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
