Submission by individuals proposing "10% + 20 Legco Members + List approval

1. 1
2015 年 3 月 7 日
致 :
政制及內地事務局
政府總部東翼 12 樓
政制及內地事務局
我們是一群關注香港民主發展的朋友，來自行政管理、會計、法律、
資訊科技、勞工服務、測量規劃等背景，以個人身份就是次「行政長官普
選辦法諮詢文件」提交意見如下。祈 貴局仔細參考為盼。
聯署人：
龍家麟、甄文星、伍袁雋、陳家偉等一群支持民主的專業人士 和朋友
聯絡：吳永輝 Stanley@stanleyng.org )
------------------------------------------------------
7 March 2015
Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau
12/F East Wing, Central Government Offices
2 Tim Mei Avenue, Tamar, Hong Kong
Dear Sirs,
We are submitting our views to the Constitutional Reform Consultation Document titled:
"Method for Selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 by Universal Suffrage" as a group of
individuals who are concerned about Hong Kong's constitutional reform. We hope that our
views are helpful. We are from management, accounting, legal, labour services, surveying
and planning etc backgrounds.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Lung, Frankie Yan, Kitty Ng, Chan Ka Wai and a group of professionals and friends
who support democracy.
Contact: Stanley Ng Stanley@stanleyng.org )

2. 2
【第三稿】
就
「行政長官普選辦法諮詢文件」
提交意見
1. 提名委員會須以個人票取代法團票，同時維持四大界別與及其相對比例。
2. 由一千二百人的提名委員會當中的十份之一委員提名入閘，成為第一階
段被提名人。
3. 在提名的第二階段，每名行政長官被提名人須得到 20 位立法會議員認可
支持。相信有較大機會可以由 70 位立法會議員支持產生兩至三位的參選
人。
4. 整張名單由不少於 50%的提名委員會投票通過，名單中的成員都成為行
政長官候選人。如提名委員會不通過名單，則整張名單取消，重頭開始
提名，名單上人士可以再次爭取提名，直至整個名單通過為止。
5. 全港合資格選民投票，由取得 50%以上支持者當選。如果首輪投票沒有
候選人取得過半數支持，進行第二輪投票方式，由最高兩位候選人參選，
取得 50%以上支持者當選。
6. 當選人由北京任命成為行政長官。
說明:
1. 我們認為香港的繁榮和穩定與有認受性的 2017 行政長官選舉方法密不可分。我們
認為由提名委員會進行預選的袋住先的制度是不公義的；如果容許這種假普選，則
行政長官將嚴重缺乏合法認受性，而大規模的社會抗爭行動將會不斷發生。
2. 因此，我們尋求一個提名委員會不會作出預選或選定候選人的方案。我們認為我們
的方案合乎基本法第 26 條, 第 45 條和第 68 條的規定，合乎人大常委的決定，亦合
乎聯合國公民及政治權利公約第 25 條的有關自由和公平選舉的國際標準規定。
3. 當我們接受行政長官的產生方式必須合乎基本法和人大常委會決定的同時，我們認
為政府提出的制度設計必須
 提供一個真正的選擇；
 不可在提名時傾向個別的候選人；
 合乎國際間有關自由公正選舉的標準。

3. 3
4. 我們經過審慎的考慮之後提出本方案，我們遺憾未能建議全套泛民主派曾經提出而
在社會上受到一定支持的三軌方案。由於我們不提出公民提名方案，我們建議經普
選產生的行政長官在當選之後提出重啟五步曲，考慮公民提名。
5. 我們認為政黨提名令行政長官與立法會內的黨派建立連結，對於管治至為重要，而
我們由立法會議員認可的方式，大致上等同於政黨提名。我們認為主要的政治勢力
的代表將可在我們建 議的提名方法下得到提名。我們理解這達到 2014 年香港大學
國際研討會上較多學者視為可以接受的標準。
6. 我們接受選舉方式應照顧到中央政府對於國家安全的考慮。首先，建制派議員會提
名北京接受的候選人；其次，選舉委員會可以因為名單中有中央政府不能接受的候
選人而否決整個名單；再者，北京亦擁有最終的實質任命權。我們認為，提名委員
會在評估整個提名名單時，會審慎行使其權力。
7. 我們認同社會上對於政改破局會影響香港的繁榮和穩定的擔憂。我們重申我們的方
案，務實可行。
【全文完】
2015 年 3 月 7 日

4. 4
(Draft 3)
Response to the January 2015
Constitutional Reform Consultation Document titled:
"Method for Selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 by Universal Suffrage"
Suggested method for selecting the 2017 Chief Executive of Hong Kong:
1. The Nomination Committee should be restructured in order to replace the
corporate votes by individual votes. The structure and proportion of the four
sectors to remain the same.
2. Entry (Nomination) -- 1/10 of 1,200 Nomination Committee to nominate a
prospective candidate.
3. Screening down to 2-3 candidates by Legco members – endorsement by 20
Legco members is needed for each individual candidate to get past the second
stage. There is good chance that there will be two or three candidates being
endorsed by the seventy Legco members.
4. Exit to the CE Candidate List – “The CE Candidate List” will need 50%
approval by Nomination Committee. The Nomination Committee will reject or
accept the entire list. If rejected, all nomination become void and the
nomination process starts from Nomination (Step One) again. There is no
restriction for any participant to seek nomination again.
5. All eligible voters to vote for the Chief Executive. If there are more than two
candidates, second round voting among the top two will proceed until one
candidate gets more than 50% of the valid votes.
6. The elected candidate to be appointed by the Central Government in Beijing.
Explanatory Notes
1. We take the view that Hong Kong's prosperity and stability is closely linked to a widely
accepted 2017 CE Election solution. We also take the view that suggesting Hong Kong
should "Pocket" an electoral arrangement that allows the Nomination Committee to pre-
select candidates individually does not preserve procedural justice. If this is allowed to
happen, the legitimacy of the Chief Executive elected through such a process will not be
preserved and disruptive mass protests will keep coming back in one form or another.
2. We seek a genuine choice without allowing the Nomination Committee to pre-select or
target candidates. Our proposal complies to and seeks reference to Articles 26, 45 and 68
of the Basic Law and the decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People’s
Congress (NPCSC). We also seek genuine democracy in compliance with international
standards for free and fair election, such as Article 25 of the ICCPR.

5. 5
3. While we accept any electoral proposal must address abide by the Basic Law and
decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), we
urge to the Government to propose a solution that:
 Offers a “Genuine Choice” ,
 Does not target individual candidates during the nomination process;
 Conforms to international standards of free and fair election.
4. We propose this election method after thorough deliberation. However, we regret that we
are not able to propose “Three Tracks Nomination Method” proposed by the Pan
Democrats which was well accepted by a significant part of the Community. Since there
is no “Civic Nomination” in our proposal, we urge the Chief Executive to be elected by
universal suffrage in 2017 to re-consider civic nomination and to activate the 5 steps
process after being elected.
5. We take the view that “Political Party Nomination” enables the Administration to have
support in Legco. By and large, our Legco Member endorsement is comparable to
“Political Party Nomination”. We believe that candidates representing major political
groups in Legco could be nominated under our proposed nomination method. We also
take the view that the proposed method should be acceptable to most scholars who
attended the international forum on ICCPR hosted by the University of Hong Kong in
2014.
6. We accept that the electoral proposal should address the national security concerns of the
Central Government. The Central Government will have direct influence on the election
process at three stages: Firstly, the pro establishment Legislative Council members may
nominate at least one candidate who is acceptable by the Central Government in Beijing.
Secondly, the Nomination Committee is also in a position to reject a Candidate List
containing candidate who is not acceptable to Central Government. Thirdly, Beijing may
refuse to appoint an elected Chief Executive who is not acceptable. We believe that the
Nomination Committee would take a balanced view and exercise their nomination power
cautiously when evaluating the full candidate list put before them.
7. We echo the concerns of the community that failure in achieving a reform package would
damage the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. We believe our proposal is a
pragmatic one and that it offers the best chance for a solution.
- END –