Urging the next Chief Executive to reactivate constitutional reform （2017/05/31）

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President,Hong Kong people should have had the chance to elect the Chief Executive oftheir choice by "one person, one vote" in March this year.Regrettably, owning to the rejection by pan-democratic Members the year before,the Legislative Council was unable to pass the constitutional reform proposal,depriving the people of their rights to vote. The original motion today wasproposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki, yet he should know that, without any breakthrough inHong Kong's political environment within this short period of less than twoyears, we simply do not have the conditions for reactivating constitutionalreform. I believe the Chief Executive can only consider reactivatingconstitutional reform on the basis of not affecting the SAR Government's policyimplementation and arousing social conflicts. Otherwise, this will just be awaste of time and effort.

The Basic Law is the supreme constitutionaldocument in Hong Kong, and is the highest set of law in Hong Kong, therefore nopolitical reform proposal can surpass the framework set by the Basic Law. It isexplicitly stipulated in Article 45 of the Basic Law that: "The method forselecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actualsituation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance withthe principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is theselection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by abroadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democraticprocedures." The Basic Law stipulates two explicit principles concerningthe election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, namely in the light ofthe actual situation and in accordance with the principle of gradual andorderly progress. After Hong Kong's return to China, political reforms in HongKong have always been conducted in the light of socio-political environment andedged towards dual universal suffrage in accordance with the principle ofgradual and orderly progress.

The constitutional reform package passed inthe Legislative Council in 2007 confirmed that Hong Kong might implementuniversal suffrage for the Chief Executive in 2017, while the number of membersof the Election Committee would increase from the original 800 to 1 200 and thenumber of seats in the Legislative Council would increase from 60 to 70, inwhich 5 "super District Council seats" would be elected by 3 millionvoters in the territory on a "one person, one vote" basis.

According to the provisions of the BasicLaw and the Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People'sCongress of the Basic Law in 2004, political reforms in Hong Kong must adhereto the "Five-step Process". The 31 August Decision is the second stepof the constitutional reform, a legitimate step and procedure within theframework of the Basic Law with a purpose to allow Hong Kong people to electthe Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". As it has already beenstipulated in the Basic Law that universal suffrage must be implemented uponnomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance withdemocratic procedures. By rejecting the 31 August Decision and proposing civilnomination as a means of nominating candidates, the pan-democrats haveattempted to circumvent the nominating committee, thereby violating therequirements of the Basic Law. There is no reason to rescind the 31 AugustDecision which complies with the Basic Law's requirements.

President, every democratic electoralsystem has its merit. Of course, there is room for improvement too. Take theUnited States of America as an example. Presidential candidates are nominatedby their respective political parties, and the President is in fact elected byelectors from different states, while the electors themselves are returned byuniversal suffrage. The President is not elected directly. Therefore, thepresidential candidate securing the highest number of popular votes does notnecessarily get elected, such as Hillary CLINTON who lost the election despitewinning more votes from the people. This electoral system has been in place forover 200 years. According to Prof Heather GERKEN, Professor of Law, YaleUniversity, the founding fathers of America were concerned that, except for aminor portion of people from the upper class, there was a lack of generalunderstanding about the background of the presidential candidates at that time.The writers of the Constitution also worried that, without an institution as abuffer, the people might elect an inappropriate candidate as the President.Therefore, they set up a system in which the Electoral College (that is,electors) acts as middlemen who are first elected by the people, before theseelectors further elect the

President. This demonstrates that thedesign of an electoral system must conforms with the history, culture anddevelopment of the political system of a place. Even if we look at the case ofthe United States of America, which is a leading democratic country, theelectoral system there is widely criticized. So, as the pan-democrats are stillinsisting on rescinding the 31 August Decision and skipping all the steps toimplement civil nomination, I believe we will achieve nothing even ifconstitutional reform is really reactivated.

President, the key to reactivatingconstitutional reform is the establishment of mutual trust between the CentralAuthorities and Hong Kong, especially the pan-democratic camp. After Hong Kong'sreturn to China, the Central Authorities have formulated many policies inclinedtowards Hong Kong in the hope of maintaining Hong Kong's prosperity andstability, yet the situation today is less than favourable. Against the currentpolitical backdrop, it is no surprise that the Central Authorities arecautious. Imagine, should Hong Kong elects a Chief Executive who confronts theCentral Authorities, the city will certainly lapse into endless conflicts whichis highly undesirable. President, if the constitutional reform package waspassed in 2015, and that the Chief Executive elected directly was able toproperly deal with issues concerning the people's livelihood and the economy,as well as aptly handling the relationship with the Central Authorities, thenwe would have had the basis for enhancing the 31 August Decision. On thecontrary, if we disregard the political reality and hurriedly kick startconstitutional reform without the Central Authorities' support, it will just bea waste of time that will tear society apart, or even causing another OccupyCentral incident. This is not what Hong Kong people wish to see.

As regards the abolition of functionalconstituencies, it is expressly written in the Basic Law that we can onlyconsider this after electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. At thisstage, it is more pragmatic for us to focus on whether the situation is rightfor conditionally enhancing the method for selecting the Chief Executive byuniversal suffrage. Therefore, I do not support Dr KWOK Ka-ki's motion.

President, I so submit.