In the current discussions on political reform, the so-called process of “public nomination” has sparked fervent debate. For some, it has become a banner for taking the political moral high ground. Others, however, regard it as an attempt to replace the legal framework enshrined in the Basic Law with “civil rights” and so-called “international standards”, to hijack the public consultation on political reform.

“Citizens should enjoy the right of nomination in the election”; this is undoubtedly a resounding slogan. However, faced with the possibility of numerous “participants” and without a formal mechanism in place for verification and preliminary processing, a dignified election forum for the Chief Executive will be reduced to a platform for divergent objectives. This will complicate, hamper and possibly obstruct the election process entirely, and may even render it an international farce. Therefore, the election of leaders in many countries adopts pre-election mechanisms as a form of preliminarily processing, to disqualify certain “participants” who lack the appropriate credentials or apparent competitiveness, culminating in publicly approved “candidates” standing for popular vote. This mechanism for preliminary approval, processing, coordination and verification may vary according to national circumstances and policies, but a mechanism is always present.

In Hong Kong, relevant discussions began as far back as when the Basic Law was being drafted, the final conclusion of which is clearly stated in Article 45 of the Basic Law; namely, selection “by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative Nominating Committee in accordance with democratic procedures”.

At present, what some people call “public nomination” is an attempt to nullify the Nominating Committee and instead to select “candidates” directly. This is an obvious contravention of Article 45 of the Basic Law. The public nomination of “participants” (to the Nominating Committee) is naturally reasonable, but the public nomination of “candidates” (for popular vote) circumvents the democratic process of the Nominating Committee. It attempts to build a platform beyond the legal framework of the Basic Law. Surely, this will not gain approval from Hong Kong citizens or the central government.

These principles are obvious. It is not possible for those proposing “public nomination” not to have considered them. Perhaps there are some who believe that through fabricating popular opinion they will create the popular misconception that citizens were deprived of their civil rights to nominate “participants”. This subsequently gives rise to popular discontent and anti-government sentiment. Although this may help get public support in the short term, over time it will cause a further fragmentation of society. It is also unfavorable to developing a rational environment for discussion on political reform. If universal suffrage is not achieved and the political system stalls, it will be hard to avoid a public backlash.

Today, as the end of the consultation period nears, it is our duty to explain that “public nomination” really means that citizens are trying to circumnavigate the Nominating Committee and directly nominate “candidates”. This is diametrically opposed to the principles of the Basic Law. Citizens should be discerning in their judgments and beware of politicians who seek to fish in troubled waters.

Published 14.3.2014
China Daily

The author is director of Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies; deputy chairman and secretary general of China Energy Fund Committee, an independent think tank on energy and China-related issues.