Hong Kong Democratic Foundation CE Election proposals presented at HKU CCPL

1. Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
HKU-CCPL
Proposer Series on Political Reform
Wednesday, 16 April 2014
5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
Academic Conference Room, 11/F Cheung Yu Tung Tower
The University of Hong Kong
2017 Chief Executive
Election Proposals
Alan Ka-lun LUNG, Chairman
Hong Kong Democratic Foundation

2. Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
2017 CE Election Proposals
based on A-26 and A-45 of the Basic Law:
NOMINATING COMMITTEE FORMATION: • Alternative 1: By direct
election of registered voters who elect 3 members in each of the 400
District Councils • Alternative 2: Nomination committee (NC) based on
the 2012 CE election • All corporate votes replaced • All elected district
councilors to join the NC
NOMINATING PROCESS: • 1/8 of NC members • Or with at least
100,000 nominations from registered GC voters
OATH OF CE OFFICE BEFORE BECOMING CANDIDATE: • All candidates
once elected to be nominated by the NC have to affirm to abide by the
Oath of the CE Office • After the closing date for submission of
nominations by candidates, the NC (e.g. jointly signed by 100 NC
members) has right to make a complaint and ask the Electoral Affairs
Commission to start the legal process of removing the candidate
VOTING PROCEDURE: • Universal Suffrage • A second round voting for
the top 2 candidates if no candidate receives more than 50% votes

3. Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
Qiao Xiaoyang’s
discussion with Hong Kong Legco Members
24 March 2013 (meeting held in Shenzhen)
喬曉陽 2013年3月24日在香港立法會部分議員座談會上的講話 :
http://www.locpg.hk/jsdt/2013-03/27/c_126019897.htm
7,000 words (19 paragraphs) but only talked
about three points:
1. In accordance to the Basic Law (Agree – HKDF’s
proposals are based on the Basic Law);
2. The CE cannot work against the Central
Government (Agree – Paul Zimmerman’s
Job Interview Theory);
3. “Democratic Procedures” (The core issue – Qiao
Xiaoyang, however, left some room for discussion).

4. An amusing moment at the meeting with the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, HKSAR
Government 26 July 2013. Left to right: Ronald Chan (Political Assistant), Freely Cheng (Principal
Assistant Secretary) & Gordon Leung (Deputy Secretary).

5. Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
HKSAR Government
Consultation Document (Point 5.04):
“... nomination by a broadly representative nomination
committee in accordance with democratic procedures” in
Articles 45 of Basic Law interpreted as “Organisational
Nomination” or “Collective Nomination”:
1. For the purpose of implementing “Love Country, Love Hong Kong?”
2. How to explain why “Organisational Nomination” is not mentioned in
the Basic Law?
3. Does this mean that CE candidates were not nominated according to
“Democratic Procedures” in 2007 and 2012?
4. Conflict between “Organisational Nomination” and Articles 25 and 26
of the Basic Law? (A-25: All Hong Kong residents are equal before the law;
A-26: Permanent residents of the HKSAR shall have the right to vote and to
stand for election in accordance with the law.)

6. Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
In accordance to the Basic Law and
Hong Kong’s Legal System:
1. How to define “Love Country, Love Hong Kong” and turn
it into a fair and equitable law that can be executed
objectively (would it be easier to define election
behaviour) ?
2. How does one explain why “Organisational Nomination”
would be acceptable while “Civil Nomination” is not when
neither are mentioned in the Basic Law?
3. Does it mean that the HKSAR Government must seek
NPCSC clarification so that there is no risk for the elected
CE to be removed after losing a judicial review? Is it easier
for the NPCSC to initiate a re-interpretation? Will this
solve the problem or will it “throw oil on the fire”?

7. Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
Will we find the right answer for the CE Election
in the midst of calculations and miscalculations?
1. Is there an alternative to “Democracy against Communism”?
2. Will we find an alternative democratic development path that
does not affect the Central Government’s sovereignty over HK?
(see: The Coming Collapse of China, by Gordon Chang)
3. In the context of respecting “Self-determination” and “One
Country, Two Systems”, will we be able to find a way forward
that does not affect the attitude of many mainlanders who seek
more democracy but who do not necessarily oppose one-party
rule? (see: Robert Harmel and Alexander Tan, One Party or Multi-Party Competition:
Chinese Attitudes to Party System Alternatives)
4. Should we calculate the Central Government’s determination
to exert sovereignty over HK and as well as the goodwill it may
have to implement genuine democracy ?
(See HKDF 29 Dec 2009 Paper : http://www.hkdf.org/newsarticles.asp?show=newsarticles&newsarticle=253 )

8. Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
Conclusions :
1. “Democracy for China” is probably easier to sell than
“Democracy against China”
2. Compliance with the ICCPR (should the nomination
procedure comply in a legal sense or in a comparative
sense)?
3. Set of compliance principles (Source - Carole Petersen, University
of Hawaii):
i. Comply to A-25 of ICCPR and A-45 of Basic Law;
ii. Creation of nominating committee must be transparent;
understandable to the public and representative of voters;
iii. Transparent nominating procedure and a reasonably low threshold;
iv. HK could become ungovernable and unstable if the above lack
legitimacy;
v. No need to change the Basic Law.