The 94 Percent Directly Elected Hong Kong District Councils Will Be ‘All But Gone’

Planned 'reform' reduces direct seats from 452 to 88 for the coming election

On May 2, the Hong Kong government announced the composition for the next district council, and the ratio of directly elected seats has been greatly reduced from about 95 percent to less than 20. May 2, 2023.Sung Pi-Lung/The Epoch Times

The Hong Kong government announced on May 2 what the next District Council (DC) would look like. The number of directly elected (by universal suffrage) seats has been dramatically reduced from the current 452 seats to 88, and the proportion has dropped from about 94 percent to about 19. This is criticized by both the academic and political circles as a massive setback.

The current Hong Kong District Council (DC) term will end on Dec. 31 this year. The Hong Kong government announced that there would be 470 members in the next District Councils, of which 179 are appointed (38 percent), 176 (37 percent) are from district committees, only 88 are directly elected (19 percent), while retaining the 27 (six percent) as ex-officio rural committee seats. Directly elected seats have been greatly reduced from 452 to 88, and the proportion has dropped from about 94 percent to about 19 percent.

District Officers to Chair the 18 District Councils

Under the new setup, 18 district officers (Administrative Officer or AO grade) will serve as chairpersons in their respective District Councils. A “District Council Eligibility Review Committee” will be added, which will undertake screening to confirm any aspiring candidates before becoming eligible for the elected seats. In case needed, the review committee may consult the National Security Council. Remuneration and allowances of district councilors remain unchanged, but a new system will be added to continuously monitor performance. The authority will put a “list of negative behaviors” as guidelines to assist with monitoring the district councilors, and investigations will be conducted for those “failing to meet public expectations.”

The proposed DC reform requires amendments to quite a number of relevant laws, the government hopes to complete all legislative work before July this year, and elections will be held around the end of November or early December.

Pro-Democracy Landslide Victory in 2019 DC Elections Seen As ‘Power Grab’

The anti-extradition movement broke out in June 2019, and Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp won a landslide victory in the subsequent DC elections held on Nov. 24, 2019. They won 388 seats in total, as well as the majority control in 17 of the 18 districts. The pro-Beijing faction held just 59 seats, a drop of 240 from the previous session. The pro-Beijing camp described the results as a “power grab by anti-China and disrupt-Hong-Kong elements.”

Two days later, on Nov. 26, 2019, then-U.S. President Donald Trump stated that he would stand on the side of the Hong Kong protesters and hoped to see democracy in Hong Kong. The then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also praised “the peaceful execution” of the Hong Kong District Council elections.

On Nov. 27, 2019, Trump signed the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act,” which involves sanctions. Republican Senator Marco Rubio referred to the legislation as showing strong U.S. support for the freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong people.

Targeting of Pro-democracy District Councilors

Since 2020, the authority began to suppress pro-democracy district councilors, such as removing discussion items from the agenda the government disliked or officials leaving the DC meetings en mass. In July 2020, some pro-democracy district councilors used their offices as polling stations for the “2020 Pro-Democracy Primaries” in preparation for the Legislative Council Election that year, the Home Affairs Department cut the subsidy of those councilors involved and used it as grounds in the later round of “DQ” (disqualification) campaign, targeting pro-democracy district councilors. In 2021, the government went further to demand all district councilors swear allegiance to the Basic Law and the Hong Kong authority. It was rumored that close to HK$1 million (US$ 127 K) in salary would be recovered from resigning individuals post-disqualification.

After all the saga, only 146 among the 479 district councilors currently remain, and more than 300 have left office.

At the press conference on May 2, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu made CCP-style accusations of elected district councilors, incriminating them for “behaviors that violate the district council protocols,” “advocating independence of Hong Kong,” “encouraging ‘black riots’,” “hindering the proper function of the Hong Kong government,” etc.

Scholar: Proposed Reform Violates Basic Law, A Massive Step Backward

The outside world generally believes this forthcoming “reform” of the District Council to stem from the regime’s fear that a democratically elected DC cannot be controlled. During an interview with the Epoch Times on May 2, Dr Chung Kim-wah, Adjunct Associate Professor and Deputy CEO of Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI), described the new plan as “going over 40 years backward,” “fake elections,” an attempt to emasculate local administration and destroy democracy, “can hardly be called a reform”. He believes that the government has even violated the Basic Law, because Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong’s political system should move toward universal suffrage step by step, but this “reform” is turning it backward.

The “reform” will reduce the total number of constituencies from the current 452 down to 44, and the voting system will be changed from single-seat single-vote to double-seat single-vote. Candidates running for district committees must obtain endorsement from the “Three Committees”: three nominations each from the Area Committee, Fire Safety Committee, and the Fight Crime Committee, a total of nine nominations, in addition to the 50 nominations from registered voters in the district.

Chung criticized those who have the “right to nominate” for lack of credibility and authorization from the public. “How many of us know them (the Three Committees)? When did Hong Kong people authorize them?”

Ben Lam Siu-pan, former Yau Tsim Mong district councilor and member of the Fire Safety Committee, also pointed out in an interview with the Epoch Times on May 2 that most of the members of the “Three Committees” are pro-establishment school principals, social welfare organization leaders, chamber of commerce chairmen, pro-Beijing personnel from regional organizations and pro-Beijing political party officials, all lack authorization of the general public, and most of the committee members have never spoken during meetings. Lam believes the reform reflects the Hong Kong government’s philosophy of “head I win, tail you lose,” with the sole intention of retaliating against the pro-democracy camp by changing the rules of the game to prevent the latter from “seizing power” again, a situation Beijing could not tolerate.

DC Chaired by Officials, A Thing of the 1980s, Direct Elections have all but Gone

Lo Kin-hei, chairperson of the Democratic Party and former chairperson of the Southern District Council, revealed online on the same day that the Democratic Party has yet to discuss and decide whether to run in the coming DC elections. He described the big cut of directly elected seats as “disappointing,” and the numerous checkpoints set up would reduce the number of people who could stand. Lo also criticized district officers chairing the district councils to be “a thing of the 1980s;” “Airborne” civil servants are far from familiar with regional affairs; it only reflects the government’s distrust of non-affiliated personnel.

Lo also questioned whether the appointed and non-directly-elected members would listen to the residents, and people in the neighborhood may not turn to the appointed members for help. Only the elected members have the closest relationship with the community.

Also interviewed by the Epoch Times on May 2, former Kwai Tsing district councilor Daniel Kwok Tsz-kin described the reform plan as worse than sham elections in many autocratic countries and will only make the DC an “ugly paraphernalia.” He believes “direct elections” have all but gone for Hong Kong. The right to nominate is part of civil rights, Kwok added, but in the future, candidates must be “nominated by the Three Committees,” all of which are government-appointed without public approval. Therefore, neither voters nor pro-democracy candidates should participate in such “sham elections.”

British Hong Kong Government Established the District Council

After the “Riot” in 1967, the British Hong Kong government established the Home Affairs Departments in various districts, the predecessor of the District Office, to be more hands-on with public opinions. In January 1981, the government issued the “White Paper on Local Administration,” proposing the establishment of 18 district councils. Since 1982, each of the 18 administrative districts in Hong Kong has established a District Council and a District Management Committee. The aim is for more effective provision of services and facilities at the district level, a government more responsive to local needs and issues, and more public participation in district affairs.

The first District Council election was held in 1982. There were 490 seats in Hong Kong; about one-third were official seats, another one-third were appointed non-official seats, and the remaining one-third were elected ones. The coming District Council will have less than 20 percent elected seats, which is worse than in 1982.

Since the 1980s, the British Hong Kong government started abolishing official and appointed seats in stages. In 1994, all appointed seats were abolished, and only 27 ex officio rural committee (Heung Yee Kuk N.T.) seats remained. However, after the handover of sovereignty in 1997, the Tung Chee-hwa government resumed appointed seats. The DC in the year 2000 had 519 district councilors in total, 390 or 75 percent of whom were elected; the rest were appointed and ex-officio members. Since then, successive Hong Kong governments set out to reduce the number of appointed seats in stages.