I refer to the article 'Don't deny democracy' (August 19), by Keane Shum.
The merits or otherwise of democracy and universal suffrage were not the subject of my article 'Be careful of leader touting half-truths' (August 6).
I was pointing out that Martin Lee's earlier article did not give the whole truth about provisions in the Basic Law regarding the election in 2007 and the power of appointment of the central government.
Mr Shum, responding to my article, said: 'Mr Leung asked what Mr Lee's solution would be if Chinese leaders exercised their power under the Basic Law and refused to appoint the returned candidate.' He asked: 'What power?' This power is found under Article 45 of the Basic Law, which says the chief executive shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the central government. This power of appointment applies also to principal officials (article 48[5]).
Mr Shum also quoted the Basic Law to say that 'the ultimate aim is to select the chief executive by universal suffrage'. There are two other clauses in the same article, namely, 'in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress' and 'by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures'. Mr Shum asked for an argument that 'relies not on legalese and rhetoric'. My article did not argue for or against universal suffrage. It provided the complete provisions of the Basic Law, which is what we have and all we have.
All the points made by Mr Shum in his article about democracy were well debated during the Basic Law drafting process between 1985 and 1990.