Trial Balloons
When politicians want to test likely public reaction to a policy initiative they sometimes send up what is called a trial balloon. That means the idea is floated in public, often on a non-attributable basis, to see if it meets with applause or derision. Depending on reaction, the plan can then be confidently implemented, or amended, or quietly abandoned.
When politicians want to test likely public reaction to a policy initiative they sometimes send up what is called a trial balloon. That means the idea is floated in public, often on a non-attributable basis, to see if it meets with applause or derision. Depending on reaction, the plan can then be confidently implemented, or amended, or quietly abandoned.
Once the genie was out of the bottle, the debate moved in many directions. If the principle was that people who held a Hong Kong ID card and maintained links with the city should not lose the right to vote, some argued that by the same logic should not many other places where there were sizeable communities be included. If Shenzhen, Dongguan and Guangzhou were in, then why not Toronto, Vancouver and Sydney?
There have also been many comments on pure logistical issues. Among the queries raised were: would ballot boxes be distributed widely outside Hong Kong, and who would be responsible for securing them; would location be restricted to Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices; would votes be counted in those locations and reported back, or would the boxes themselves be sent under escort back to the city and counted centrally along with those cast locally.
But before votes have to be counted, they need to be fought for and cast, so a range of other questions arose: would all candidates have equal access to voters for campaigning purposes; could literature from all political parties be distributed freely; would candidates be able to hire local premises to conduct rallies; how would the mainland deal with candidates from the democratic camp, some of whose home return permits have been withdrawn; would there be any controls – whether formal or informal – on access to polling stations; and could voters be confident their ballots would be secret.
Practice in other jurisdictions varies widely. American citizens must pay taxes to the US government on their global income irrespective of where it was earned. “No taxation without representation”, the battle cry of independence advocates centuries ago, carries over into the modern era and entitles Americans to vote wherever in the world they are. British subjects abroad retain the right to vote in UK elections for a number of years after leaving the country, but the right then lapses. German citizens reportedly also retain a right to vote after leaving the country, but must apparently keep up to speed with current affairs at home.
It is important not to lose sight of the principle behind voting rights. Hong Kong laws require voters to be “normally resident” in order to be eligible. That does not seem too unreasonable. After all the people with the most legitimate concern about how a country or province or city runs itself are surely the people who actually live there. The quality of government decision-making directly affects them on a daily basis.
The situation of former residents will vary widely. Some have made an irrevocable commitment on behalf of themselves and their families to move permanently to another community, either within China or internationally. Others will maintain close links to our city and visit frequently, possibly even owning property. Those in the first category have surely surrendered forever their right to take part in Hong Kong’s internal affairs. Those in the second category can presumably time one of their regular visits to coincide with elections.
There will always be exceptions, for example people posted overseas by their employers for a set period of time. A Trade Development Council officer deployed to the New York Office for three years, the mid-level executive of an international company brought to the European headquarters for grooming for for a more senior position, and so on. The appropriate way to handle those cases would surely be to arrange for postal voting. It is not rocket science, other jurisdictions have managed this for many years.
Reaction to the trial balloon has been mixed. The pro-government parties have welcomed the prospect of many hundreds of thousands of potential supporters being able to vote more easily. The opposition has drawn attention to the practical difficulties involved.
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. By the same token, hearing feedback clearly seems to be in the ear of the listener. Lam is in no doubt she is on a winner. In an interview with Shenzhen media given on the very day she had been due to formally float the proposal in her policy address she said Hong Kong society was demanding the right be given to the GBA residents. The pandemic was quoted as a supporting reason. It is difficult to see a temporary phenomenon as compelling justification for a permanent substantial change.
To sum up, the chief executive has proposed a major controversial change in a very sensitive area of life. There is no time to waste if arrangements are to be concluded in time. Not much thought has been given to legitimate counter arguments. Why do I get this powerful sense of déjà vu?
Time somebody popped this particular balloon.