Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's decision to defer the National Security Bill is a victory for the people. While it is a sensible move given the weight of the opposition, the other reason given by Mr Tung - that we need to concentrate our efforts to revitalise the economy - is worrying.

If the Tung administration believes that the same bill will be better accepted when the economy improves, then the messages of the July 1 protest may not have been fully understood.

The refusal to commit to issuing a white paper, and the silence on the legislative and substantive intentions when the bill is reintroduced, speak for themselves. The withdrawal of the bill does not mean that the same proposals and amendments cannot be reintroduced.

The contention over whether a white paper should be issued is as old as the debate on the legislation itself. If Mr Tung means what he says - that unless there is sufficient consultation and support, the administration will not go ahead with the legislative process - then there is no reason why a white paper should not be issued.

And by the same token, the bill should not be reintroduced unless there are full democratic elections. A democratic government is the only real safeguard against the revival of a law which may infringe our rights and freedom.

But this is not the only reason why we should have a democratic government now. As noted by critics, the government has been withdrawing some of its proposed policies out of political expediency in the wake of the July 1 uproar. But if it backs down in the midst of the slightest opposition or political resistance, the administration's ability to govern will be brought into question.

The lack of legitimacy has made even reasonable proposals less tenable, let alone the Herculean tasks of economic recovery and the legislation on national security. But a popularly elected chief executive would be able to enact unpopular but reasonable policies with the mandate of his people.

If it has belatedly dawned on officials that the National Security Bill should be shelved because they should listen to the people, then the call for constitutional reform will not have been lost. There is no reason why the government cannot conduct a political review while also getting on with economy recovery.

It would be a fallacy for the administration to believe that the feel-good sentiment brought about by early signs of economic recovery would overwhelm the clamour for constitutional reforms. The public knows too well that an undemocratic government can bulldoze through a bill which infringes our rights and erodes our economy. And a government which protects business conglomerates will go as far as rejecting a fair trading ordinance. Therefore, it has laid to rest any argument that we need to focus on economic recovery and should take a gradual approach to democratisation.

The Basic Law restricts the pace of democratisation for the first 10 years after the handover - and no more. It is now almost 20 years since the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed, after which democratic reforms were gradually introduced. Direct elections for the chief executive in 2007 is the most natural course of action. And introducing constitutional reforms now is imperative.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party has revised its party platform to back away from direct elections in 2007, perhaps fearing that the interests of the business elite would be jeopardised. If listening to the people and taking firm steps to democracy is the order of the day, early consultation on how the political system should be reformed would be in the best interests of all - including the business representatives.

The Democratic Party will convene a constitutional convention, inviting academics and experts to work out the way forward. We will also move a motion debate in Legco on political reform. Let us take firm steps together to democracy.

YEUNG SUM

Chairman of the Democratic Party and a directly elected Legislative Councillor

[South China Morning Post, September 16, 2003]