In an interview given on 23 November 2014, Non-Permanent Judge of the
Court of Final Appeal, Kemal Bokhary (包致金) commented that the
nominating committee stipulated under Article 45 of the Basic Law
“should be the servant of universal suffrage, not its master.” Up to
now, this is still the most articulate expression, in legal and
emotional terms, of the true nature of Article 45, and it highlights why
the government’s reform proposal must be vetoed.
Mr
Justice Bokhary’s comment poignantly focused the debate on to the
essence of universal suffrage (a focus which appears to be deliberately
lacking in the government’s promotional materials). The focus of Article
45 is not to guarantee a particular hierarchy in the election system.
Its focus is to guarantee universal suffrage. The nominating committee
is intended to serve that purpose. Everything else is merely a means to
that end of achieving the ultimate aim of universal suffrage. If the
nominating committee does not serve that purpose, then it is not in
fulfilment of Article 45.
Universal suffrage is the best
means of achieving a truly inclusive system of governance in which the
policy-makers are accountable to the public. In other words, the people
become the masters, and the politicians become their servants. The
nominating committee must therefore provide a platform for genuine
elections whereby the candidates need to be accountable to the whole
populace. A government elected by an inclusive electoral method may not
be the most efficient; it may not always make the right decision. But
such method ensures that every voter feels he or she is casting a
meaningful vote and playing a part in shaping Hong Kong’s future. It
ensures that the young people of Hong Kong do not feel disillusioned and
helpless about the future of the city they love. It ensures that
hundred of thousands do not feel the need to resort to civil
disobedience in order to have their views heard.
Regrettably, the current government proposal is a total inversion of
that master-servant matrix. You have no choice but to accept the choice
of the nominating committee. You can either endorse their decision, or
you can stay at home on election day. Like the government’s current
hardline stance over its proposal, the situation is
‘take-it-or-leave-it’. Even if a particular candidate gets only 10% of
the votes, he will be elected as Chief Executive so long as he has more
votes than the others. Whether you like it or not, one of the candidates
will be elected – the only question is whether you take the superficial
step of stepping into the voting station to endorse it.
This is not an inclusive election process which makes the electorate the
master and the candidates their servants. Instead, the nominating
committee becomes the master, because candidates must pander to the
committee members’ interests before they can even enter the race. The
suggestion that the nominating committee – a replication of the present
Election Committee – already represents the will of the people is
risible. If that were the case, there would be no need to have a popular
vote at all, and there would not have been such political momentum for
the implementation of universal suffrage.
Worse still, the
casting of meaningless votes for candidates over whom we have no real
choice gives the elected candidate a dangerously false mandate to push
through policies that may not be, and do not need to be, in the best
interests of the general public. If the government’s proposal is passed,
the government will have pickpocketed our right to universal suffrage
under Article 45 and replaced it with a rubber stamp, the very
antithesis of a meaningful vote.
It is of course
convenient for those who benefit by the current electoral system to
reduce the debate into a question of “pocketing it first” (as if the
right to vote were a mere commodity). Another marketing phrase used by
the pro-government camp is to “take that step” towards the ultimate
objective. But what exactly would we be pocketing? Towards what end
would we be taking that step? In truth, we would be pocketing a complete
perversion of what was promised us under Article 45, and taking an
irretractable step to forever being enslaved by our own system of
election. A Chief Executive selected under this system will have the
false mandate of the people, but will serve only the interests of the
nominating committee.
Given the above, it is imperative
that our legislators exercise their remaining power to force, through
political means, a reconsideration of the government’s lamentable
proposal. We do not urge the lawmakers to veto the proposal on the
ground that it is merely imperfect. We urge the lawmakers to veto the
proposal because its passing would effectively destroy the very essence
of the right to universal suffrage promised to us in Article 45.
