L8 - Spring 2004 L8 Lecture 8 Democratization and the...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Spring 2004 L8 Lecture 8 Democratization and the Democracy Movement (A) The Student Movement and Pressure Group Politics in the 1970s Student movements from late 1960s to the 1970s marked a new era in which the educated youth, born and brought up in HK, showed more concern about HK society. The movements used social actions to put pressure on the govt. Some of the leaders continued to participate in social movements and the democracy movements in the 80s and 90s. Major events: the Chinese Movement (中文運動)(1970), the Protection of Diaoyu Islands Movement 1971 (保衛釣魚台運動), the Anti-Corruption Movement 1973 (反貪污捉葛柏), the Golden Jubilee Incident 1977 (金禧事件) and the Yaumatei Boat People Incident 1978.(艇戶事件) The 1970s was an important period for pressure group movements. The major pressure groups (壓力團體) included Society of Community Organizations (SOCO) (社區組織協會), Education Action Group (教育行動組), HK People’s Council on Public Housing Policy (公屋評議會), HK Federation of Teachers (教 協), etc.. They used a mixture of public opinion pressure, social movement and public protests to put pressure on govt. Some leaders of these groups became the backbone of the democracy movement in the 80s and 90s. There was little change in the power structure of the govt. "Government by consultation" remained the norm in the 1970s. The pressure groups mostly focused on social policies rather than political reform. (B) The British Initiative -- the Development of Representative Government The Development of District Administration After MacLehose visited China in 1979, Britain set up District Boards in 1982 as a laboratory for democratization. The franchise was extended to all HK residents aged 21 or above. The ratio of DBs’ elected seats was increased to 2/3 in 1985. 1 Spring 2004 L8 The 1984 Green and White Paper After the Sino-British negotiations, Britain knew clearly that it had to leave Hong Kong. Britain then decided to develop representative government (代議政 制) in Hong Kong. The Green Paper in July 1984 stated the goal of political reform as "to develop progressively a system of government the authority for which is firmly rooted in HK, which is able to represent authoritatively the views of the people of Hong Kong, and which is more directly accountable to the people of Hong Kong." (逐步建立一個政制,使其權力穩固地立根於香港, 有充份權威代表香港人的意見,同時更能較直接向港人負責。) The White Paper of November 1984 added 24 "elected" seats into Legco. 12 were elected by electoral colleges (選舉委員會) made up of DB members and UC and RC. 12 were elected by functional constituencies (功能組別) made up of business and industrial groups and professional bodies. The average citizens could not directly elect representatives into the Legco until 1991. The White Paper said direct election to the Legco “can be considered” in 1988 and there will be a constitutional review in 1987. The Issue of Convergence and Sino-British Cooperation By 1984, Britain might have thought that they could run Hong Kong and change the political system freely before 1997. China was not in favor of a rapid democratic development in the political system. They also suspected British intention of pushing rapid political reform in HK. Xu Jiatun’s (許家屯) speech (本子風波) on November 21, 1985--China claimed that all political reform during the transition must be “converge” or "in track" (銜 接) with the constitutional structure laid down in the Basic Law. They claimed that since the Basic Law would only be promulgated in 1990, the British had better not do anything before that. The British later essentially agreed that political development in HK before 1997 has to agree with the Basic Law-- the "through train" (直通車) concept. 2 Spring 2004 L8 (C) The Domestic Democracy Movement Background Student and social movements in 60s and 70s provided a new group of local elites, comprised of middle class and professionals. The Sino-British negotiations sensitized and mobilized the local population. Groups were formed and put forward their proposals on HK's future. Political groups began to form to participate in DB and UC elections, to push social reforms and increase their influence. The Hong Kong Affairs Society (太 平山學會) (1984), the Meeting Point (匯點) (1983) and the Association of Democracy and People's Livelihood (民主民生協進會/民協) (1986) were the major pro-democracy groups. They first reacted actively to political discussion around the Green Paper of 1984, and then participated in the 1985 DB elections. The formation of the Joint Committee on the Promotion of Democratic Government (JCPDG) (民主政制促進聯委會/民促會) in 1986 by 95 groups from various sectors. This grand coalition of groups fought for Direct Election in 1988 and a more democratic political system in the Basic Law. The Struggle over Direct Election in 1988 The 1984 White Paper promised a constitutional review in 1987. In 1987, the HK Government published a Green Paper, putting forward various proposals of constitutional change for consultation. The democrats, represented by the JCPDG, pushed for at least 20% of seats directly elected in 1988. The business sector and the pro-PRC groups (led by the HK Federation of Trade Unions, HKFTU) (工聯會) claimed that rapid democratization and direct election would lead to political instability and hurt the economy, and opposed to the introduction of direct election in 1988. The struggle became a battle of great symbolic significance, a battle of opinion between conservative political opinion and the pro-democracy opinion. PRC's position was that all political reform before 1997 had to conform to the Basic Law, otherwise there would be no "through train." The British agreed with 3 Spring 2004 L8 that and delayed constitutional development. The govt. set up a Survey Office (民意匯集處) in 1987 to gauge public opinion. It was commonly believed that the govt "rigged" a poll which asked if the public wanted direct election. The Survey Office counted some 125,800 entries of opinion, but it counted some 220,000 signatures in support of direct election as one entry. About 70,000 were in the form of one-man-one-letter by the HKFTU, and the Survey Office counted them as 70,000 entries. The govt then concluded that public opinion in HK was still divided over the issue, and decided not to introduce direct election in 1988. The White Paper in 1988, however, promised 10 directly elected seats in 1991. The objective of establishing a representative govt that can represent the local people, laid out in the 1984 Green Paper, was removed. The democrats were furious but could do very little about it. Meanwhile there was another game going on: the struggle for a more democratic political structure in the future constitution-- the Basic Law. The Struggle over the Basic Law The Basic Law Drafting Committee (BLDC) (基本法起草委員會/草委) was set up in 1985. It consisted of 23 members from HK and 36 members from China. Most of the HK members were from the business sector. Only two stood out as pro-democracy: Martin Lee (李柱銘) and Szeto Wah (司徒華). A Basic Law Consultative Committee (BLCC) (基本法諮詢委員會/諮委) was also set up. Consisted of all HK members, the 180-member BLCC had representatives from many sectors in HK, and was supposed to solicit public opinion in HK. It included some pro-KMT, pro-grassroot, and pro-democracy people, but conservative deputies still made up a large portion of them. The struggle over the Basic Law’s political system was mostly about how the CE and the Legco would be selected after 1997. The democrats preferred to have the CE directly elected, and as many legislators directly elected as possible (50%). The conservatives wanted fewer directly elected seats and more functional seats, and a non-directly elected Chief Executive. 4 Spring 2004 L8 In August 1986, 89 conservative members on the BLCC published a proposal for the future political structure-- the 89-man proposal (八十九人方案). The proposal had the CE elected by an election committee, the Legco have 15 elected from election committee, 25 by Functional Constituencies, and the number of directly elected seats should increase gradually from 15 in 1997 to not exceeding 40 in 2007. They claimed that political stability is paramount, and business interests must be safeguarded. In October 1986, 19 pro-democracy members of the BLCC drafted a counter proposal, which was signed by 190 people (一九零人方案). They suggested the CE should be directly elected. The Legco should be 50% directly elected, 25% by functional seats, and 25% elected by the two municipal councils. On 28 January 1989, Louis Cha (查良鏞) and Cha Chi Ming (查濟民) of the BLDC proposed a "mainstream" proposal (主流方案/雙查方案). The model had 27% of the Legco members elected in 1997, and 50% elected by 2007. The proposal was considered conservative and was passed by the Constitutional Panel of the BLDC. The proposal has to be approved by the plenary meeting (全 體大會) of BLDC. The Final Formula in the Basic Law The Tiananmen crackdown in June 1989 shocked HK people. The Legco and Exco members agreed unanimously to the Omelco consensus proposal (兩局共 識方案): at least 1/3 of the Legco should be directly elected in 1991, 50% directly elected in 1995 and all elected by 2003, and the CE directly elected. Britain agreed to fight for the formula. The moderates, some conservatives and the democrats worked out a consensus— the “4-4-2 proposal” (四四二方案). The conservatives led by T.S. Lo (羅德丞) suggested a “One Council, Two Chambers” model (一會兩局), which became the basis of the “voting by group” arrangement. After a series of secret negotiations in 1989-90, Britain and China agreed to the formula in the Basic Law. They also agreed to increase directly elected seats in 1991 from 10 to 18. China agreed to grant the "through train." The Basic Law was promulgated in 1990. The Chinese govt inserted a few 5 Spring 2004 L8 clauses in the Basic Law to safeguard against “subversion” and/or too much influence by the democrats. E.g., Article 23 and the voting-by-group formula (分 組點票) were the last articles added into the Basic Law. The final formula: the CE will be elected by a 400-member Election Committee in 1997. Half of the legislators will be directly elected by 2003. (D) From Cooperation to Conflict: Change of British Position Sino-British Cooperation from 1984 to 1989: the stakes were not high enough for Britain. The British Foreign Office and the Conservative government considered it was not worthwhile to damage Sino-British relations over democracy of Hong Kong. But things began to change after 1989. Change 1: The Tiananmen Massacre hurt the international image of China. The British govt was pressed to offer more protection to HK people. Martin Lee and others traveled all over the world, accusing the UK of kowtowing to China over the issue of democracy in HK. The Labor Party and the British press picked up the issue to criticize the Conservative govt, causing great embarrassment. Change 2: The Airport Saga-- In 1989, the Hong Kong govt decided to build the new airport and related infrastructural projects of total costs of more than 160 billion. China claimed that the project may drain all the reserves before 1997, and said that the project must have China's approval. A series of "airport talks" led to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)(機場備忘錄)in August 1991. The MOU stipulated that at least 5 billion of reserves must remain in the Treasury by 1997, and all important matters and contracts that were to extend beyond 1997, had to get the approval of China. Because of the MOU, British Prime Minister John Major (馬卓安) had to go to Beijing to shake hands with Li Peng (李鵬), which again brought a lot of criticisms at home. Britain decided that the stakes for cooperating with China were too high, and they had to change the strategy to confront China over the issue of democracy. In 1992, Governor David Wilson (衛奕信) was replaced by Chris Patten(彭定康), the former Conservative Party Chairman. As an electoral politician, Patten quickly earned good popularity by his populist styles. E. The Patten Reform 6 Spring 2004 L8 The Patten Proposal 1. Abolish all appointed seats in the District Board and the Urban Council and Regional Council. 2. Lower the voting age from 21 to 18. 3. The 20 directly-elected seats in 1995 would be elected in single-member constituencies. 4. The newly-added 9 seats from functional constituencies (新九組) will be elected by 2.7 million working population of Hong Kong. Corporate voting was replaced by individual voting by as much as possible (e.g., social services). 5. The 10 seats from election committee will be elected by all DB members. The nature of the proposal is that it fully used the gray areas and undefined areas in the Basic Law to maximize the degree of democracy. Patten insisted that the proposal did not violate the JD and the Basic Law. The Chinese Reaction and Subsequent Negotiations The Chinese position was that the proposal had "three violations"(三違反) -violating the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law, and the secret agreement between the two foreign ministers in 1990 over the constitutional arrangement in 1997. China demanded Britain to drop the proposal before any talks over the 1995 electoral arrangements can be started. Britain refused. China used a combination of strategies: (a) personal attacks on Chris Patten-"culprit of Hong Kong history" (千古罪人), "like a prostitute"; (b) raised the stakes of confrontation by threatening all business contracts that straddled beyond 1997 would not be honored; (c) vowed that all councilors elected under the Patten formula will be abolished in 1997; (d) set up the Preparatory Working Committee (預委會) to show that China could impose their own blueprints(另起爐灶). Britain refused to give in and insisted that they did not violate anything. The Breakdown of Negotiations and the 1995 Election In April 1993, after six months of standoff, China agreed to enter into talks with Britain. In the first three rounds, China insisted that the British must drop their blueprints. Britain, in return, asked China to raise their own proposal. 7 Spring 2004 L8 In the 4th to 9th rounds, the two sides began to discuss their differences on various issues: (a) China wanted to change the election committee to 400 people appointed from the four sectors as defined in the Basic Law, while Britain insisted that the members of the election committee should be themselves elected; (b) China opined that the FCs should use corporate voting (including the 9 new FCs) and suggested their proposed categories; (c) the "through train": Britain wanted the transition to be only a formal oath, while the Chinese government gave standards like "love China and Hong Kong" (愛國 愛港) or do not (never) do anything that hurts the socialist system in China (不破 壞中國內地社會主義制度). (d) China objected to the abolition of appointed seats in DB, UC and RC. (e) China raised that NPC (人大) and NPCC (政協) members should be allowed to serve as Legco members, DB members or UC/RC members. Both sides did not arrive at any agreements over these issues. Britain began to make concessions. She agreed to reduce the franchise of the FCs to 1/3 of its original (less than 900,000), use some corporate voting instead of individual voting, and use China's definition of the election committee sectors. She also agreed to reform the election committee according to the formula in the Basic Law, but all the four sectors have to be born by election. By October 1993, after 15 rounds, both sides agreed on several points: (a) lower the voting age to 18; (b) allow NPC and NPCC members to serve as members in the three tiers of councils in HK; (c) a single-member constituency system to be adopted in UC/RC and DB elections. Britain suggested to sign a MOU, but then suggested to add the voting method of the 1995 election into the MOU. China claimed that Britain raised new demands and refused to sign the MOU. The talks were bogged down after 17 rounds. Patten tabled the bill to the Legco in December, and the Chinese govt announced that talks would not be continued. Talks between the two sides thus broke off. Conservative Legco members raised amendments to the bill to try to make it more acceptable to China, but most of them were defeated. The Legco passed the (mostly) original proposal on June 29, 1994. 8 Spring 2004 L8 The 1995 election thus was conducted according to the Patten formula. The Democratic Party won 19 seats in all, and the pro-democracy camp won about half of all the 60 elected seats. The 1995-97 Legco was one that had the most political influence in Hong Kong history. With the democrats controlling about half of the seats, they could force the govt to change policies by private members’ bills, bill amendments, and vetoing of bills and appropriations. The Second Stove (另起爐灶 ) In July 1993, the Preparatory Working Committee (PWC) (預委會) was set up. The PWC was not mentioned in the Basic Law which only says a Preparatory Committee (籌委會) would be established in HK in 1996. The PWC began to devise blueprints for the future SAR govt. All the 57 members of the PWC were pro-China politicians or businessmen. 30 of them were from Hong Kong. After the Patten proposal was passed by the Legco, the PWC advocated to set up a Provisional Legislature (臨時立法會). In January 1996, the Preparatory Committee (PC) (籌委會) was set up. Of the 150 members, 56 were from mainland and 94 were from HK. No democrats were represented. Of the 94, more than 50% were business tycoons (together they controlled 36% of the wealth of HK). Pro-China politicians were also well represented. The PC then selected the 400-member Selection Committee (推選 委員會), which elected the Provisional Legco and the CE in December 1996. With the exception of the ADPL (民協), all democrats refused to join the Provisional Legco. 34 incumbent legislators ran for the PL, and 33 were elected. Pro-China politicians took most of the remaining seats, bringing an overwhelming pro-China majority. The Provisional Legco officially became the legislature of HK on July 1, 1997, and the 25 pro-democracy members were driven off the "through train." The Provisional Legco was rather inactive during its 9-month term from July 1997 to April 1998. It suffered from a lack of legitimacy, and was criticized of being a rubber stamp, and biased in favor of business interests. The most criticized deeds including changing the electoral rules, abolition of some prolabor legislations, and enactment of Public Order Ordinance. The change of electoral rules helped to bring a pro-govt. majority after 1997. 9 Spring 2004 L8 Competing Models for Political Structure in the Basic Law Louis Cha’s “mainstream” model The “T.S. Lo” model The “4:4:2” compromise model The “Omelco Consensus” model COMPOSITION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1. Direct election 1995 1997 Not less than 50% 27% 25% 40% 1999 67% 2001 2003 Not less than 50% 60% 38% To be decided by the SAR govt 2005 100% To be decided by the SAR govt 2007 50% 2012 100% (?) 2. Functional constituency election 1995 1997 50% 73% 50% 40% 1999 33% 2001 2003 40% 62% To be decided by the SAR govt 2005 2007 50% 0% To be decided by the SAR govt 50% 3. Grand electoral college election 1997 25% 2001 2003 20% 0% To be decided by the SAR govt 10 Spring 2004 L8 DIRECT ELECTION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE Univers 2012(?) 2003 2005 2003 al suffrage in 11 ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online