Trade Union Entry into Electoral Politics: Hong Kong's Experience

By Lee Cheuk-Yan

The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) is the independent democratic labour movement of Hong Kong, with 85 affiliated unions representing more than 170,000 workers. Our participation in electoral politics can be traced back to 1995 and was prompted by the constitutional reform spearheaded by the last Governor, Chris Patten.

Direct election was first introduced to the Legislative Council (Legco) in 1991 with 18 seats (out of a total of 60 seats) returned by direct election, for geographical constituencies.¹ That was the time just after the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, when Hong Kong people were worried about their future and democracy was seen to be one way to protect Hong Kong from the intervention of Beijing upon the return of sovereignty to China. The HKCTU was formed in the immediately following year, 1990, and positioned itself as the labour movement working outside the establishment. The Legislative Council election was due in September 1991 (and to be held every four years from then); hence, we actually had not much time to debate on our participation in the election and at that time believed that our primary role was to organize and to build up the foundation of the HKCTU. Though the HKCTU decided not to field our own candidates, our Chairman Lau Chin Shek and our General Secretary Szeto Wah decided to stand for the election under the banner of the newly formed political party, the United Democrats of Hong Kong, which after some mergers eventually became today’s Democratic Party.

It may be useful at this stage to look also into the participation of the pro-Beijing union, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (HKFTU), in Hong Kong’s electoral politics. The HKFTU directly benefited from the design of the election method for the Labour functional constituency, which was returned on the basis of ‘one union, one vote’, irrespective of the size of the union. This arrangement would benefit those with more affiliated unions. Under such arrangement, the HKFTU has been able to secure at least one seat in that constituency ever since 1985, when functional constituencies were first introduced. At present, half the seats in the Legislative Council are still returned by functional constituencies, and three of them are allocated to the labour sector. The HKFTU comfortably secures two of those. At the same time, the HKFTU has fielded candidates for direct election also, since 1991.

By the time of the next Legislative Council election, in 1995, the HKCTU decided to participate in the election, for two reasons. First, a new electoral arrangement for returning nine functional constituency seats was introduced in 1995. Under this new arrangement, all workers engaged in the nine industrial sectors may elect their representatives into the legislature.² We saw this as a challenge to the representation of workers by trade unions and had to make sure we were there to represent workers and avoid workers’ voices being drowned out. If someone is in Legco representing workers, it should be us. In alliance with other pro-democracy parties, we fielded six candidates and won four seats. Regrettably, out of the three candidates nominated by the HKCTU, only one won.

The other reason for the decision to participation in the election, different from the above only in emphasis, is that we saw the merit of having a voice in the Legislative Council representing workers and the HKCTU. In other words, we did think we should be inside the legislature, and not work only from outside it. It would of course help in our struggle to improve labour rights and protection, giving direct support to our affiliates. This would help boost our image as champions of the working class and facilitate our organizing efforts among workers.

The immediate challenge after our electoral victory was to demonstrate the changes we could bring in protecting workers’ welfare and rights. At that time, the ‘weapon’ we could use was the powers to introduce ‘private member’s bills’ – bills raised by individual legislators. We saw this as an opportunity to change the labour laws. The first bill we introduced is to raise the maternity leave pay from 2/3 of monthly wages to full wage. We knew very well that we did not have enough votes to get it passed but we were able to get the government to the negotiation table and struck a deal at 4/5 of monthly wages. Using the same ‘weapon’, we were able to force the government to introduce a number of laws to strengthen workers’ protection during the last Legislative Council session before the handover.³

More significantly, we won our landmark victory when a bill introduced by the HKCTU on the right to collective bargaining was passed at the last Legislative Council sitting in 1997. The bill, drafted by Professor Heppel of Cambridge University, grants employees the rights to representation, consultation and collective bargaining. We are sure the law will help boost the bargaining power of unions and strike a better balance between employers and workers. Under Hong Kong’s existing labour relations regime, employers are not legally required to recognize unions or bargain with unions in good faith. There is also no tradition for collective bargaining. This renders organizing difficult, and limits unions to their traditional role only delivering perks and benefits to members.⁴ The HKCTU wants to change this by organizing through pushing for collective bargaining. And our legislative efforts very much complements what we are doing outside the establishment. In contrast, the HKFTU showed its true colours as stooges of the ruler when they voted against the bill.

But our victory was short lived. All pro-democracy legislators including HKCTU were kicked out of the legislature after the handover with the establishment of the Provisional Legislative Council, all members of which were handpicked by Beijing. The new government immediately submitted to the business sector’s pressure to freeze the law just two weeks after the handover, and finally abolished the law four months later. Obviously, the HKCTU did not have enough time to change the landscape of labour relations in two weeks’ time and sadly we were back to square one. But the whole process brought collective bargaining into the limelight of public debate and effectively boosted the image of the HKCTU as the genuine trade union movement in contrast to the HKFTU. The HKFTU was questioned for its failure to support our bill in election debates taking place even ten years afterwards.

The next stage of participation in electoral politics came one year after the handover in 1997, when the full legislature was up for election in 1998. In that year there were 20 directly elected seats, in (five) geographical constituencies, to be returned under a proportional representation system. The proportional representation system for the Legislative Council direct election benefits smaller political parties and organizations like the HKCTU, since one needs only to solicit about 10 - 15% of votes to secure a seat.

The HKCTU decided to contest in the New Territories West constituency. We had no connection in the district and could only win if the workers were willing to vote for the HKCTU. We won with about 15% of the votes, which showed that labour issues were able to drive supporters out to the ballot box. This was also recognition of our efforts in fighting for labour rights both within and outside the establishment.

The HKCTU continued to win one seat in later Legislative Council elections. but was not able to increase our number of seats and therefore our political influence in the legislature. This is of great concern to our movement and has triggered a lot of debate within the HKCTU on the role of unions in electoral politics.

The organizing principles of a union and of a political party are quite different. The primary concern of a political party is to win elections. In the Hong Kong context, it succeeding in winning elections starting with District Council elections (which are held every four years). The 18 District Councils are the most basic level of Hong Kong government. They are composed of about 400 elected members. Success in representation of one’s party in these councils serves as a building block to successful election to and representation in the legislature through the geographical constituencies. The HKCTU is not successful at all in District Council elections and there are organizational problems behind this.

Our 170,000 strong members are scattered all over the territories and there may only be a few dozen members in each District Council constituency. Our organizing efforts are in the workplace and not in the community, and therefore we are quite detached from the residents and community issues. To be effective in the District Council elections, one must be totally community-based. Another fatal problem is the lack of interest among unionists, who mostly have full-time jobs, in standing for election.

Of course all of the above could be solved if the HKCTU had the resources to play the roles of both union and political party. But then the question arises: if we had the resources, would it be wiser to form our own political party instead? Of course the fact is that we do not have the resources and we are still discussing our way ahead, hoping to achieve a reachable goal with our present resources.   

The proportional representation system for the Legislative Council direct election does benefit organizations like the HKCTU, as mentioned. But it is still not easy. Our members and their family members in one district may be enough to gain one seat. But then it is a matter of organizing and finding the right candidate. Are we able to drive our members and their families to first register as voters and then come to the ballot box to vote for our candidates?

This is not automatic and is a test of our members’ affinity to their unions. After the last election, we closely reviewed the effectiveness of our election campaign in getting our members to vote for our candidates. It was disappointing due to several factors. The HKCTU does not work in a centralized mode and we do not have a central registry of members. Because of the lack of full-time organizers, some of our affiliated unions are not closely connected with their members and this poses a problem for mobilization. Some of our members may also have connection with community organizations or even belong to other political parties; we then have to compete with them for the support of our members.

As a trade union organization, we attract activists who are keen to further the cause of workers. This is in contrast with political parties that attract activists with a taste for politics. It is difficult to reconcile the nature of trade unions with electoral politics. Notwithstanding the limitations, the HKCTU will continue to field a limited number of candidates for election, with determination to improve our members’ networking to consolidate our power base for success in future elections, and continue grooming more candidates to be ready for competing in elections.

Though we have a positive experience in our participation in electoral politics, it may have some negative impacts on the labour movement if one is not careful. The trade union movement is about mobilizing workers for collective action. Electoral politics, on the contrary, is more about personal achievement in representation and this may sometimes build up a culture of dependency on the part of the working class, which may result in the working class disempowering itself.

Over the past ten years, though legislative councillors can no longer use the ‘weapon’ of private member’s bills, owing to a change in the constitutional arrangement from that of the British to that of the Basic Law. This reduced has the effectiveness of a legislator to defend the interests of his/her constituency, and with half of the legislature occupied by pro-business functional constituencies’ seats, it is even more impossible for a pro-labour legislator. But still we have been able to force the Government to legislate on a minimum wage this year, after ten years of intensive street and legislative actions. Our success has also strengthened our determination to advance our political power base within Legco so that we can further win legislation on the rights to collective bargaining.

To conclude, the HKCTU feels positive about our participation in electoral politics, which opens up a platform to push forward our agenda for labour rights, economic justice and democracy. We can also use our political position to support the fight of our affiliates in industrial actions or collective demands. Our success has been limited since it is very difficult to combine the dual role of unionism and political parties in one organization. But the labour movement still needs both the trade union movement and a political party for the working class to further the workers’ cause in this era of globalization, a presence for workers both inside and outside of the legislature. This is the only way to a more powerful movement and is the long term goal of the HKCTU.

1. In the 1991 election, 21 members were indirectly elected from functional constituencies, while the remaining 21 members comprised three ex-officio members and 18 government-appointed members. In Hong Kong, a functional constituency is a professional or special interest group involved in the electoral process. Eligible voters in a functional constituency may include natural persons as well as other designated legal entities such as organizations and corporations. In Hong Kong now, only 30 of the 60 Legislative Council seats are directly elected by the people (through geographical constituencies), with the other 30 elected by 28 functional constituencies.

2. The nine functional constituencies in 1995 were: Primary Production, Power, and Construction; Textiles and Garments; Manufacturing; Import and Export; Wholesale and Retail; Hotels and Catering; Transport and Communications; Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services; and Community, Social and Personal Services.

3. Some further examples can be given, of laws to strengthen workers’ protection, raised by private member bills of pro-labour legislators in Legco. One is the increase to the limit of the wage security fund – the fund for paying wages in arrears and severance payment, when employers go bankrupt. Another is the establishment of a vetting committee including both employees and employers, in the system of labour immigration, to ensure that workers don’t abuse the system by replacing local workers with cheap migrant labour when there is no genuine need (i.e., when local labour exists that could do the work). The initial bill was intended to eliminate labour immigration but the compromised reached with the government has been effective; the closer monitoring allows restriction of labour immigration to that which is based on genuine need, and it led to a drastic reduction of labour immigration in the low wage sector from 10-20,000 before to 1,000 these days. Finally another (of many) examples of members’ bills favoring workers, is the anti-discrimination law, granting higher compensation to workers who have been dismissed due to trade union activity, maternity leave or sick leave. The initial bill demanded reinstatement of workers dismissed due to trade union activity, but the government compromise was that higher compensation would be granted instead, and to a broader group of workers (those terminated for maternity or sick leave).

4. In Hong Kong, it has been a traditional service of unions to offer low-price union-run supermarkets, union clinics for workers, union-paid banquets on special occasions, and similar material benefits.