‘White terror’ or defiance of law?

Alegislator is supposed to know the law more or less, but Eddie Chu Hoi-dick appears to be an exception. He alleged “white terror” after his nomination for an upcoming rural election in Yuen Long was thrown out by a returning officer last Sunday. Surprisingly, other “pan-democratic” legislators have chosen to side with him. They protested vigorously in the Legislative Council auditorium against Chu’s disqualification, forcing the cancellation of the chief executive’s question-and-answer session at the LegCo meeting on Wednesday.

The fact that Chu had won a LegCo seat with 84,121 votes in the 2016 legislative elections does not automatically validate his nomination for the village election.

It should be noted that, as amended in 2014, Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance stipulates: “A person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a rural area unless the nomination form includes, or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.”

Under this provision, a returning officer may disqualify anyone who does not satisfy this requirement from participating in the election. It’s outrageous that some people, particularly a group of legislators many of whom are solicitors or barristers, call such an incident “white terror”.

Rather than an act of rights infringement, it’s an act of observance of the rule of law — by upholding the Basic Law. If someone is reluctant to uphold the Basic Law by word and by deed, he or she should not be allowed to run for any public position.

It’s not Chu’s political stance that had caused his disqualification. As reported by the media, he had admitted that his joint declaration with Demosisto and ousted lawmaker Lau Siu-lai in 2016, which rejected China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong, and endorsed self-determination with Hong Kong independence as an option, was the key issue.

The preamble of the Basic Law states that the People’s Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from July 1, 1997; and Article 12 of the Basic Law stipulates that the HKSAR shall be a local administrative region of the PRC and is directly under the central government. It’s also stressed in Article 1 of the Basic Law that the HKSAR is an inalienable part of the PRC. Obviously, after disregarding all those provisions, Chu cannot be recognized as someone who willingly upholds the Basic Law or pledges allegiance to the HKSAR of the PRC.

To clear the air of uncertainty, the returning officer concerned had made inquiries twice with Chu who, with or without legal advice, confirmed that there’s nothing wrong about his political stance, including support for selfdetermination on Hong Kong’s future. The returning officer had thus reasonably concluded that Chu was insincere in making his declaration The author is a veteran Hong Kong commentator and professor at the Research Center of Hong Kong and Macao Basic Law, Shenzhen University on upholding the Basic law and swearing allegiance to the HKSAR directly under the central government.

If I’m not mistaken, the returning officer’s findings may serve two purposes. One is to declare that Chu had failed to produce a valid nomination under the Rural Representative Election Ordinance and related provisions. The other is to indicate that Chu’s false statement amounted to “false statement on oath made otherwise than in a judicial proceeding” as furnished in Section 32 of the Crime Ordinance (Cap 200). This section stipulates: “If any person being required or authorized by law to make any statement on oath for any purpose and being lawfully sworn in (otherwise than in a judicial proceeding) will fully make a statement which is material for that purpose and which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for seven years and to a fine.” Alas, the status of Chu as a lawmaker was discovered deteriorating during his nomination for a village representative election in making a false statement on oath when assuming office.

“Making a false statement on oath” has been named in Article 79 (7) of the Basic Law as “breach of oath”. Unless and until Chu tries to turn over a new leaf, he may be unable to run in the 2019 district council elections and 2020 LegCo polls. Worse of all, he may not preclude the possibility of being censured for “breach of oath” or being prosecuted for “making a false statement on oath” as mentioned.

Successful or otherwise, Chu’s episode serves as a reminder to all.