Li Fei offers more questions than answers
Comments by the chairman of Beijing's Basic Law Committee are pored over by pundits and lawmakers ahead of a consultation exercise
Will a public consultation on electoral reform due to start next month be anything more than a cosmetic exercise? How will the government explain to the public the assumptions on which it bases the consultation?
Li Fei outlined his position at a lunch yesterday. He echoed comments from other mainland officials that anyone antagonistic towards Beijing could not become chief executive. He did not mention the idea of allowing the public to nominate candidates for the 2017 election, but said the nominating committee stipulated in the Basic Law would have a similar make-up to election committees at previous polls.
And Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who hosted yesterday's lunch and chairs the government task force on political reform, said Li had provided only a "legal viewpoint" and had not set constraints.
Civic Party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah, one of two pan-democrats who attended the lunch, said Li had taken care not to set down anything that could be perceived as a restriction. "He didn't say that public nomination must be going against the constitution," Tong said. "I think he was being very careful."
But Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing said she took Li's remarks to mean that candidates would be screened out even if they enjoyed public support. She said the consultation risked being "meaningless" if the government presented the public with a fait accompli.
Dr Ma Ngok, a Chinese University political scientist, said Li's "restrictive" remarks risked making the consultation futile.
"It is a very strong message that Beijing wants the nominating method to be confined," said Ma. "The government would be seen as leading a cosmetic consultation exercise if Li's remarks are seen to be taken seriously."
Bar Association chairman Paul Shieh Wing-tai said he and fellow lawyers had a "candid" one-hour exchange with Li and said the government would have to explain why it excluded any "legitimate" proposal for reform from the consultation.
"Advocates of any reform proposal have to explain how their plans can comply with the Basic Law and related legal texts," Shieh said. "Likewise, the government or the Basic Law Committee are obliged to elaborate to the public on any exclusion of legitimate proposals. If the rejection is premised on legal grounds, officials have to specify which clauses of the laws the proposal has violated."
