Back

Note: This article represents the view of the author and not the University of Hong Kong.

On November 11, the author attended a meeting hosted by Legislative Councilors Lau Wai-hing Emily and Cheung Chiu-hung Fernando, together with many representatives from the democratic camp, to discuss the feasibility of holding referendums in Hong Kong. To prepare for this meeting, the author compiled a discussion paper which discussed the following items and viewpoints: (1) Sharing the author's experience in conducting two mock referendum projects in March and November 1993; (2) Explaining the author's view on developing referendums in Hong Kong; and (3) Exploring the feasibility of developing referendums in Hong Kong.

After the meeting, Emily Lau and Fernando Cheung agreed with the author on the disclosure of documents so as to initiate more discussions on the matter. The following is the relevant information.

The Experiences of the two Civil Mock People's Referendums

In 1992-1993, the University of Hong Kong organized a series of activities for the celebration of its 80th anniversary. At that time, the author proposed and organized two activities. The first one was "People's Referendum Scheme", which was a large-scale event held on 14 March 1993. The other one was "Electronic People's Referendums". It was a smaller event and a booth was set up in the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center during the "Hong Kong 2001 & Finale Exhibition" held between 27 and 30 November 1993.

The entire program of the "People's Referendum Scheme" included two public forums organized in the University of Hong Kong one week before the Voting Day, the "Secondary School Mock Referendums" held in 18 secondary schools, and the referendum took place on the Voting Day in 80 local voting stations in which 8 used electronic network to verify voters' eligibility.

The motion of "Secondary School Mock Referendums", which was decided by the Committee on the Ninth Decade and Beyond of the University of Hong Kong, was "Should Voting at Elections be Compulsory?". On 14 March 1993, 24,855 people voted. Among these voters, 8,736 voted for the motion whereas 15,966 voted against it. Besides, there were 46 blank votes and 107 invalid votes.

As for the "Shadow People's Referendums" held in 18 secondary schools on March 9, there were 11,099 votes in total. Among these votes, 2,834 voted for the motion whereas 7,771 voted against it. Besides, there were 106 blank votes and 388 invalid votes.

In order to study the representativeness of the mock referendum results, the author conducted a series of telephone interviews one month before the Voting Day, as well as exit polls on the Voting Day. The latter interviewed 1,083 voters.

The "Electronic People's Referendums", which was held during the "Hong Kong 2001 & Finale Exhibition" between 27 and 30 November 1993, aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of electronic voting. The motion was decided by the author, namely "Should Putonghua be an Official Language in Hong Kong?". The details of this activity are not included in this article.

Author's Views towards the Development of Referendums in Hong Kong

Referendums should not be a taboo topic in the society. On the contrary, the author hopes that legislative councilors, academics, experts and journalists can lead the society to a more comprehensive and in-depth discussion on referendums.

From 1993 till the present, seemingly there was no progress in the Hong Kong people's understanding of referendums and the society lacked long term promotion strategies. Since Taiwan held its first referendum on 20 March this year, the room for discussion in Hong Kong has even become narrower, with retrogression on the society's understanding on referendums as well. In fact, the referendum in Taiwan was only one type of referendums and it was also a bit bizarre.

It is a misconception if one equates referendums with sovereignty's determination. Just consider the US presidential election held on 2 November, it has already included various motions for referendums. Yet, it seems that both the media and people in Hong Kong did not understand the matter much.

However, all legally-binding or non-binding referendums need a solid legal foundation, and it is what Hong Kong lacks at this moment. Although civil or mock referendums do not need this foundation, they still need a social consensus at another level in order to counteract the polarizing effort brought about by the referendum itself.

It takes time to build this kind of consensus on referendums. The process should be from bottom to top levels, from small to large, and from easy to difficult. It may bring adverse effects if the discussion first starts with a very sensitive and controversial motion. The consensus-building process cannot be merely evaluated by the time taken, but also by the stages it undergoes and the frequency of referendum- related activities organized. The progress may take two or even ten years. But it is unfortunate that the Hong Kong society has made no progress in the past ten years.

After building a consensus, cautions must be given to the decision of motions and their wordings whenever a referendum mechanism is activated. The motions for referendums can be simple true or false questions or complicated multiple choices questions. However, even a simple true or false question can have a series of complex policy proposals attached behind. Therefore, the society needs to have sufficient discussions and debates on the motion before the voting. Otherwise, the voting results may raise unnecessary debates and unpredictable confrontations.

Hong Kong society so far has no experience in this aspect, but the author predicts that referendums will finally come to Hong Kong, and to China.

The Study on the Feasibility of Introducing Referendums to Hong Kong

Here, the author would like to suggest that those legislative councilors and people who are willing to develop long-term referendums machinery can organize a joint committee or construct other platforms to first examine the nature of referendums and the feasibility of introducing it to Hong Kong carefully.

The study can be conducted directly by the committee, or other consultant bodies can be commissioned to conduct the study. The content should include theoretical studies on direct democracy, preconditions set in the legal framework, the demand from the public, the various types of voting systems and mechanisms, overseas experiences, and also the estimated expenditure on relevant studies, promotions and executive work, etc.

The committee should also plan the related tasks on civic education. This includes not only an extensive introduction on the meaning of referendums, but also multifarious promotional activities organized in schools, communities, civic organizations, etc.

When time is mature, the committee should also introduce a mechanism of consultative referendums to the District Councils' level. As for the timetable to introduce referendums to higher levels, it depends on the progress of the development.

Civil referendums may not necessarily be conducted in voting stations, sealed postal votes, telephone voting, online voting and mixed mode of voting can be the alternatives. All should be studied and introduced as early as possible.

(After word: The author always thinks that referendums and related topics should not be a political taboo or a restricted zone in the public opinion. If we can widen our horizon, transcend the referendum experiences in Taiwan and seriously examine the international understanding and implementation of referendums, it will be very helpful in developing our civil society. The disclosure of the meeting documents is to eliminate unnecessary speculation.)