none
Chief Secretary Carrie Lam
The Task Force on Constitutional Development headed by me has submitted its consultation report to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive has just made a report to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, inviting it to decide whether the methods for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and for forming the Legislative Council in 2016 should be amended. This is the first step which formally kick-started the “Five-step Process” of constitutional development.
During the consultation, we appealed to the people of Hong Kong to have dialogue with us and highlighted the clear basis for introducing universal suffrage, in the hope that the community would seize the opportunity to achieve universal suffrage. As pointed out in the consultation report, the general public are indeed eagerly looking forward to selecting the Chief Executive by ‘one person, one vote’ in 2017. However, the community is still divided over certain important issues. As we stand at the crossroads of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, it is worthwhile for us to revisit a few important perspectives with a view to reaching a consensus and finding a way forward.
Historical perspective
First, the historical perspective. The aim of selecting the Chief Executive and forming the Legislative Council by universal suffrage was first set out in the Basic Law promulgated in 1990, not the Sino-British Joint Declaration. At that time, the Hong Kong legislature had yet to have put in place the mechanism of electing LegCo members through geographical direct elections, but the Basic Law promulgated by the National People’s Congress had already incorporated the ultimate aim of selecting the Chief Executive and electing all LegCo members by universal suffrage.
As for the timetable of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, it was set by the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress made in 2007. Without the Basic Law and the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress decision of 2007, we would not have any foundation to discuss the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017.
Constitutional perspective
Second, the constitutional perspective. The State has established the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution. Article 2 of the Basic Law stipulates that the National People’s Congress authorises the HKSAR to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law. Article 12 of the Basic Law provides that the HKSAR shall be a local administrative region which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People’s Government. Being a local administrative region as opposed to an independent polity, the design and development of Hong Kong’s political structure must follow the requirements prescribed by the National People’s Congress pursuant to the Constitution.
The Central Authorities play a clear and significant role in amending the methods for selecting the Chief Executive and forming LegCo. It is provided in the Basic Law that the Chief Executive selected by universal suffrage shall be appointed by the Central People’s Government. The Chief Executive is also required to implement the directives issued by the Central People’s Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in the Basic Law. Accordingly, the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage not only concerns the people of Hong Kong, but is also an important State business in terms of the relationship between the central and local authorities.
Legal perspective
Third, the legal perspective. Article 45 of the Basic Law provides that the Chief Executive shall be selected by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures. Throughout the consultation period, we have been stressing that discussion on constitutional development should be based on the Basic Law. We have also quoted in the consultation report that there are views in the community which consider that any proposal bypassing or undermining the powers of the nominating committee to nominate candidates is highly unlikely to be in conformity with the provisions of the Basic Law.
Laws, especially those of a constitutional nature like the Basic Law, which have been formulated through reasonable legislative processes should never be freely interpreted or lightly abandoned. If the proposal put forward by the Government for consideration by the community and the LegCo is contrary to the law, our constitutional reform will go down the wrong path and stand a slim chance of success.
Political perspective
Fourth, the political perspective. The most difficult step in the 'Five-step Process' is to get the proposal passed by a two-thirds majority of all LegCo members, which means that the proposal must receive cross-party support to some extent and political parties must adjust their stance and make compromises. I understand that the political atmosphere in the community is tense at present. After the public consultation, there is still a considerable amount of people expressing their different opinions on constitutional development proposals. These opinions should be respected by both the Government and LegCo Members. I believe that real politics should work for the long-term and overall interests of the community. A consensus on realising the goal of universal suffrage is not unattainable if we bear the common good in mind, move a step further, and try to resolve the differences or even stop insisting on some of one’s own views. In my opinion, serving the common good is the true purpose of politics, and is also the perspective through which our community should consider constitutional reform.
Last but not least, constitutional development should not be viewed solely from a historical perspective. We should also look forward. Some people regard the universal suffrage system of 2017 as the final stage of constitutional development, making parties further polarised to hold on to their views about the arrangement. My personal view on this point is that the relevant system could be further refined after the implementation of universal suffrage. Implementing universal suffrage in 2017 for the selection of the Chief Executive is our first step. This first step will allow over 5 million eligible voters to elect the Chief Executive through ‘one person, one vote’. Once put in place, the arrangement will form an integral component of the HKSAR’s constitutional system, which will not turn back but only forge ahead, and could be further refined.
The first step in the 'Five-step Process' of constitutional development will bring us closer to the goal of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. After the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress makes a decision on whether there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executive, the HKSAR Government will carry out a consultation on the specific proposals around the end of this year. I again call on the people of Hong Kong to continue the discussion in a rational and pragmatic manner, narrow the differences and reach a consensus on the subject of constitutional reform. By so doing, we will be able to achieve universal suffrage for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017, and more than 5 million eligible voters in Hong Kong will have the chance to cast their votes for the next Chief Executive.
This is an article by Chief Secretary Carrie Lam published in local newspapers today.
