All political funding in Hong Kong should be open to public scrutiny
Peter Kammerer says groups pushing a political agenda should be upfront about their funding sources, or civil society must insist on it
At a Tung Chung bus stop, far from Hong Kong's occupied downtown streets, I recently listened in on two men heatedly discussing the protests. One angrily wondered just where the students were getting the funding for their campaign. The other matter-of-factly said it was coming from the US and he had read somewhere hundreds of demonstrators had been flown there "to learn all about civil disobedience". Both then embarked on a rant about foreign interference in the affairs of our city.
Beijing's influence means these are often-heard thoughts. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, his ministers and pro-Beijing media, politicians, lobbyists and businesspeople echo the Communist Party's warnings that subversive forces are at work. The message is clearly being successfully disseminated when suburban commuters take it up.
There is as much eagerness to find out how the pan-democrats are being financed. The Independent Commission Against Corruption is investigating founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying for allegedly donating millions of dollars to pro-democracy lawmakers. Some have admitted to having received money. The political funding rules are basic: individuals have to declare their interests and comply with basic election spending rules, but there are no funding regulations for political parties.
Strangely, there is silence when it comes to the anti-Occupy movement and pro-Beijing groups. Just how Robert Chow Yung's Alliance for Peace and Democracy came by its largesse remains uncertain. Why should we wonder, some people may argue, even if it's from the mainland - this is one country. I counter - naively - that under "one country, two systems", Beijing's only business in Hong Kong should be foreign affairs and defence, and that political matters should count as interference.
In an ideal world, those with a political agenda would be honest about who is supporting them and to what degree. But our politics has become dirty and a fair and balanced playing field is the last thing on the minds of those pushing agendas. Society is ever-more polarised, threatening stability.
Magnus Ohman, a political finance researcher with the US-based International Foundation for Electoral Systems who has worked on initiatives in 30 countries, has a bleak assessment for our city. The lack of democracy and the complications of China being a one-party state make implementing regulations difficult. "Spending limits and public funding can both be valuable approaches, but they depend on independent and effective enforcement," he told me. Public pressure and civil society advocacy were, in the circumstances, the best way forward.
Groups with a political agenda have to be transparent about their funding. Donations, no matter where they are from, have to be accounted for. Election campaigns should be either wholly publicly funded or limits put on how much can be spent. There cannot be state or outside interference.
The more Beijing imposes its will and tries to silence democratic voices, the greater will be the resentment. Only by creating a political system in which every citizen can have a say in the way their city is governed will the future look bright.
