Why referendum is a dirty word to Beijing

A "de facto referendum" looms over Hong Kong after the resignation on January 26 of five legislators in protest against the lack of progress in democratic reforms in the territory. An angry and anxious Beijing warned against any attempt to launch a "colour revolution" and local pro-Beijing newspapers hinted at the possible use of force. Two of the five legislators are from the Civic Party (CP) while the others belong to the more radical League of Social Democrats (LSD). They include Mr Alan Leong, who challenged Mr Donald Tsang for the chief executive post in 2007, and "Long Hair" Leung Kwok Hung.

The resignations, the political parties said, would trigger by-elections within three months so that the people can vote for real democracy — in effect, turning the by-election into a referendum for direct elections. If all five legislators are re-elected with voter turnout of over 50 per cent, the result would be deemed a strong vote for speedier democratisation. If not all the legislators are re-elected or if the voter turnout falls below 50 per cent, this would show the people want a slower pace of democratisation.

Whatever the outcome, it is certain to embarrass the central government. While Beijing has promised direct elections for Hong Kong's chief executive by 2017 and for the legislature by 2020, the two parties say it is dragging its feet. But the two parties earned the disapproval of many with their combative tactics, calling for a "mass uprising" in their campaign fliers and urging voters to "liberate Hong Kong".

To understand why the term "de facto referendum" is so odious to Beijing, consider two episodes in Chinese history. In October 1945, China lost Mongolia, which comprised 16 per cent of its territory then, after a Soviet Union orchestrated referendum led the people to vote for independence. More recently in 2004, then-Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian attempted to win de jure independence for the island by calling for a referendum.

No wonder "de facto referendum" conjures up splittist intentions in the minds of Beijing's leaders. The Hong Kong and Macau Office as well as the Central Government Liaison Office issued separate statements urging the two pro-democracy parties to rein themselves in for they were "at the brink of a precipice".

American scholar Alan Romberg says that China uses that phrase whenever it wants to send a stern message. Those who receive the warning had better heed it — or pay the price, like the United States did when it miscalculated that the Chinese were unlikely to intervene in the the Korean War. When Beijing sounded the same warning to Taiwan over its referendum plan, Washington put pressure on Mr Chen to drop the idea. That Beijing has now told pro-democrats in Hong Kong to "rein themselves in" is an indication of how seriously it views the current situation. The official statements said that holding a referendum — even a mock one, presumably — would violate the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution, and decisions adopted by China's Parliament. In short, the referendum ploy was tantamount to challenging Beijing's authority. Local pro-Beijing groups said the move was aimed at inciting a rebellion against the central government in the mould of colour revolutions elsewhere.

Hong Kong newspapers close to Beijing ran editorials and commentaries alluding to the possibility of force being used. They praised the late Deng Xiaoping for having the foresight to station troops in Hong Kong. "Do you think our army will sit still doing nothing while people are splitting our territory?" said a commentary in Ta Kung Pao. Observers pointed out that this was the first time since 1997 that the use of force has been hinted at. Like-minded groups such as the Democratic Party distanced themselves from the referendum move. But independent polls conducted by the University of Hong Kong showed that despite Beijing's wrath, 60 per cent of respondents still supported speedier democratic reform. But most of these same respondents also did not want a so-called referendum to achieve that end.

While it appears that the actions of the five legislators and their parties have not received overwhelming support, it should be noted that the Hong Kong government and Beijing contributed to this uneasy state of affairs. There has been little progress since Beijing promised two years ago direct elections for Hong Kong's chief executive by 2017 and for its legislature by 2020. Currently, the 60 seats in the legislature are divided equally between geographic constituencies (GCs) and the functional constituencies (FCs). GC legislators are elected by the people while FC legislators, who represent professional, business or special interest groups usually close to Beijing, are elected by their peers within their respective groups. This means that 50 per cent of the voting power lies in the hands of a small section of the population.

Mr Tsang's promise to chart a road map towards universal suffrage also has not materialised. Instead, the authorities tried to re-define universal suffrage as it is internationally understood: one man one vote; each vote carries the same weight; and every person stands an equal chance of electing and being elected. Chief Secretary Henry Tang said last November that there was nothing in the Basic Law that called for the abolition of FCs to achieve universal suffrage. Legal experts in China also weighed in to say that FCs were consistent with the notion of universal suffrage. Several law professors in Hong Kong said their opinions were sought regarding a redefinition of universal suffrage through an interpretation of the Basic Law, which the Chinese Parliament is empowered to do — and has done twice before. The people see all these moves as a step backward for universal suffrage in Hong Kong. No wonder some of them decided to do something about it.

The Straits Times/ANN