In rectifying the mess and chaos of political melodrama by the political agitators who had hijacked the district councils (DCs) since 2019 whereby the effective functioning of DCs as consulting bodies for local district matters was displaced, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s proposed DC revamp is long overdue, with the aim of restoring the constitutional role of DCs under the Basic Law as nonpolitical organs to be consulted on district administration.
According to the proposal, 40 percent of the total 470 DC members will be appointed by the chief executive; another 40 percent will be nominated by a total of 2,490 members of the Area Committees, District Fire Safety Committees and District Fight Crime Committees (three committees) via block voting. The remaining 20 percent of the DC members will be returned through popular vote, while 27 seats will be reserved for indigenous villagers. All prospective DC members must secure at least three nominations from each of the three committees and pass a national security vetting process. The boundaries of the constituencies will be redrawn, and each directly elected member is expected to cover a larger electorate as the number of constituencies will be slashed from 452 to 44. In addition, district officers will preside over the DC meetings, and the chairs will no longer be elected among the DC members.
The proposal is a panacea for all the ills of the current DCs: First, it guarantees a more-representative composition of members of each DC as it comprises not only directly elected local representatives but also leaders of all trades and the professionals, like engineers and lawyers who may not be adept at election engineering, but can secure a DC seat by way of the chief executive’s appointment and contribute their views on a wide range of district management issues; for example, resolving building management disputes that require invaluable insights from lawyers and engineers. With a more-balanced and representative composition of the DCs, a more constructive and in-depth policy discussion can be facilitated with more tailored solutions to the perennial, deep-seated district issues. Second, as the district officers are government officials in charge of district-level administration, their chairmanship of meetings manifests the executive-led principle, not only in maintaining the order of DCs meetings, but more importantly, with their politically neutral status and their familiarity with government policies, they can be entrusted as a pair of “helpful hands” better coordinating with various government officials from different policy bureaus and mobilizing more social resources as part of more comprehensive, strategic district plans to be executed in the overall interests of the districts.
In reviewing and ensuring the accountability of DC members to their electorate, it is appreciated that a monitoring system will be adopted to ensure district councilors properly fulfill their duties. Those with alleged misconduct or behavior falling below public expectations will face investigation initiated by a committee led by the Home and Youth Affairs Bureau chief. Certain key performance indicators (KPIs) are expected to be devised and applicable to DC members. Not only DC members’ meeting attendance is counted; KPIs in qualitative terms such as the impact of DC members’ policy initiatives and their caliber in addressing district problems should also be emphasized. In short, a problem-solving mentality for the people is an essential attribute required for anyone aspiring to a DC seat. Gone are the days when certain DC members dropped by meetings for the attendance’s sake. Those with multiple “hats” of public offices should justify to the voters how they are still able to fully serve their respective electorates, as DC seats should go only to those who can be fully committed in terms of both time and efforts to their participation in district management and administration.
Another distinctive feature of the proposed DC reform is the enlargement of constituencies that each directly elected member will have to serve following the redrawing of district lines. Each DC member who used to focus narrowly on the parochial interests of a street or building or two as his or her constituency will have to abandon the NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude. Future DC members are expected to deploy a bird’s-eye perspective over district planning and management, taking into account the general interests of the district. Taking for example the ongoing urban redevelopment of Shum Shui Po spanning across swaths of land — it will be prudent if the entire district planning can give weight to both realizing the full potential of the land values and safeguarding the residents’ interests as whole. From the district management perspective, the revamped DCs may facilitate a more balanced allocation of social resources, and thus social harmony at the district level can be fostered.
As for the critics claiming the sweeping reform of DCs as “backsliding” in democracy, such a groundless accusation should be brushed aside outright. According to Article 97 of the Basic Law, district organizations, including DCs, are not organs of political power. DCs should therefore not be viewed with a political lens, and any calls for Western-style electoral politics to be incorporated into DCs are, by substance, misplaced. As we all know, there is no universal definition of “democracy”, the form of which should be contingent upon the particular circumstance of society and its population. No country has any right to impose its norms on other places or countries in the name of “democracy”. President Xi Jinping rightly said in 2021, “Democracy is not a customized product, with one model for the whole world, and one standard. Whether a country is democratic or not is to be judged by the people of that country themselves.”
By putting their house in order, it is time for our DCs to ditch all meaningless political stunts staged by the radical few. As Hong Kong has been ravaged and bedeviled by the COVID-19 pandemic over the past few years, the city cannot afford any further internal strife and political bickering as its economy is still recuperating, with multiple deep-rooted socioeconomic issues at district levels yet to be resolved. As the last piece of our electoral reform’s jigsaw puzzle under the “patriots administering Hong Kong” principle, the revamped DCs manifest the people-based mindset in district governance. Let’s wish our refined DCs a new birth of life as the municipal councils “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
The author is a practicing solicitor in Hong Kong and chairman of Y Legalites.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not reflect those of the law firm where he works, nor those of China Daily.