Pan-democrats must face the mainstream public opinion
The latest public opinion poll by Hong Kong Research Association, released yesterday, shows 63% of the respondents agree that the Legislative Council (Legco) should pass the government's political reform proposal, and that the proposal is more democratic than the existing method for selecting the Chief Executive (CE).
That an election with voting by five million voters is more democratic than by a 1,200-member Election Committee and that Legco members should follow public opinion to cast their votes, these two viewpoints are clearly supported by 60% respondents or more in various public opinion surveys released hitherto. On the former in particular, that voting by five million people is more democratic than by a 1,200-member Election Committee, there virtually is no dispute.
More importantly, these two views in the mainstream public opinion are in accord with Hong Kong society's prevailing rationality, pragmatism and understanding of democratic rights. Hence they are not surprising and leave no room for making any strained interpretation.
First of all, even a three-year-old child would have no difficulty to understand that voting by five million voters is more democratic than by a 1,200-member Election Committee. Surely, there are procedures in the proposal such as the formation of the Nominating Committee, "recommendation for nomination" and "nomination". A contender can be "recommended for nomination" by one tenth of the Nominating Committee members, and a person so "recommended for nomination" must have the support of at least half of the Nominating Committee members to become a candidate. Only after the candidates are nominated can the five million qualified voters elect the CE-elect from among them by "one person one vote". In this process, there indeed exists certain screening. For one thing, this is stipulated in the Basic Law. For another, this is to ensure that a candidate meets the basic requirements such as being patriotic so as to avoid the embarrassment of a CE-election being not appointed. In spite of all this, the five million qualified voters eventually will each indeed have a voting ticket in hand, and it is these voters instead of the 1,200 Nominating Committee members who will ultimately decide who will be elected. For, even the Nominating Committee nominate three candidates A, B and C in order of preference, voters can completely ignore the order and cast their votes to whoever they prefer, such as B or C instead of A. And there is no way for the Nominating Committee to influence the voters' decisions. Voting by five million voters thus indeed is a fully democratic process. This is without a shadow of a doubt and undeniable.
Therefore, Hong Kong citizens, who are always flexible and pragmatic, agree that the political reform proposal is more democratic than the existing method of selecting the CE, agree that this is a step forward in democratisation. Although this step may not be completely ideal, yet one step forward is one step forward, better than marking time on the spot. There is no need to dispute about this. Public opinion surveys conducted by various institutions and organisations have reached almost the same conclusion that the public agree to adopt the reform proposal first. This is entirely understandable. On the contrary, it is not Hong Kong people's habit and character to refuse accepting the voting tickets offered instead of pocketing them first.
As a matter of fact, pan-democrats could veto such universal suffrage one hundred times, but can hardly deny that fact that voting by five million voters is more democratic and more in keeping with Hong Kong people's aspiration than voting by the Election Committee. The only outcome of their insistence on "banding together in opposition" is to grab away the hard-to-come-by voting tickets from the five million voters and deprive Hong Kong people of their hard-to-come-by right to vote! And they are doing this just because they are afraid and discontent that their contenders may not be able to be nominated and elected. As such, the pan-democrats want to forfeit universal suffrage and sacrifice five million voters' right just for their own private ends. For this, they owe Hong Kong people an explanation. Or they surely can expect to be punishment by voters with their votes.
As for the second inclination in the mainstream public opinion that Legco members should follow the mainstream public opinion to cast their votes, the reason is even simpler. Lawmakers are elected by voters of geographical or functional constituencies, and thus are representatives of people's will in the political structure. To a certain extent, they in fact represent their voters instead of themselves. Voters are their "bosses". Isn't it the case that so far the opposition lawmakers have been doing whatever they do inside and outside the chamber, from opposing the legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law some time ago to the current "filibustering", in the pretense of public will? How come when it comes to such a major issue of electing the CE by universal suffrage, they would rather completely forget people's will and stand firm to block the proposal from being passed? Voters would behave too badly if they declined to show their power and prestige as the "bosses" in time but continued to spoil these "representatives" keeping an upper hand over people's will.
