Should government prise votes from democrats?

ON November 18 last year, the governmentreleased a consultation document onconstitutional reform. A survey conducted bythe Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of theChinese University of Hong Kong showed 50.8% ofpeople thought Legco should adopt the government'sproposal. The proposal received much lower supportthan the 2005 package (60% ). Some academicspointed out then support for it would dwindle unless thegovernment put forward proposals to improve thepackage in the consultation period.

The government has now proposed a package.The findings of a survey carried out by the PublicOpinion Programme (POP) at the University of HongKong (which appear in this issue of Ming Pao)corroborate those academics' conjecture.In the current debate on constitutional reform,attention is mainly focused on whether the functionalconstituencies (FCs) will be abolished and whetherthere will be a roadmap for introducing universalsuffrage. The government's package is not entirelysatisfactory, but should the Legislative Council (Legco)adopt it or reject it? In the POP survey, two differentquestions led to different results.

(1) Of the respondents who were told that thegovernment's package was silent about such aroadmap, the abolition of appointed District Councilseats and the abolition of the FCs, 41% said Legcoshould throw it out, and 37% said it should adopt it.

(2) Of those who were told that it was silent aboutsuch a road map and the abolition of the FCs, but itsadoption would prevent the constitutional system fromremaining unchanged, 46% said Legco should adopt it,and 32% said it should reject it.

The percentage of people who think the 2012package should go through is not high, nor is that ofthose who believe it should be thrown out. Neitherexceeds 50% . In 2005, the government called onpro-democracy legislators to support its package when60% of people supported it. It will now be even lesseffective for it to use public opinion to compellegislators to vote for the new package. Public opinionis divided about whether the new package should gothrough. As it has not found overwhelming support,legislators in the pan-democratic camp are underslightly smaller pressure.

It is open to the government to prise votes frompan-democratic legislators. The new package will gothrough if four of them turn their coats. Nevertheless,as the public is divided, those who intend to switch tosupporting the package must consider how to justifythemselves to the pan-democratic camp and theirsupporters, for their about-turns may entail highpolitical prices.

Furthermore, as fewer than 50% of people supportthe 2012 package, even if the government pushes itthrough by "prising votes", it may remain unacceptableto many. However, such manoeuvring would not onlysplit the pan-democratic camp but also divide society.It would not make it easier to run the SAR forantagonism to grow between the government and thepan-democratic camp or for political contradictions tointensify.

We therefore do not think it advisable for thegovernment to push the package through by prisingvotes. It should strive to do such things thatpan-democratic legislators will happily and willinglysupport it. It is right and proper for pan-democraticdoves to demand that the government again pledge tointroduce genuine universal suffrage, and the SARgovernment should regard it as a goal it must do itsbest to achieve. As we pointed out a long time ago, theFCs are an obstacle to Hong Kong's democratisation.

The central government and the SAR governmentought to do what would make Hong Kong peoplebelieve that the FCs will certainly disappear before2020 and that genuine universal suffrage will beintroduced. The central government and the SARgovernment should see to it that the FCs will fade outin favour of Hong Kong's democratisation. If it is clearthat Hong Kong people will eventually exercisegenuine universal suffrage, many more citizens willsupport the 2012 package, and it will not be hard topersuade two thirds of the Legco members to vote forit.

Because fewer than 50% of people support the2012 package, the SAR government will sow theseeds of antagonism if it pushes it through by prisingvotes. However, it can prevent internal strife if it seizesthe opportunity to work with the doves and deal withHong Kong's constitutional arrangements once and forall. It is self-evident which of the two options is better.We believe all hinges on the central government'sdecision. All depends just on central governmentleaders' wisdom, courage and boldness.

明報社評 2010.04.30

2012方案支持率下跌 政府不宜撬票硬闖

去年11 月18 日，政府公布政改諮詢文件之後，例如中大亞太研究中心的調查，顯示有50.8%受訪者支持議員通過方案，較之2005 年方案出台即有六成受訪者表示接受已明顯不如。有學者早已點出，若政府在諮詢期內未能提出優化方案的建議，支持率會拾級而下。

政府正式提出方案後，明報今天刊出的港大民意研究計劃調查結果，正好印證了學者的估計。

這次政改討論，功能組別存廢和普選路線圖備受關注，即使方案未盡人意，議員應該通過或否決方案呢？港大民意研究計劃以兩種提問方式訪問受訪者，得出不同結果：

（1）如果問題點出方案「並無交代功能組別存廢、區議會受制委任議員存廢與普選路線圖」，認為應該否決的受訪者有41%，應該通過的為37%；

（2）如果問題把方案「以免政制原地踏步和並無普選路線圖及功能組別存廢」並列，認為應該通過的有46%，應該否決的有32%。

就2012 方案應該通過或否決，整體支持和反對的比率不高，沒有一個數字超過五成。05 年時，政府挾六成民意支持，呼籲民主派議員通過方案，這次政府以民意迫使民主派議員，力度更不如前。對於民主派議員，民意既對通過和否決意見分歧，認為應該通過的並不顯著，壓力也因而稍減。

至於政府，仍然可以向民主派議員「撬票」，只要取得4 票倒戈，方案就可以通過。不過，民意既然並不顯著，縱使有議員投向政府之意，如何向泛民陣營和支持者交代，相信是「轉軚議員」要考慮的問題，因為轉軚在政治上可能要付出沉重代價。

此外，由於支持2012 方案的民意未及一半，就算政府「撬票」通過了方案，其認受性仍然較低，而操作的結果，不但撕裂了泛民陣營，也使社會更呈分化。政府與民主派對立更形尖銳，政治生態激化，絕對不利於特區的管治。

因此，我們認為政府不宜「撬票」強行通過方案，應該盡量尋求民主派議員在心甘情願下支持方案。泛民陣營中的鴿派要求進一步承諾真普選的訴求，合情合理，特區政府應以此為盡力的目標。我們早已指出，功能組別是香港民主化的絆腳石，中央和特區政府，必須讓市民看到功能組別到2020 年必然會全面退出立法會，實現真正普選的民主化，讓市民看到中央和特區政府真的處理功能組別漸退，使香港的民主進程漸進，大家就會相信真普選終有實現之日。這樣的話，支持2012 方案的市民定必大增，要得到立法會三分之二議員通過方案，也是輕而易舉的事。

2012 方案支持率不過半，政府是撬票硬闖，為日後管治埋下尖銳對立的種子；抑或是因勢利導，真正尋求與鴿派合作，徹底解決香港的政制安排，減少內耗。這兩個選擇，箇中良窳不言自明，我們相信問題只在中央一念之間，就看領導人的智慧、勇氣和魄力而已。

Glossary

turn one's coat

leave one group to join one that has verydifferent views.

about-turncomplete change of attitude or opinion.

entail /In'teIl/involve unavoidably.