PETER WOO: Old wine in an old bottle

Selective misrepresentation and omission may be normal tactics in court-room advocacy, but many would say that Martin Lee Chu-ming's article "Democracy in Hong Kong - honour your promise" on March 6 is not the best way to build mutual trust with Beijing.

What promise does he mean? The promise China made to Britain and Hong Kong was "stability and prosperity". As it happens, the election methods that are currently under debate are simply a means for Beijing to fulfil that promise.

Mr Lee claimed the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 envisioned a gradual process leading to full democratisation as the defined, ultimate goal. But curiously, the word democracy is nowhere to be found in the Joint Declaration. Nor is there any mention of future constitutional development. The only mention of election methods was that the chief executive would be selected by election or through consultations - to be appointed by the Central Peoples' Government - and that the legislature would be elected.

Mr Lee omitted the word "previous" from his paraphrase of China's pledge. Article 5 of the Basic Law says, "The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong special administrative region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years."

Why did Mr Lee omit "previous"? Both Hong Kong and Beijing wanted the word in. The system referred to in the "one country, two systems" principle is our previous capitalist system as stated in Article 5. The "previous" way of life is about our freedoms, our values and our democratic rights. Many rightfully insist that economics and politics cannot be separated. So, what were our previous politics and way of life? They were based on the idea of "balanced participation". Side by side, business, professionals, the grass-roots and middle class participated directly in politics, and it was successful.

The previous way was also marked by an executive-led government model. The British sovereign was the head of the colony of Hong Kong. No one could harass the sovereign or her representative. Our SAR laws ensure that we are much less restricted in this aspect.

Beijing received a tough message on July 1, last year: "Your ways are not working. Return the rule to the people. We will determine our local elections. Universal suffrage now."

A Xinhua statement last month reaffirmed certain preconditions to any changes of election methods. Mr Lee's article disregarded the preconditions (the so-called actual situation provision) that must be in place before full universal suffrage can be adopted in Hong Kong. The chief secretary's taskforce is now dealing with these pre-condition issues. Class politics are as real in Hong Kong as anywhere else. H. F. Hung, formerly of Johns Hopkins University, once wrote that Hong Kong's most popular political parties were not middle-class, but grass-roots parties - namely the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong and the Democratic Party.

The two took 70 per cent of the direct election votes. Together they can block any government bills. Before changing the electoral rules, Beijing needs to be persuaded that the segment of the community that is already a substantial net receiver of government expenditures could end up having even more power and more say. Does that help preserve the previous capitalist system as stated in Article 5? Is that consistent with the "balanced participation" principle?

Mr Lee and the democrats also need to convince Beijing that the previous capitalist system can remain unchanged without the business sector's 25 per cent minority political representation, as provided for in the Basic Law.

Many people overestimate the influence the business sector has with its minority representation and on election methods. Others relentlessly hound the business sector to surrender its allotted constitutional roles. Some try to demonise the business sector.

The sky did not fall after 1997. China is accepted as a benign sovereign. Our freedoms were not stripped away nor are we living in fear. We do not have a repressive regime. The rule of law is our way of life. Our press is free. Our democratic rights are preserved.

Despite this, on July 1, Beijing received a sombre message of complaints about Hong Kong's governance. The SAR government was instructed to listen to the people. Now, many argue strongly that the current political structure is not working. Others, however, point out that ferocious Legco debates, hostile media criticism and peaceful demonstrations by the community are all mature and proper signs that the checks and balances set out in the Basic Law are working.

There are others who still elect to crusade against Beijing, on the subject of democracy both in Hong Kong and on the mainland. Well, these are not new debates. Sovereign power and its exercise is a zero sum game under the Basic Law. Beijing must honour her promise of "stability and prosperity".

The demand for autonomy started in 1982: namely, the move to confine the central government's role to defence and foreign affairs. That definition is only microscopically distinguishable from independence. No matter how any new packaging looks, to many, it is an old wine in an old bottle of 1982 vintage.

Peter K. C. Woo is chairman of Wheelock and a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

Published on 18 March 2004, South China Morning Post