Five steps to CE universal suffrage
Compared with Qiao Xiaoyang, chairman of the National People’s Congress (NPC) Law Committee, in Shenzhen on March 24, Li Fei, chairman of the Basic Law Committee of the NPC Standing Committee (NPCSC), appeared to have adopted a different approach during his recent visit to Hong Kong.
The differences between the two were due not only to their personal characters and styles, but also their intentions due to the different political situations they faced in Hong Kong.
Qiao came to Shenzhen when the “Occupy Central” movement attempted to derail the proper route to the universal suffrage for the Chief Executive (CE) election in 2017. Intending to paralyze Hong Kong’s financial and political center, the movement’s organizers were very naive in threatening the central government. In such circumstances, Qiao stressed the firm position from which the central government would never deviate from. This was the observance of the Basic Law, the decision of the NPCSC and a refusal to appoint any elected CE who defies the central government.
Qiao’s message was clear: The opposition must understand the firm position of the central government. But it also served another purpose. He wanted the pro-government forces to have a united front to achieve universal suffrage for the CE election in 2017 based on this strong position.
If Qiao’s comments advised the opposition to submit to the Basic Law and the NPCSC’s decision, then Li’s recent visit tried to clarify the principles of universal suffrage of the CE before the public consultation began.
Adopting a milder approach, Li summarized five phases for universal suffrage. They were:
1. According to the NPCSC’s decision in December 2007, the broadly representative nomination committee may follow the formation method for the present Election Committee.
2. Any person who satisfies the requirement of Article 44 of the Basic Law, namely a Chinese citizen of not less then 40 years of age who is a permanent resident of the region with no right of abode in any foreign country and has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 20 years, may strive for selection from the nomination committee. There will be no unreasonable restriction on the rights of those being nominated and elected.
3. Selection by the nomination committee can be classified as institutional (organizational) nomination as opposed to personal (member) nomination. Among those who stand for election, they may become candidates after being selected by the nomination committee in accordance with democratic procedures.
4. Candidates for the CE who have been nominated by the nomination committee will be directly elected by universal suffrage. Every qualified voter has one vote or the same number of votes. The right to vote is universal and equal.
5. As the CE selected has been duly elected, he or she shall be reported to the central government for appointment.
As we all know, the HKSAR government will soon issue a public consultation document on universal suffrage for the CE in 2017. Based on the above principles, I believe all kind of opinions, clarifications and options are welcome.
For example, whether the meaning of “broadly representative” of the nomination committee refers to “enlargement of the voter’s base” or has another implication to involve more people and legal experts than just the voters.
The involvement of people interested in running for the highest post requires them to be Chinese citizens. Does this refer to merely a nationality or comprise a further requirement of pledging loyalty to the constitution, particularly the rights and obligations of a Chinese citizen? Is there any method to assess the person’s accountability to both the region and the central government?
What is the definition of organizational (institutional) nomination in Article 45 of the Basic Law vis-à-vis more familiar arrangement of member nomination given in Annex I of the law. And what about nomination by democratic principles?
Calculating the results of universal suffrage may also attract argument: whether the relative majority rule system in Taiwan is used, or the absolute majority rule system in France is preferred, or the so-called preferential voting (or instant run-off ) method is introduced. What are the corresponding advantages and disadvantages of these systems?
Finally, although the power of appointing the CE is handled by the central government, there is also skepticism about how this power is sometimes exercised.