, insist on vetoing this proposal, whoever vetoes the proposal must bear responsibility. I think the Hong Kong people will see very clearly.

Moderator:

This next question is for Ms Eu.

Q [recorded voice of an extremely irate, middle-aged-to-elderly man]:

Ms Eu, do you oppose the reform proposal it because you and your so-called pan-Democratic party despise the Central Government? If not, why, before 1997, while the British Colonial Government continued to implement its dictatorial system of appointment and demanded annual tribute from taxpayers, you so-called pan-Democrats didn’t say a peep? Now that we Chinese are masters of our own house, why are you engaging in seditious acts and destroying social harmony? Why is that?

Audrey Eu:

Hong Kong is part of China. We have never engaged in sedition, nor have we regarded the Central Government with hatred. What we are fighting for is the rights we were promised under the Basic Law - all we are talking about is a roadmap to an election without functional constituencies. I don’t see how we can view the Central Government with hatred - and this is also the undertaking of the Central Government.

As to what you say about why we do this - I believe that this is what the Hong Kong public hopes to get, and hopes to achieve.

Moderator:

After the questions from the public, we have a few more Q&A rounds. Again, the maximum continuous speaking time is 1 minute and 30 seconds.

I’ll mention how much time each of you has left. Ms Eu, you have 6 minutes and 13 seconds. Chief Executive, you have 6 minutes and 9 seconds.

For this round of Q&A, I invite Ms Eu to start with a question.

Audrey Eu (question):

Chief Executive, I see that on your blog you say that in 2020 the mode of functional constituency elections must no longer exist. What is this “modal existence”? Are you saying that functional constituencies will continue to exist, but in another “mode”? Can you explain clearly what your blueprint for universal suffrage is?

Donald Tsang (answer):

What I mean is that in 2020, all elected legislators will have been elected by means which are universal and equal. And the means by which they are elected will be in line with international standards. But, of course, the issue of functional constituency seats themselves is a controversial one, and we feel that functional constituency seats in their current form will cease to exist by 2020.

Audrey Eu (follow-up question):

You haven’t answered the question. What form will they take?

Donald Tsang (answer):

You must approve the 2012 proposal first, Ms Eu! That must be done before we can solve the other problems. We must do this step by step. The 2012 problem must be solved now. The problems after 2012 must be solved after 2012. If you continue to insist that you do this - that if we cannot give answers on 2017, 2020, or thereafter, you will refuse to deal with 2012 - the result will be that there has been one veto costing us 5 years, and then another veto costing us another 5 years. The Hong Kong people cannot wait. It’s [a] terrible [situation].

Moderator:

I now invite the Chief Executive to ask a question.

Donald Tsang (question):

The Hong Kong people dislike extremism. They feel that the political status quo is extremely messy. This is the fault of you and your allies who have generated many problems - they feel, especially when you oppose so many things, when you’re opposing [everything]. Are you seeking to bring Hong Kong into a state of extremism and make it ungovernable?

Audrey Eu (answer):

I thought the Chief Executive invited me here to narrow the differences between us. It turns out he invited me here to label me as an extremist. You, Chief Executive, should explain to me what aspect of my being here today is extremist or unreasonable. You haven’t answered any of the questions I’ve asked today. I am here today to talk reason. I’ve made it very clear - whatever happens in the middle, you must explain what happens at the end. Because you can count it [the number of elections] on your fingers. The Hong Kong people know this. You’re saying the CE must be elected by universal suffrage after 2 elections. That Legco must be elected by universal suffrage after 3 elections. How can you say, “Well, let’s just make any old move first”? This is the sort of thinking displayed by people who just want to finish a job [echoing one of the Chief Executive’s campaign slogans in 2007] - not the sort of thinking that is truly for the Hong Kong people. Think about it - the high-speed rail will outlast your administration. How can something as important as political reform - you say that the next administration should be dealt with by the next administration. Hey - the Chief Executive elected in 2012 might have to run for election in 2017! How can he talk about it when there might be a conflict of interest? So you must do your job properly [another campaign slogan reference]. That member of the public asked you: how will you make good on your campaign pledge?

Moderator:

Follow-up.

Donald Tsang (follow-up question):

You haven’t answered my question about extremism. What we can see is that every time - like with the high-speed rail - you surround Legco. What we’re talking about is democracy - in a democratic system democracy is important, but a democratic culture is also important. If we continue like this - never mind democracy; we won’t even have civilisation. What then? That is what the Hong Kong people are worried about. If you continue to say that - to veto the plan, this situation of radicalism will only worsen. The effects on Hong Kong will only worsen. How can you shoulder that responsibility?

Audrey Eu (answer):

A: Chief Executive, do you feel that anybody who opposes your proposal is an extremist? There are lots of people in Hong Kong who do not support your proposal. Look at the surveys. The number of people who support your proposal is dwindling. The number of people who oppose it is increasing. Why? Because people have understood. As I’ve said - many General Studies teachers have come out in opposition. So don’t say - Audrey Eu and her fellow travellers. Don’t smear the Hong Kong people. The Hong Kong people can see. They think - your current proposal - 5 years ago you gave us that proposal, and it was vetoed. And 5 years later you give us the same proposal. You gave us a failing-grade piece of homework once, and now you give us a failing-grade piece of homework again. You, Chief Executive, are the one who is wasting time - not the Hong Kong people. No salesman who does badly blames the customer for rejecting goods.

Moderator:

We now have a new round of questions. I invite Ms Eu to ask the first question.

Audrey Eu (question):

Chief Executive, I want to ask: because of the recent popularity problem, this question is also from a teacher, who asks: if a student doesn’t hand in homework, we can punish them. That teacher says that if you don’t deliver on your campaign promise, he can’t punish you. Don’t you think that - if so many people voted in favour of this question which was nominated - what that shows is that many people don’t think you’ve done your job properly [campaign slogan reference]?

Donald Tsang (answer):

As I’ve said before, 2007 was because in 2005 you, Ms Eu, and all the pan-Democrats, vetoed our proposal - we were determined to obtain a timetable for universal suffrage from the Central Government. We have succeeded in doing so. In December 2007 that timetable was announced. This is established fact - you cannot distort it.

This proposal for 2012 - we have also clearly increased the democratic content. That also cannot be distorted - as I explained previously. You’ve only used other methods - don’t talk about our current proposal, just now you said very few people [support it]. In truth the number of people who support the proposal in Hong Kong far exceeds the number of people who oppose it. The number of people who want Legco to approve the proposal far exceeds the number of people who want Legco to veto it. Whichever survey you want to cite, the result is the same. In truth, we must face reality - and facing reality ultimately means facing up to the electorate. How to bear responsibility? Of course I will bear responsibility. I think I have lived up to my responsibility. I think you have not lived up to your responsibility in that you have not explained to the Hong Kong people why they must wait another 5 years.

Moderator:

Follow-up?

Audrey Eu (follow-up question):

Chief Executive, I have already explained the reasons why I do not support your proposal. I’ve said - the Chief Executive proposal is narrower than that for 2005, and you haven’t explained that at all. I’ve said - the existing District Council proposal - I’ve given lots of reasons why I object to it. I’ll give you one more - in 1991, before the Handover, there were already plans for indirect election of District Councillors into Legco. Back then there were only 10-odd seats - I think even you remember that. In 1991 those 10-odd seats were abolished - and replaced by directly elected seats. That’s called democratic progress. Now, 20 years later, you’ve reheated [translit: re-microwaved] a system that was abolished 20 years ago, and passed it off as democratic progress. Isn’t that taking us for fools?

Moderator:

Chief Executive.

Donald Tsang (answer):

That’s a different matter entirely. In this [proposal] - the people eligible for election in our proposal are all returned by popular elections. There are no nominated councillors - none of that. This was in response to 2005, when Ms Eu and the other legislators vetoed, the main reason [they gave]. These people have an electoral base of over 3 million people. This is the most important thing to understand - don’t underestimate these people. The groups they represent, the people they represent, will not be numerically any less than the electoral base of the current geographical constituency legislators.

Moderator:

And now the final Q&A round. For this round I invite the Chief Executive to ask a question.

Donald Tsang (question):

What I want to explore, Ms Eu, is that you say we must abolish the functional constituency seats. Earlier - I didn’t have time to argue that with you earlier. Alright - now I want you to tell me: how can you explain your proposal, a proposal without functional constituencies, for 2012, for this [upcoming] election, to the Hong Kong people? Most importantly, how can you persuade Legco to give 40 votes in support?

Audrey Eu (answer):

Chief Executive, I am very happy that you’ve asked me what to do when you didn’t know what to do. Actually - I’ve posed Alfred’s question. Fundamentally, today’s functional constituencies - there are lots of things that can be done by domestic legislation, which you haven’t done. You could abolish the corporate vote. You could abolish the entity [in the sense of Chambers of Commerce and certain community associations] vote. You could amalgamate certain functional constituencies with small numbers of constituents. You could expand the electoral base of certain functional constituencies. And - as a sign of sincerity - you could abolish the appointment of District Councillors. How long have we been talking about this? 60% of the public supports this. You insist - every time - on appointing a full 102 councillors. I know you’ll say that they have contributed much to society. If they’ve contributed much to society - let them run for election on their own! We don’t need you to choose them for us. But you insist on keeping a death grip on that power. Why? To threaten us. You say you don’t support that plan? Then I won’t abolish the appointment of District Councillors. Wouldn’t you say that that’s a dirty tactic, Chief Executive?

Moderator:

Follow-up.

Donald Tsang (follow-up question):

You haven’t answered the most important question: how will you persuade legislators to approve your 2012 proposal, involving the abolition of all functional constituencies? This is the most important thing - and you haven’t said how you will do it. You know full well - you have plenty of theories, but none of them are practicable. Talk is easy, but they simply can’t be done. Finally - talking about it doesn’t matter. Wasting - Hong Kong wasted $159 million on this by-election. I believe we can afford to waste [that money]. But - with no proposal, with a proposal you know is unviable, a proposal which Legco will not support - if you persist with your course of action, after wasting 5 years Hong Kong will waste 10 years. We can’t afford to waste a decade.

Audrey Eu (answer):

Chief Executive, I think you’ve forgotten. Today you’re here to persuade the Hong Kong people - why they should support your proposal; how it will achieve universal suffrage. You’re now telling me: I can’t cancel functional constituencies! So, Chief Executive, how can you explain to the Hong Kong people why we should add 5 functional constituency seats? Are you asking us to bend over backwards?

Moderator:

After 4 rounds of Q&A, I’ll add up the times remaining. Audrey Eu, you have 1 minute and 47 seconds left. Chief Executive, you have 1 minute and 38 seconds.

Ms Eu, you may use the entirety of your 1 minute and 47 seconds.

Audrey Eu:

Why do we have this debate today? The Chief Executive has a responsibility to explain to the public his political reform proposal. Why should we support it? How does it lead to universal suffrage? But however much you listen, all he’s done today is to cast aspersions on me. You’re extremist! You don’t support it! You’re getting in everyone’s way! Oi - you’re the one getting in everyone’s way! Don’t you forget - this is your responsibility, your campaign promise! You’ve tabled a proposal; the public doesn’t support it. 5 years later, you’ve reheated [translit: re-microwaved] the exact same plan and you say, “Take it or leave it.” Oi! And then I ask you about functional constituencies, and you say, If you’re so smart, you go and abolish them.” And yet you ask us to increase functional constituencies. That is precisely where you are being outrageous, Chief Executive! I’ve only asked you about District Councillors - and will you please answer in a moment - why appoint District Councillors? How can it be that - in this day and age, in the 21st Century, you are still appointing 102 District Councillors, and you are using that power to squeeze us? And you say, “If you don’t support that proposal, I won’t abolish the appointment of District Councillors.” Such an underhanded tactic - how can you tell me you have done everything that you should have? You must show some sincerity to the Hong Kong people, that we will get real democracy. Remember you said once that democracy, taken to an extreme, is the Cultural Revolution. So I really have my suspicions about whether you support democracy. Whether you are genuinely trying to secure, for the Hong Kong people, the fulfilment of true universal suffrage. I’ve already said - your 2012 proposal, I don’t mind, I am prepared to support it. But you must promise that what we get at the end is real. That there will be democratic elections by universal suffrage, without functional constituencies. Ask yourself: face the Hong Kong people. Explain to them why you could have tolerated the functional constituencies we have now for so many years. Do you feel that is right? Clearly you as Chief Executive are the product of a small-circle election. You need these small-circle constituencies to -

Moderator:

Time’s up.

Andrey Eu:

Any time for a supplemental answer?

Moderator:

Sorry. Chief Executive, you have 1 minute and 38 seconds. You may use your remaining time in a single speech.

Donald Tsang:

We must deal with things fairly. This proposal for 2012 and the current electoral system - as I’ve already explained, this proposal is an improvement. Compared to the 2005 plan - the plan that Ms Eu and her pan-Democrats vetoed - there are major differences. The most important one - at that time, why was that plan opposed? They said, at the time, because apart from the elected District Councillors, there were also appointed District Councillors. So, this time round, our proposal says very clearly that only elected District Councillors may stand for the internal elections for the future Legco seats. This is a clear improvement; it is very different to what came before.

But the most important difference in background is that, in 2007, we had a very clear timetable for universal suffrage. The entire democratic backdrop is very different. The goal is very clear.

Ms Eu always harps on about functional constituencies. I understand that. I also know that the Hong Kong people are stubborn. I made it very clear, and Qiao Xiaoyang made it very clear, that our functional constituency seats in future - the current functional constituency seats, functional constituency seats in any form, in 2020, when we have truly achieved universal suffrage, our current form of - any form of - functional constituency seats will have completed their historic mission. This is a very important principle. In future all seats must be elected by means which meet the fundamental criteria of universality and equality. The details we must discuss. But what is most important is that - if we do not approve the 2012 proposal, there is no way to discuss. There is no trust. There is no channel for communication. How can we achieve that?

Moderator:

Thank you, Chief Executive. Your time’s up.

It’s now time for the closing statements. For this part, each person has 2 minutes. I invite Ms Audrey Eu to deliver her closing statement first.

Audrey Eu (closing statement):

I know that everybody wants the political system to move forward. How could I not want the same? So you will ask: why don’t you support the Government’s proposal? Surely even a half-step is better than marking time.

Have you ever encountered very sincere salespeople? They pitch some sort of membership, some sort of service. They say what a great offer it is, and that if you don’t buy it you’ll miss out on the opportunity. You see that you’ve spoken to them for a long time, and you’re embarrassed not to make a deal with them. But after the contract’s signed, you discover that the goods aren’t up to scratch - but backing out is very difficult.

We are now talking about political reform. About the institution of a system. It will have profound impact. If you take one false step, you can’t turn back. Think about it - in 1985, functional constituencies were introduced. Up till now, 25 years - they’ve only increased in number; they’ve never deceased. In such circumstances, the Government is asking us to add a small circle within a small circle. If I support it, I cannot face up to the next generation. That is why I would rather mark time than take the wrong step.

I am very pragmatic. I know politics requires compromise. But compromise is also about principles. If not, it becomes surrender.

I have never asked for a perfect plan. Nor have I ever asked for the destination to be reached in a single step. [Voice audibly breaking and visibly close to tears] But the Hong Kong people have, from 2007 and 2008, up until now, you say we should wait another decade. At the very least, the Government has a duty to tell us, the Hong Kong people, that the wait will be worth it. That what we will ultimately get is the real deal. That we will have a roadmap to universal suffrage. That functional constituencies will eventually be abolished. Sadly, I’ve listened for an hour, and there have been no answers.

You haven’t done your job properly. But I have faith in the Hong Kong people. I know that if we fight for it -

Moderator:

Thank you.

Audrey Eu:

- we will succeed in achieving universal suffrage.

Moderator:

Thank you. I now call on the Chief Executive to deliver his closing statement.

Donald Tsang (closing statement):

Argument about the political system has paralysed Hong Kong for many years. Political reform has resulted in many fundamental emotional issues coming to the fore for many people: trust in their country, trust in the SAR Government, trust in me, the pursuit of democratic ideals, and so on.

To break out of this stalemate, everybody in Hong Kong politics must have a sense of duty. They must stand up in support of this proposal.

The political reform in 2005 was already fettered and vetoed by the pan-Democrats once. Society paid a heavy price. If the pan-Democrats continue to oppose for the sake of opposition, marking time will become the fate of the Hong Kong people.

Empty talk about democracy while refusing to move forward not only means that there is no way out for democracy, it means there is no way out for Hong Kong.

Universal suffrage is something that everybody approves of. What is important is that we do not become stubborn about deceptive theories, but take a concrete step. To allow the Central Government, to allow the SAR Government, to allow the Hong Kong people, to allow the Establishment parties, to allow the pan-Democratic parties to all set out on the path towards democracy.

I have already secured a timetable for universal suffrage. We can elect our Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017. We can elect our legislature by universal suffrage in 2020.

The door to universal suffrage is open. We have weighed anchor on the journey to democracy. What we must shoulder are the hopes of 7 million Hong Kong people. We have nothing to fear. We will travel as far as we can. We will fight for as much as we can. We will make the most of every last minute and every last second.

On 23 June, the pan-Democratic legislators and the entire body of legislators: [if] you support the political reform proposal, it may look today like a very small step. But from the perspective of Hong Kong’s journey towards democracy, history will show that it was a great step. Hong Kong’s people will remember the courage that you have shown today, that you will have shown on 23 June.

I thank Hong Kong. I thank the Hong Kong people.

Moderator:

After the closing statements, our programme has come to its conclusion. I once again thank both of you: Chief Executive Donald Tsang and Civic Party leader Audrey Eu. Goodbye.

?