During the course of the government's ongoing public consultation on the reform proposals for the 2012 elections, the opposition parties have all along charged that the proposals will cause a step backward and move away from the ultimate goal of universal suffrage for Hong Kong. Is this accusation true?

Pursuant to the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on December 29, 2007, which is legally binding on Hong Kong, the Chief Executive may be selected by universal suffrage in 2017. After the Chief Executive is selected by universal suffrage, all the members of the Legislative Council may be elected by universal suffrage. Although universal suffrage will not be implemented in 2012, appropriate amendments conforming to the principle of gradual and orderly progress may be made to the two electoral methods in accordance with the Basic Law. Nevertheless, the half-and-half ratio between members elected through the functional constituencies (FC) and geographical constituencies shall remain unchanged. Legally speaking, this is the framework which the government is bound to observe in making its 2012 proposals.

Apparently, the government has borne this in mind in its 2012 proposals. While it suggests increasing the number of Legislative Council seats from the current number of 60 to 70, with 35 seats via geographical constituencies through direct elections and 35 elected through functional constituencies, it does not create any new functional constituencies such as women, youths, Chinese medicine practitioners or SMEs. It proposes having all the five new FC seats and the existing District Council FC seat chosen by elected District Council members from among themselves. It is noteworthy that, in order to help forge a consensus within the community, the appointed District Council members will not take part in the election.

Frankly speaking, the government's idea of introducing five additional District Council FC seats is intended to broaden the electoral base of the functional constituencies. As a matter of fact, the elected District Council members are chosen by more than three million voters distributed geographically. The proposal undoubtedly enhances the democratic elements of the FC elections, and addresses the concern of the opposition camp and some members of the public. Although one may insist that the proposal is not a direct election, it is undeniable that this is a proposal aimed at narrowing differences and forging a consensus within the community.

To date, the opposition parties have made thin allegations against the government proposal, charging that the five additional District Council FC seats will not be filled through direct election and therefore are not democratic in nature. Such allegations clearly overlook the broad electoral base for indirect election and disregard the above-mentioned legal framework which the government is duty bound to observe. However, if we can look beyond all the criticism, one may see the opposition parties have so far failed to put forward any better proposal which is workable under the legal framework.

In a nutshell, the government's proposal for 2012 is a stopgap towards dual universal suffrage and is aimed at enhancing the democratic elements of the Legislative Council by increasing the number of district-based seats returned by direct elections. This proposal is a workable solution under the legal framework and addresses the concerns of the people opposing the proposal in 2005. Therefore, what we should consider is the importance of forging a consensus within our community to strive to advance democratic development in 2012, and avoid history's repeating the debacle in which the 2005 proposal was rejected aimlessly.

The author is vice-chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong

(HK Edition 02/05/2010 page1)