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 of their 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 was proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki, yet he should know that, without any breakthrough in Hong Kong's political environment within this short period of less than two years, we simply do not have the conditions for reactivating constitutional reform. I believe the Chief Executive can only consider reactivating constitutional reform on the basis of not affecting the SAR Government's policy implementation and arousing social conflicts. Otherwise, this will just be a waste of time and effort.

The Basic Law is the supreme constitutional document in Hong Kong, and is the highest set of law in Hong Kong, therefore no political reform proposal can surpass the framework set by the Basic Law. It is explicitly stipulated in Article 45 of the Basic Law that: "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." The Basic Law stipulates two explicit principles concerning the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, namely in the light of the actual situation and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. After Hong Kong's return to China, political reforms in Hong Kong have always been conducted in the light of socio-political environment and edged towards dual universal suffrage in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress.

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

According to the provisions of the Basic Law and the Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the Basic Law in 2004, political reforms in Hong Kong must adhere to the "Five-step Process". The 31 August Decision is the second step of the constitutional reform, a legitimate step and procedure within the framework of the Basic Law with a purpose to allow Hong Kong people to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". As it has already been stipulated in the Basic Law that universal suffrage must be implemented upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures. By rejecting the 31 August Decision and proposing civil nomination as a means of nominating candidates, the pan-democrats have attempted to circumvent the nominating committee, thereby violating the requirements of the Basic Law. There is no reason to rescind the 31 August Decision which complies with the Basic Law's requirements.

President, every democratic electoral system has its merit. Of course, there is room for improvement too. Take the United States of America as an example. Presidential candidates are nominated by their respective political parties, and the President is in fact elected by electors from different states, while the electors themselves are returned by universal suffrage. The President is not elected directly. Therefore, the presidential candidate securing the highest number of popular votes does not necessarily get elected, such as Hillary CLINTON who lost the election despite winning more votes from the people. This electoral system has been in place for over 200 years. According to Prof Heather GERKEN, Professor of Law, Yale University, the founding fathers of America were concerned that, except for a minor portion of people from the upper class, there was a lack of general understanding about the background of the presidential candidates at that time. The writers of the Constitution also worried that, without an institution as a buffer, 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 these electors further elect the President. This demonstrates that the design of an electoral system must conforms with the history, culture and development of the political system of a place. Even if we look at the case of the United States of America, which is a leading democratic country, the electoral system there is widely criticized. So, as the pan-democrats are still insisting on rescinding the 31 August Decision and skipping all the steps to implement civil nomination, I believe we will achieve nothing even if constitutional reform is really reactivated.

President, the key to reactivating constitutional reform is the establishment of mutual trust between the Central Authorities and Hong Kong, especially the pan-democratic camp. After Hong Kong's return to China, the Central Authorities have formulated many policies inclined towards Hong Kong in the hope of maintaining Hong Kong's prosperity and stability, yet the situation today is less than favourable. Against the current political backdrop, it is no surprise that the Central Authorities are cautious. Imagine, should Hong Kong elects a Chief Executive who confronts the Central Authorities, the city will certainly lapse into endless conflicts which is highly undesirable. President, if the constitutional reform package was passed in 2015, and that the Chief Executive elected directly was able to properly deal with issues concerning the people's livelihood and the economy, as well as aptly handling the relationship with the Central Authorities, then we would have had the basis for enhancing the 31 August Decision. On the contrary, if we disregard the political reality and hurriedly kick start constitutional reform without the Central Authorities' support, it will just be a waste of time that will tear society apart, or even causing another Occupy Central incident. This is not what Hong Kong people wish to see.

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

President, I so submit.