District Council Elections - 19 Nov, 2003Dear Subscribers & Friends
While there seems to be little fanfare for the upcoming District Council (DC) Election on Sunday, the results will serve to show whether enough post-1 July Hong Kong voters want to use the occasion to demonstrate their will or not.
Surveys indicate that voters remain unhappy with the C H Tung Administration although still too many of them do not intend to vote. Among those intending to vote, there are more voters who wish to vote for the ‘democratic’ camp than the ‘pro-government’ camp.
A. The District Councils
1. Small districts: Each district covers about 20,000 residents.
2. Voting method: Universal suffrage on geographical and first-past-the-post basis.
3. Composition: 75% of the DC members are directly elected and 25% are appointed by the CE post-election.
4. Power: Constitutionally, these are ‘advisory’ bodies only with no independent secretariats and small budgets.
B. Lack of importance
1. Representative but without power: Despite being the most representative elected bodies in Hong Kong (LegCo only has 24 out of 60 councillors directly elected today) the DCs have no real power being merely advisory bodies.
2. Retrograde development: Prior to 1997, 100% of the DC members were directly elected. The appointment system for 25% of the membership was a retrograde step introduced post-1997. It could be said that it was introduced to ‘balance’ or ‘thwart’ the will of the electorate. The CE has used his power to appoint pro-government forces to fill the appointed seats at the last election.
C. Most interesting race - Ho vs. Ip
1. The most interesting race is that between legislators Cyd Ho (Frontier) and Ip Kwok-him (DAB) in Kwun Long Lau, HK Island. Ip was the convenor of the Article 23 national security bill in LegCo; and also the vice chairman of his party.
2. The district is a DAB stronghold. Just prior to the opening of nomination for the election, there was no one from the ‘democratic’ camp who was planning to run against Ip. Last minute, Ho stepped forward. She was annoyed with Ip’s comments that he didn’t see anyone challenging him.
3. The race appears to be close. If Ip loses, he will not be able to maintain his LegCo seat for the 2004 Election via the DC Functional Constituency since he would no longer be a qualified candidate to stand. The stakes are high and the DAB must defend the DC seat at all cost.
D. Analysis
1. No strategy: Despite all the noises made by the ‘democratic’ camp post-1 July, there was no strategy to plan how they could collaborate to defeat the ‘pro-government’ camp. The Democratic Party, the biggest party, has shown no leadership in its strategic ability/capacity, which is disappointing. On the other hand, the DAB’s planning showed some strategy. The party has a young fresh face running against a key Democratic Party’s legislator Andrew Cheng in the New Territories.
2. Voters behaviour: While voters are unhappy with the Administration, they do not appear to intend to vote in force on Sunday. However, among those who intend to vote, more are unhappy with the ‘pro-government’ forces. Results will be out by the early hours of Monday morning. If there is no resounding victory by ‘democrats’ and independents, the government will likely conclude that the 1-July effect may well be fading.
3. LegCo Election 2004: It’s harder to politicise the DC election than the LegCo election next year. The punch up should be fast and furious next year as it will be the first time when voters can choose half their legislators via direct election. The other half will come from functional constituencies. However, the ‘democrats’ may well continue to have no strategy among themselves to devise a united campaign to truly challenge ‘pro-government’ forces.
3. Tung’s test: Post-election, all eyes will be on the CE. How will he make his appointments this time? In the last election, he chose ‘pro-government’ types to ‘balance’ the will of the public.
CHRISTINE LOH
CEO, Civic Exchange - Hong Kong’s independent think tank
www.civic-exchange.org