tim's experiment

It is interesting to see that the SCMPost’s editorial writers now implicitly reject most of their newspaper’s analysis of the District Council elections. After the polls had closed we were treated to a rich variety of verbal sauces poured over the cold statistical figures to make them warm enough for public consumption. The voters, we were told, had punished the democrats for neglecting local issues. They had punished the democrats for lacking that unity found so effortlessly in the pro-government camp where all the strings are held by the same puppet master. The voters had rejected the throwing of bananas and shouting of abuse in the Legislative Council chamber. Or they had punished the Civic Party for having leading members who had appeared in court in cases against the government. The revised explanation for the poll results is simpler: the winners cheated. We will not go into the further ramifications of this story, which are that the government was warned long ago about loopholes in the election regulations but the official in charge of such matters, who happened to be Stephen Lam, was too busy for such things, being heavily engaged in the effort to abolish by-elections.

Let us just accept that there is a problem. If you want to register as an elector there is at present no effective check to stop you pretending that you live at an address where you do not. Even, it seems, if your bogus address does not exist. This means that you can vote in the constituency of your choice, whether it is the one you live in or not. We must I fear believe that there has been a good deal of this going on, the tip of the iceberg being represented by those electors who were stupid enough to claim residence in the same small flat as 14 other people, or in non-existent flats, buildings etc., leading to trouble with the police or the ICAC, depending on whether the elector actually voted or not.

The solution proposed for this problem, unfortunately, is totally ineffective. It is that when a voter registers, he or she should be asked to produce “proof of address”. Now if someone wants you to prove who you are, that is easy. You produce the ID card issued by the Hong Kong Government. This contains data which have been verified and compared with your birth certificate or passport. The ID card has a unique number and a variety of anti-forgery features. It is a durable piece of plastic with the government’s authority behind it and is not issued lightly. Proof of address is a different matter.

Oddly enough I was reminded the other day that the Transport Department now demands “proof of address” when you renew your car’s licence. The department thoughtfully provides on the back of the relevant form a list of possible “proofs” , which goes “e.g. water/electricity/gas/mobile phone bill or bank correspondence.” Note that “e.g.” What it means in practice is that almost any respectable piece of correspondence will do, providing it has your name and address on it. And this is actually no proof of anything at all. Indeed there is a flourishing black market in proofs of useful addresses. When I lived in Kowloon Tong we received regular offers to pay our electricity bills. The generous supporter asked only that he or she should be registered as the consumer of the electricity concerned. This would enable him or her to take advantage of Kowloon Tong’s superior educational infrastructure by “proving” residence. Naturally, people who send out bills do not really care who is receiving them as long as the bill is paid. So there is no “proof of residence” corresponding to the “proof of identity” provided by the ID card. Requiring proof of residence will make cheating a little harder, but not much.

What could be done? Well we could consider the British system, where every householder is required to report annually who lives in his dwelling. Giving false information on this topic is a fairly serious matter and abuses are, it seems, rare. People who move at inconvenient times may find it hard to vote and individuals who happen to be in transit or abroad may be left off the register. But on the whole the system automatically registers most of the population. Our government prefers a non-automatic system in which people have to register themselves. I hope this preference is not connected to the well-known implications for the turn-out. Other things being equal in electoral systems with automatic registration this runs to 60-70 per cent. If registration requires a separate effort on the part of the would-be elector then turn-out struggles to beat 50 per cent.

Anyway, officials had better come up with something. Many of us already have a distinct impression that our leaders are not too keen on elections.