Opinion | Electoral reform: Changes will save one country, two systems

By Grenville Cross

Although there are various reasons why it has become necessary to reform Hong Kong's electoral system, the abysmal quality of many of its anti-government legislators stands out. They were not only contemptuous of the Basic Law, the source of the city's rights and liberties, but also ignorant of even the most elementary decencies. They hated China, their motherland, and were prepared to prostitute themselves before foreign powers in order to harm its interests and undermine their home city.

Although they described themselves as "pan democrats", many of them were never happier than when causing chaos in the Legislative Council, and bringing democratic processes to a standstill. Their policy agendas were devoid of meaningful proposals for public welfare, poverty alleviation or better housing, and replete with meaningless slogans about more democracy and greater freedoms, for which they were manifestly unsuited. Indeed, they did everything possible to thwart progress on the laws Hong Kong is constitutionally obliged to enact, including national security, and whitewashed the excesses of the protest movement and its armed wing, with some of them even joining in the mayhem on the streets.

Nobody, therefore, should be surprised that Beijing lost patience, as they posed a direct threat to the "one country, two systems" policy, upon which Hong Kong depends. They frustrated the work of the Legislative Council, undermined the stability of the city, and endangered national security, and there was no way the central authorities could sit idly by, and watch the city's unique status going up in smoke. As the electoral reforms unfold, there can obviously be no role for those who infiltrated the body politic in order to sabotage it, or who used their public positions to preach hatred of China and its people, or who supported its geopolitical rivals.

It is, of course, sad that the democratic experiment has failed so spectacularly, and it is a lost opportunity for Hong Kong. Whereas the Central Authorities approved the direct election of 24 of the 70 legislative councilors in 2000, this was increased to 30 in 2004, and to 35 in 2012. This meant that half of the Legislative Council was, for the first time, directly elected, with the other 35 seats, including the 5 seats created in 2012 for district councilors, comprising the functional constituencies.

Given the speed, moreover, with which the directly elected component of the Legislative Council progressed from 20 to 35, the direction of travel was very clearly towards greater democratization, and this could have been achieved if the "pan democrats" had not thrown a spanner in the works. After the Central Authorities decided, in an unprecedented move, that universal suffrage would be used for the Chief Executive election in 2017, it was blocked by opposition legislators in 2015, who claimed it did not go far enough for their liking, and a golden opportunity was lost. Although they may not have realized it at the time, they had also killed off any prospects of more directly-elected seats in the Legislative Council in future, and the subsequent antics of their legislators served only to underscore the abject failure of the existing electoral system.

Any democratic progress, of course, is in Beijing's gift, but this is dependent on its trust. Although we will never know for sure which misconduct by opposition legislators most disgusted the Central Authorities, several possibilities stand out. It could have been Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Regine Yau Wai-ching, who, when required to take their oaths of office in 2016, turned a solemn occasion into a farce, by blaspheming, staging stunts and insulting the Chinese nation. Or it might have been Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, who, for seven months in 2019-20, used his role as deputy chairman of the House Committee not only to prevent the election of a new chairman, but also to halt the progress of any new laws, no matter how urgent.

It could, alternatively, have been Ted Hui Chi-fung, who, in 2018, assaulted a female official and stole her mobile phone, and then, in 2020, threw a noxious substance around in the Legislative Council chamber, deposited a rotting plant on its floor, and injured security staff while trying to prevent an election from taking place in the House Committee. On the other hand, Au Nok-hin, who attacked two police officers with a loud hailer during a protest in Mong Kok in 2019, leaving one injured, and was sentenced to 9 weeks' imprisonment, must also have also earned Beijing's unqualified contempt. If even elected legislators, supposed role models, resort to thuggery in the Legislative Council and on the streets, it sends out a dreadful message to the young, and undermines the efforts of parents to instil proper values into their children.

However, the legislator most likely to have convinced the central authorities that electoral reform was essential, and also that national security legislation was urgently required, was the Civic Party's leader, Alvin Yeung Ngoc-kui. In August 2019, he travelled to the US, with Kwok, and denounced the Hong Kong Police Force, urging an end to training exercises with it and an embargo on the supply of crowd control equipment. He also advocated the imposition of laws that would harm Hong Kong and its officials. As if this was not bad enough, on his return, Yeung wrote, together with Kwok and three fellow legislators, to political leaders in the US, on September 2 2019, urging them to expedite a law which would enable the US President to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and mainland officials. Such brazen disloyalty must have stunned Beijing, and reinforced the view of those who felt that a system which can throw up individuals like Yeung and Kwok is one which cries out for drastic reform.

The final straw, however, may have come last July, when it emerged that a plot was afoot, allegedly involving legislators, lawyers and academics, including Yeung, to gain a majority of seats in the Legislative Council elections, which sounds fair enough, but was far from benign. According to prosecutors, their purpose was not to press for better housing, less poverty or higher taxes, but to block the budget, paralyze the government, force the Chief Executive to resign, and create constitutional gridlock. If successful, this would have wrecked the "one country, two systems" policy, and provoked a confrontation with Beijing, which, it is alleged, some of the perpetrators actively favored.

Everybody who values "one country, two systems", must, therefore, be grateful that the electoral system is being reformed, in accordance with the PRC Constitution (Art.31). Without reform, Hong Kong would have collapsed, and its status as a leading financial and trading center would have been lost forever. Never again must its public offices be occupied by those who wish to harm the country, or pander to foreign powers. If the reforms are successful, it is still possible that Hong Kong's current system can continue after 2047, when the Basic Law's "50 years unchanged" concludes (Art.5). But this can only happen if the nation is convinced that the city and its people can be trusted to honor their responsibilities not only to themselves, but also to the rest of the country.

Grenville Cross is a senior counsel, law professor and criminal justice analyst, and was previously the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.