The following are
extracts from testimony given by Peter Manikas, National Democratic Institute (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, particularly
collaboration with a ‘university partner’ on an ‘interactive website’ and ‘co-branded
pages on social media’ 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”.
 |
| Peter Manikas briefing Cngress |
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 speakers1.
References
1Statement 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. See Peter Manikas statement here.
Photograph of Peter Manikas courtesy of:
Democracy Works: A Blog of the National Democratic
Institute. Retreat or Revival: The State of Democracy in Asia. By Peter
Manikas. 15 June 2015. See link: https://www.demworks.org/retreat-or-revival-state-democracy-asia
