Only way to save constitutional reform (continue)

IT is a political reality that, unless the SARgovernment's package is so amended that it isreally more democratic, no democrats will supportit, and it will certainly be thrown out. The governmenthas launched the "Act Now" campaign to drum uppopular support. However, recent Chinese Universityand Hong Kong University polls show fewer than 50%of citizens support it. Support for it tends to dwindle,and more and more citizens tend to oppose it. TheSAR government's plan to rely on popular support tocompel democrats to support its package is unlikely toprove effective.

Under the "amended DC plan", the five DCfunctional constituency (FC) seats to be created in2012 should be filled by DC members nominated bytheir fellow DC members and returned by all votersthat have no FC vote. A Chinese University surveyshows that, while 31.1% of respondents are againstthe "amended DC plan", 58% support it (12 percentagepoints more than those who support the government'spackage (under which the DC FC legislators should bereturned by their fellow DC members). It is clear whatthe people's wish is. There is no reason whatsoeverwhy any democrats should support the SARgovernment's package.

Under the "amended DC plan", only some wouldbe eligible to stand or nominate candidates, which isthe case with the present FC system. An electionunder such a system cannot be lumped with a directelection. It can at most be described as similar to adirect election.

The "amended DC plan" is in no way at odds withthe Basic Law. Most citizens support it. Its adoptionwould end the impasse of constitutional reform, showdialogue could be fruitful and bring about a politicalatmosphere conducive to healthy interactions. Itsadoption would only be favourable to the situation inHong Kong. We do not see it would in any way make itworse. Another point worth attention is that, unlessthey achieve results, the moderate democrats will findthemselves in dire political straits. In that event, thechasm between them and the central government willwiden. Would any democrats care to dialogue with thecentral government if to do so is to commit politicalsuicide? Are we to suppose the central government isdetermined not to dialogue with Hong Kongdemocrats? We hope it is not. If it is, the situation inHong Kong will be very worrying indeed.

When they began to dialogue with centralgovernment officials, the Democratic Party and theAlliance for Universal Suffrage aimed at persuadingthe central government to assure Hong Kong peoplethey would exercise genuine universal suffrage in 2017and 2020. The central government adamantly adheringto the Decision the National People's CongressStanding Committee made in 2007, they could not butsettle for trying to ensure Hong Kong's constitutionalsystem would actually and essentially be moredemocratic in 2012. Even if it gives the green light tothe "amended DC plan", the central government willonly take Hong Kong to another stage of its longprocess of democratisation. That would still be far fromfull democracy, which Hong Kong people have beenstriving to achieve for more than twenty years. Webelieve the Democratic Party, the Alliance for UniversalSuffrage, other pro-democracy groups and mostcitizens will persevere in fighting for genuine universalsuffrage and Hong Kong's full democratisation.

Many pan-democrats believe democracy shouldbe achieved at one go. In our view, only if dialoguebetween democrats and central government officialsproduces positive results will fewer and fewer of themhold this attitude and will trust grow and healthyinteractions increase between the central governmentand the democrats. If this happens, we will see a newchapter in Hong Kong politics. However, at this criticalmoment, all depends on whether the centralgovernment will seize the opportunity to use the onlyway to save the constitutional reform - give the greenlight to the amended DC plan. Unless it does so, it isidle to harbour any fair hope.

明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm

明報社評 2010.06.17

區會改良方案 政改唯一活路（續）

目前的政治現實，就是政府的方案若不作修訂，增加具體而實質的民主成分，民主派不會支持，方案勢必被否決。事實上，雖然政府以「起錨」等大動作爭取民意，但是根據港大和中大的最新民調數字顯示，政府方案的支持率不但未過半數，而且呈現支持率下降，反對方案則有顯著上升之勢。政府以民意迫使民主派支持其方案的操作，看來難以奏效。

至於民主黨和普選聯提出的改良方案（即政府方案中2012 年新增的5 個區議會功能組別議席，由區議員提名，交由全港未有在功能組別投票權的選民選出），根據中大的民調顯示，有58%受訪市民表示支持（較區議員互選的政府方案多12 個百分點），只有31.1%不支持。民意向背十分清晰，民主派絕無支持政府方案之理。

另外，改良方案的提名權和參選權，與現行傳統功能組別一樣，都受到限制，不能與直選相提並論，充其量只能說類近直選而已。

改良方案於法既無不合，又得到大多數市民支持，可以化解政制困局，而且顯示溝通對話路線可以取得積極成果，開創日後良性互動的政治氛圍，對於整體香港情勢，只有好處，看不到有何壞處。還有一點值得注意的是，若溫和民主派未能取得成果，則他們的政治處境將極其艱困；經此一役，中央與民主派的鴻溝會更大，若與中央溝通等同政治自殺，則日後還會有民主派願意與中央走上溝通之路？難道中央就抱定不再與民主派溝通了？我們希望中央切勿作如是想，否則香港整體局面堪虞。

民主黨和普選聯這次與中央溝通過程中，原本要求中央確認2017 和2020 年的兩個選舉為真普選，但是在中央堅持按2007 年人大常委會的《決定》辦事下，民主派只能退而求其次，爭取2012 年有實質而具體的民主成分進展。就算改良方案最終得到中央首肯，對於整體民主進程，也只是階段性成果，與香港大多數市民爭取了20多年的全面民主化進程，仍然相距甚遠。我們相信民主黨、普選聯，以至其他民主黨派和大多數市民，仍然會為爭取香港實現真普選、全面民主化而努力。

我們相信，只要與中央溝通、對話可以取得積極成果，則泛民陣營不少人仍然抱持的畢其功於一役的心態，才會逐漸淡化，中央與民主派的互信和良性互動就可以逐步建立起來，果能如此，香港政局就會揭開新的一頁。不過，這樣的期盼，前提是在此關鍵時刻，中央要把握和善用區議會改良方案這個活門，否則一切良好願望都屬空談。

Glossary

stand

be a candidate in an election.chasm / 'kaz?m /

a very big difference between two peopleor groups.

idle useless.