1 

 

7 March 2015

Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau 12/F East Wing, Central Government Offices 2 Tim Mei Avenue, Tamar, Hong Kong

Response to the January 2015 Constitutional Reform Consultation "Method for Selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 by Universal Suffrage"

Dear Sirs, Thank you for inviting the HKDF to respond to the consultation. We are pleased to learn that the HKSAR Government is arranging further meetings between the Pan-Democrat Legislators and Central Government Officials. We urge the HKSAR Government to continue to take the lead in solving the political uncertainly that has been troubling Hong Kong since the mid-1980s. We take the view that Hong Kong's social and economic development capacity is closely linked to a widely accepted 2017 CE Election solution. We also take the view that suggesting Hong Kong should "pocket" an electoral arrangement that allows the Nomination Committee to pre-select candidates individually does not preserve procedural justice. If this is allowed to happen, the legitimacy of the Chief Executive elected through such a process will not be preserved and the harmonious development of Hong Kong and its relation with the Central Government will continue to stall. While we accept that electoral proposals must abide by the Basic Law and decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), we urge the Government to continue to find a solution together with the Central Government and the Hong Kong community that:

 

2 

 

• Offers a “Genuine Choice” ; • Does not target individual candidates during the nomination process; • Conforms to international standards of free and fair election.

While we accept that the electoral proposal should addresses the national security concerns, we note that under the Basic Law the Central Government appoints the Chief Executive and thus retains a veto right. We urge against the implementation of an elaborate procedure to stop an "unacceptable candidate" from entering the CE Election. The risk of an "unacceptable candidate" is disproportional to the risk of an entire Hong Kong community, unable to select its own CE candidates, questioning the Central Government's sincerity and legitimate authority over Hong Kong. We also take note of the more confident and pragmatic leadership in Beijing that is now seeking to redefine our nation's international standing in the new world order. This is why we believe the that Central Government would also accept the position that a democratic Hong Kong is good for China and would allow maximum flexibility to any electoral arrangement to be proposed by the HKSAR Government as China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong is secure. In the enclosed response we highlight our concerns against the questions asked in the Consultation Document. We have not included any new proposal under the restrictive framework provided. Together with the HKSAR and Central Government, we do not wish to see an opportunity lost. The NPCSC decision in August 2014 should be relaxed. We believe that pragmatic solutions must be deliberated with the community and with all stakeholders in an open, transparent, constructive and creative manner. We hope our comments enclosed on the captioned consultation are useful.

Sincerely yours,

Alan Ka-lun LUNG Chairman

 

3 

 

Method for Selecting the 2017 Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage 

 

HKDF’S Position 

• The Hong Kong Democratic Foundation seeks a Genuine Choice without allowing the Nomination Committee to pre‐select or target candidates. We look forward to proposals with reference to Articles 26, 45 and 68 of the Basic Law and the decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC). We also seek genuine democracy in compliance with international standards for free and fair election, such as Article 25 of the ICCPR.   

 • We trust the common sense of the people of Hong Kong in selecting and electing a 

leader who loves Hong Kong, who loves China, and who is capable of working with the Central Government in Beijing and the Hong Kong community effectively and in harmony, to further our national and our local Hong Kong interests. We call on the HKSAR Government and the Central Authorities in Beijing set aside their fears, to express trust and to offer hope to the entire Hong Kong community by seeking a widely accepted 2017 CE Election process. 

 • The division in the community and the ongoing debates over political and constitutional 

arrangements, the role of Hong Kong within our nation, the relationship between the different levels of government and the people of Hong Kong, and the many critical issues ranging from population, emigration to land and housing supply, and economic and social development, have demonstrated the strong political morals, and the desire to build common ground. We agree with the HKSAR Government that there is a need to respect differences, and all parties and government to act rationally and inclusively. We trust that the HKSAR Government will continue to express hope and build trust to facilitate for a solution between the Central Government and the people of Hong Kong. We hope that the both the HKSAR Government and the Central Government would also promote mutual understanding and demonstrate acceptance of the views of the people of Hong Kong. 

 

Misunderstandings and Limited Scope of the 2nd Round Consultation 

• The Report on the Public Consultation on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and for forming the Legislative Council in 2016 on 5 July 2014 and presented to the Central Government has unfortunately failed to adequately reflect the views of the 

 

4 

 

people of Hong Kong. We are dismayed with the Report and we believe that the misunderstood public sentiments had probably caused the NPCSC decision of 31 August 2014 to have presented a more restrictive framework for the 2017 CE Elections than widely expected by the people of Hong Kong.    This may have frustrated aspirations in Hong Kong for genuine universal suffrage and triggered an unprecedented mass protest that started in the late afternoon of 28 September 2014 and continued for many weeks. Overbearing control on the constitutional reform package will force more questions from the community over the policies and plans of the central authorities, rather than focus the community on the development of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of China.  

• As such we are equally dismayed by the limitations on the recommendations of the HKSAR government and the directions which may be considered in this Consultation on the Method for Selecting the Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage. 

  

Enhance 2016 LegCo elections to pave the way for the 2017 CE elections  

• We urge the HKSAR Government, and for the Central Government in Beijing to support in full, to abolish corporate voting for all relevant functional constituency seats, by allowing staff and management of all relevant firms and organizations to choose to participate in the voting within their most relevant FC in the 2016 Legislative Council Election. This is a necessary step that will also pave the way for a more broadly represented electorate for the 2017 CE Election Nomination Committee. 

 

Chief Executive Election Methods 

• Given the unrepresentative nature of the nominating committee, the proposed nominating procedures are unacceptable. With the assertion in 3.03 that sectors would be asked to decide on their own on changes, the question of composition and formation of the nomination committee is at best futile.    

• We oppose all four nominating procedures as listed under Annex VI as no pro‐democracy candidate can get through under any of the four procedures. Below, we do not make any specific proposal, but we raise our concerns against the questions asked in the Consultation Document:  

1. We disagree with the unrepresentative nature of the proposed membership of the nominating committee. Moreover, the introduction of new sub‐sectors such 

 

5 

 

as ‘women’ is contrived and circumspect and appears to further the elimination of seats which could represent the majority of community which consider themselves democrats;  

2. All district councilors should be included in the nominating committee, or the 117 district council representative seats should be directly elected by each district;  

3. The number of members in each sub‐sector should be adjusted according to reasonable measures of GDP contribution and equivalent indicators;  

4. Corporate voters should be disallowed in the sub‐sectors;  

5. Under the restricted framework the two stage procedure is better than one stage. Potential candidates should require a minimum of 10% and a cap of 150 recommendations. Each member of the Nomination Committee should only give one open recommendation. The recommendation process should be entirely transparent;  

6. The maximum number of candidates should not be restricted. Under the unacceptable limitations of the framework, the highest number – 3 candidates ‐‐ is better than fewer candidates. All ballots should be secret, and the number of ballots to be conducted should be unlimited and should continue until there are 3 candidates who meet the set threshold of votes from members of the nomination committee. We note that we consider the 50% threshold unduly restrictive. In each ballot, each member of the nomination committee should have the same number of votes as there are candidates standing;  

7. If necessary, a second round of voting should be conducted during the election if no candidate has been able to obtain more than half of the total number of valid votes. All blank votes should be counted and declared as invalid votes received;  

8. A nominating committee should remain for the full tenure of the term of the Chief Executive – which is five years, and should be responsible for nominating candidates for new elections in case the CPG does not appoint the elected candidate, or in case of an early vacation of the post.  

9. Candidates should be entirely free in their choice of former, current or new membership of any political party.