NDI briefing by Peter Manikas to Congress in 2015 on its programs in Hong Kong

In addition to the Congressional Research Service, the US Congress also receives direct briefings from National Democratic Institute (NDI) operatives on programs being funded by the US Congress.

Peter Manikas testifying before the FAC.

Former NDI operative Sophie Richardson is sitting to his left¹.

U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, House Committee on Foreign Affairs chairing the hearing².

The following are extracts from testimony given by Peter Manikas, NDI Director of Asia Programs in a presentation to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on 11 June 2015 in relation to NDI programs in Hong Kong:

“The NDI has worked in Hong Kong since 1997 and its programs have been conducted at the request of, and in collaboration with, local partners such as universities and civil society organizations”.

“Over the past year, NDI’s programs in Hong Kong have engaged students, political parties, and civil society in substantive dialogue on electoral systems and the public consultation process to amend the method of electing the Chief Executive”.

“NDI supported a university partner to build an interactive website that allowed citizens to create their own models of universal suffrage. Online participation reflected the deep level of interest on electoral governance issues, particularly among young people over the past year. Communities also formed around co-branded pages on social media, which received even more user traffic than the interactive website”.

A copy of his full statement is appended below.

Peter Manikas statement on Hong Kong in full

Since the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty under the “one country, two systems” framework in 1997, the promise of a democratic electoral framework outlined in Hong Kong’s constitution, the Basic Law, has not progressed according to the expectations of a large segment of the public. The Basic Law states that “the ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures” (Basic Law Art. 45). Currently, the Nominating Committee that elects the Chief Executive consists of 1,200 members belonging to 38 subsectors, including non-democratically selected “functional constituencies.” During the recent government-led consultation process on political reform, citizens discussed the possible addition 2 of new subsectors to make the committee more inclusive and representative (such as adding new subsectors to represent the interests of women or young voters), but restructuring would necessarily mean disrupting and eliminating existing subsectors or committee members. For these reasons, the Hong Kong government’s consultation document suggested that these changes are unlikely (Consultation Document, Chapter 3, Sec. 3.08 p. 10). Similarly, half of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) comprises of the same functional constituencies, creating a check over the legislative process.

On August 31, 2014, the National People’s Congress issued a Standing Committee decision that would allow Hong Kong citizens to directly vote for their Chief Executive in 2017 but retained restrictive conditions on the nomination procedure of eligible candidates. The Nominating Committee would resemble the previous committee that elected the Chief Executive, with the same number of members belonging to the same limited number of subsectors. Under this framework, Beijing effectively has the discretion to determine the candidates for the Chief Executive position. This political reform proposal triggered 79 days of protest and civil disobedience – what activists and the international media have referred to as the “Umbrella Movement.” In reaction to the movement, a coordinated campaign has been launched to discredit pro-democracy activists and movement organizers. Attacks on leading liberal professors and student leaders in Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing media, reports of Hong Kong government interference in academic appointments, and renewed calls for “patriotic education” in Hong Kong schools, have had a chilling effect on freedom of speech, freedom of association, and academic independence. The government’s political reform proposal will finally come to a vote by the Legislative Council (LegCo) on Wednesday, June 17. LegCo seems irreconcilably divided between the pan-democrat and pro-establishment party camps.

The government’s failure to meet the expectations of a large segment of the public on universal suffrage has left Hong Kong deeply polarized. While several university professors conceived of last year’s movement for universal suffrage and articulated many of the guiding principles, young people and student associations drove the mobilization effort and quickly assumed ownership of the movement. The false narrative put forward by Hong Kong and Beijing officials that the student-led activities were instigated by “external” or “foreign forces” may be used as a pretext to re-introduce national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law, which would drastically curtail civil liberties.

NDI has worked in Hong Kong since 1997 and its programs have been conducted at the request of, and in collaboration with, local partners such as universities and civil society organizations. The objectives of NDI programs in Hong Kong have been education and dialogue around comparative electoral models and to better enable citizens to effectively participate in the government-initiated electoral reform process. The Institute’s activities are inclusive of the many segments of Hong Kong society – including young people, lower income groups, ethnic minorities, women, and the elderly – and feature a diversity of political viewpoints across party and ideological spectrums. Pro-establishment as well as pan-democrat political party members participate in NDI-sponsored events. Any viewpoint may be expressed at the academic public forums or university-managed websites for which NDI has provided assistance. These are designed to be neutral and educational platforms and do not endorse any particular political position. By creating forums for inclusive political dialogue on various modes of governance, NDI activities provide a constructive outlet for grassroots voices, an opportunity for education, and the possibility of forging meaningful consensus.

Over the past year, NDI’s programs in Hong Kong have engaged students, political parties, and civil society in substantive dialogue on electoral systems and the public consultation process to amend the method of electing the Chief Executive. NDI supported a university partner to build an interactive website that allowed citizens to create their own models of universal suffrage. Online participation reflected the deep level of interest on electoral governance issues, particularly among young people over the past year. During the first official consultation period (December – May 2014), in which citizens could offer their views on universal suffrage, the website received more than 700 models of universal suffrage, many of which were submitted to the Hong Kong government. Communities also formed around co-branded pages on social media, which received even more user traffic than the interactive website. In parallel with these online platforms, local NDI partners organized several public debates offline, where prominent speakers from opposite ends of the political spectrum argued the merits of their proposals for political reform. The online platforms promoted these debates, allowed for sharing of citizen generated content on relevant topics, and crowd-sourced questions for event speakers³.

References

¹Photo credit: Democracy Works: A Blog of the National Democratic Institute. Retreat or Revival: The State of Democracy in Asia. By Peter Manikas. 15 June 2015 Photo of Peter Manikas

²Photo credit: U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, conducts a hearing on “Retreat or Revival: A Status Report on Democracy in Asia,” on June 11. (Gary Feuerberg/ Epoch Times) Photo of U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon

³Statement of Peter M. Manikas Director of Asia Programs, National Democratic Institute

Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific “Retreat or Revival: A Status Report on Democracy in Asia” June 11, 2015 Statement of Peter Manikas