Constitutional reform  (2014/11/21)

President, the constitutional reform this time around is a major event for Hong Kong and will enable political reform in Hong Kong to take a big stride forward.

As we all know, for more than a century, when Hong Kong was under British rule, the Governors of Hong Kong were appointed by Britain and the British had practically never considered the election of the Governor of Hong Kong by universal suffrage. In contrast, when the Central Authorities were preparing to resume the sovereignty over Hong Kong and drafting the Basic Law, they already considered giving the people of Hong Kong greater scope for democracy by stipulating clearly that the ultimate aim was to select the Chief Executive and all Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.

The Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) also formally confirms that from 2017 onwards, Hong Kong can introduce universal suffrage for the selection of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". Moreover, after the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage has been introduced, all Members of the Legislative Council can also be elected by universal suffrage. Hong Kong has been reunified with the country for only 17 years but the Central Authorities have already honoured the promise made back then by taking forward constitutional reform in Hong Kong. The goal is the selection of the Chief Executive by all eligible voters in Hong Kong in 2017 on a "one person, one vote" basis. We should treasure this opportunity that Hong Kong people have yearned for many years. Do we want to take a big stride forward or mark time, or even take a step backwards? The decision rests with us.

Hong Kong is not an independent state but it has a special constitutional status. It is a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. If we want to turn the universal suffrage this time around into reality, there must be a legal basis, namely, the relevant provisions of the Basic Law and the Decision of the NPCSC on 31 August. Under this principle, reference can then be made to the experience of other countries, including the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Each country or region has its own history, culture and customs, so there is no uniform and absolute standard. The experience of other countries or the proposals of other organizations can only serve as reference but are not legally binding. However, the opposition has always evaded this legal criterion and only makes a fuss over the so-called international standards. The aim is to mislead the public into thinking that the ICCPR is the ultimate framework in constitutional reform and use this as the reason for opposing the Decision of the NPCSC.

The amendment proposed by Ms Emily LAU puts the ICCPR on a par with the Basic Law and even puts the ICCPR before the Basic Law, thus overriding the Basic Law. This is only a continuation of the trick employed by the Occupy Central Trio and the opposition all along to make partial reference to international standards, in an attempt to mislead students and the public, so this is nothing new. The aim is to make the public believe that the Chinese Government has not followed international standards and that the constitutional reform amounts to bogus universal suffrage, so that the present Occupy action can continue to foment. This does not serve in any way to resolve the impasse caused by the Occupy actions; instead, this will make the situation even more complicated.

President, if Members of the pan-democratic camp sincerely propose, as Mr Ronny TONG did, "That this Council urges the Government to expeditiously put forward a practical and feasible constitutional reform package", they should return to the Basic Law and the framework of the NPCSC, gain an understanding of the relevant provisions and decisions in earnest and face the reality by putting forward feasible proposals, so that all Hong Kong people can elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" and implement the constitutional reform proposal in a gradual and orderly manner. If they keep opposing for the sake of it and do not put forward any proposal within the present legal framework, they are not being sincere in aspiring to taking forward constitutional reform in Hong Kong. I hope Members can come back to reality and find ways to enable the passage of the constitutional reform proposal. If it is not possible to turn universal suffrage into reality in 2017, all Members have to assume the political responsibility and those in the pan-democratic camp have to assume the bulk share of it.

President, for more than two years, some radical Members have exploited the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council to impede the normal operation of meetings in the Legislative Council by all possible means. They aim is to impose obstacles to the administration by the Government through the Legislative Council, thus rendering the Government unable to enhance its authority through effective administration.

The opposition, on finding such an approach effective, has even gone further by employing such means as requesting headcounts all the time during Legislative Council meetings and making speeches, asking questions and proposing amendments and extempore motions repetitively in the Finance Committee and panels, in the hope of further undermining the administration by the Government. Shrewd observers can all see that these people do not have Hong Kong's future in mind at all. We all know that so long as there is no universal suffrage in Hong Kong, they can continue to criticize the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council for lacking representativeness and in this way, they will have reasons to criticize the Chinese Government. If universal suffrage is implemented in Hong Kong, the opposition will lose the bargaining chips for such criticisms and struggles.

Therefore, I hope Members of the pan-democratic camp can follow the dictates of their conscience. If they really have Hong Kong's future in mind, they should approach this matter from the angle of reality by identifying a constitutional reform proposal that is practical and feasible and finding ways to help resolve the issue of Occupy Central action, so as to show their goodwill. They should communicate actively with the "constitutional reform trio" and the Central Government's offices in the SAR to break the present deadlock. On the Government's part, it should activate the second round of consultation as soon as possible, listen more often to the views of the public and groups and give explanations to various parties, so as to allay misgivings. The Government should also covey to the Central Authorities the views in the community and strive to forge the broadest consensus possible, so as to prevent the constitutional reform proposal from getting nowhere.

President, I so submit.