Securing rule of law in HK

It is up to the 'pan-democrats' candidates to win support of the majority of nominating committee members to stand for election

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress passed a resolution on Sunday regarding the method of selecting the chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 2017 and forming the Legislative Council in 2016. The draft resolution went through days of group discussions and scrutiny by all NPCSC members before it was presented for a vote. The process demonstrates unquestionable adherence to procedural justice and democratic principles. This is the first time the national legislature spent so much time and effort on a decision to facilitate the implementation of a regional law.

The NPCSC decision is ultimately intended to maintain rule of law in the SAR. In other words, it is aimed at ensuring that Hong Kong's constitutional development proceeds according to the Basic Law, which stipulates a nominating committee is responsible for deciding the candidates in the 2017 election of the chief executive by universal suffrage. Any attempt to bypass the nominating committee in the nominating process will effectively violate the Basic Law and undermine the rule of law in Hong Kong. Therefore, there is no point in discussing matters concerning constitutional development with those who have long declared themselves politically unqualified by swearing against the Basic Law, including the symbolic act of burning copies of the constitutional code in public.

As for amending the Basic Law, the possibility certainly exists, but not today or any time soon. A constitutional code such as the Basic Law must maintain its statutory presence until it is no longer adequate in light of irreversible social changes. Only then should an amendment be considered, should it be desired by the great majority of Hong Kong public. No one in their right mind would give even a passing thought to amending the Basic Law for political convenience at a moment's notice, unless they didn't care at all about the integrity of the rule of law.

The nominating committee is the sole institution authorized by the Basic Law to nominate candidates for the chief executive election. That means a majority decision throughout the nomination process, as democratic principles dictate. A majority decision requires the approval of more than half of all nominating committee members (601 of 1,200 members, for example). The opposition camp demands a lower "threshold" to meet some "international standards", but has yet to specify what those standards are or how much will satisfy them. Is it 30 percent, 20 percent or 10 percent? Don't they know how preposterous this demand is? The reality is, a simple majority (more than 50 percent) is the minimum requirement for any collective decision to be valid. That is a true international standard.

Then there is the debate over the number of candidates allowed to vie for each public office. This is a very tough decision for designers of election rules around the world, because they have to ensure a winner is returned in one round of voting (for the sake of public resources) and the winner is supported by more than half of the voters (for the sake of democratic principles). As a matter of fact, that is why the existing electoral system in the United States has been such an embarrassment to US citizens and democratic societies in general, thanks to the much-loathed Electoral Institute. Many in the US want to change the electoral system, but no one has been able to come up with a workable substitute. There is no telling how long they will have to live with the shame it inflicts.

This is also true with the question of how many candidates are necessary for the chief executive election. It is not a matter of shutting out "pan-democrats", because it is ultimately up to the their candidates themselves to win the support of the majority of nominating committee members. Some people may assume that the "pan-democrats" have no chance as long as the nominating committee is dominated by "pro-Beijing" figures. Does that mean the "pan-democrats" are mindful of nothing but opposing the central authorities?

That is why countries around the world invariably allow just enough candidates to satisfy the democratic principle of genuine and fair competition. If there are too many candidates, it not only puts a strain on public resources, it also leads to "miscarriages" that adversely affect social stability. Any candidates put forward by the "pan-democrats" who have what it takes to be the chief executive need not fear the "threshold" of nomination or the nominating committee itself. Only those with a guilty conscience should be afraid, such as those who took money from outside parties and agreed to serve their interests in return.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that is was widely believed and mentioned in the media many times that two senior officials who served in the colonial government would not survive the handover unscathed, but one of them not only kept his position in the SAR government, he also got promoted and went on to become the chief executive. The "pan-democrats" should realize that the central government does not label them unless they give Beijing a good reason to do so. The fact is the central authorities believe most members of the "pan-democrats" camp love the nation and Hong Kong. Those who see themselves as such and are determined to excel in public office should be confident that opportunity will present itself when they are ready.