• Thu
  • Dec 18, 2014
  • Updated: 9:46pm
NewsHong Kong

Beijing could veto Hong Kong chief executive candidates: official think tank

Mainland think tank includes separate chapter on HK in its annual Blue Book on rule of law for first time amid debate over chief executive poll

PUBLISHED : Monday, 24 February, 2014, 11:49pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 25 February, 2014, 8:46am

A mainland think tank has for the first time included a separate chapter on Hong Kong in its annual Blue Book on rule of law, raising the stakes as the city engages in a heated debate over arrangements for electing the chief executive in 2017.

The chapter was compiled for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences by a legal academic at City University, Lin Feng. Lin wrote that the central government had reportedly vetoed ministerial candidates recommended by the Hong Kong government and so it would be "definitely possible" for Beijing to veto any chief executive candidate deemed unacceptable.

Separately, Li Lin, head of the academy's institute of law, said an interpretation of the Basic Law could settle any dispute over political reform, although such a suggestion was not included in the report. Li said that Beijing had the ultimate right to appoint the chief executive but that an interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress might be needed to decide how to implement that right.

"If the dispute [over reform] is too big, it would be hard to forge a consensus through deliberation. At the end, we might have to … seek an interpretation," he said in Beijing yesterday.

Lin told the Post that he was invited to write the chapter in the middle of last year, adding that it was "logical and sensible" for the academy to include a separate chapter on Hong Kong in its annual report.

The Legislative Council's chairman, Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, said the Blue Book's argument did not reflect Beijing's official thinking. He said the city would suffer political turmoil if the central government refused to appoint the chief executive elected by universal suffrage in 2017.

Veteran China-watcher Johnny Lau Yui-siu said the academy was not a high-level think tank. "It is more about how mainland scholars interpret the will of Beijing," he said.

The chapter by Lin lamented the government's failure to offer an explanation for its decision to grant only two free-to-air TV licences. PCCW's Hong Kong Television Entertainment and i-Cable's Fantastic TV received licences. Ricky Wong Wai-kay's Hong Kong Television Network did not.

Meanwhile, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has invited lawmakers and officials from the central government's liaison office for four breakfast meetings, starting from March 18, to discuss political reform.

Civic Party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah said not every pan-democrat would attend the meetings and he urged Lam to arrange separate meetings for parties to allow for more fruitful discussions.

The barrister added an interpretation of the Basic Law would only solve constitutional problems, not political ones. "I hope the central government could stay restrained," he said.

The government began a five-month consultation on reform in December. Electoral reform in Hong Kong will require Beijing's approval and a two-thirds majority in the Legislative Council.



For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

So what's your contribution, Willie?
I agree with Lucifer's point entirely.
Beijing barely comprehends the concept of rule of law and certainly does not care about it. It will, however, utilise rule BY law where it's expedient.
Any pretence of scholarship around the exercise of power is just a smokescreen for the credulous. The power is the thing.
Great. I am still waiting for the Blue Book on advanced technology from the Somali Think Tank.
Ant Lee
Annual Blue Book on rule of law in China? Dont need to read the whole article to see what it is getting at.
hard times !
as every Hongkonger with sense well knows that our chief executive once elected, has to be appointed by Beijing authorities which can veto the appointment. That explains why local pro-democracy candidates in the Chief Executive Election can never hope for winning the top post in town. Yet once the chief executive elected by qualified voters in town is not appointed, the uproar or response in town will be shocking and it is harmful to the harmonious relationship and mutual trust between Beijing and Hong Kong !
Rule of Law in the context of the Chinese legal system? At best this description makes a person roll his or her eyes! Just like the other so-called legal scholar trying to lecture HK on capitalism. This raises grave concerns on the standard of teaching by Mr Lin who teaches law students at CityU!
Agree that at this stage the Chinese legal system is far from perfect. But please look at the development of Chinese legal system in the past 30 years, or at least in the past 10 years. I do see quite a huge improvement in the legal system. Basically you don't have the rule of law or even the concept of law in the cultural revolution era, but yet China built everything up since then. There are a lot of components in the legal systems, e.g. practitioners, official's respect of laws, people's trust on law, etc, which needs a long time to develop. No developed countries can build a sound legal system in such a short time and I am truly amazed by the development of legal system (despite still in early stage) in the past 3 decades (think how long it takes for US or UK to have a sound legal system?). You may of course laugh at the annual Blue book based on the current status, but I feel rather encouraged by this Blue book because at least it shows China is moving to the direction to really moving towards the rule of law.
While it is probably right to say that local pro-democracy candidates have a slimmer chance of winning the top post if Beijing has the right to veto any CE candidates we could put a positive spin in it if Beijing has to clearly outline the reasons for any candidates that it vetoes. Surely they cannot veto a candidate because of his/her political affiliation. I opine this is at least better than screening by a nominating committee which comprises mainly puppets and who are not accountable to the voters in HK. The pan-democrats should aim to field candidates that are not antagonistic towards Beijing as ultimately he/she will need to work closely with the mainland. Beijing also needs to show its openness in accepting candidates that are not on strictly cosy terms with them.
Smart aleck comment does not contribute to the discussion.
if the CE candidate have duly passed the screening electoral commitee...and even won the popular vote of the HK people....but just because beijing people didn't like him and veto his right for CE post....then, what's the use of this election??? MAY I ASKED ??? SIMPLY AN IDIOT and STUPID DEMOCRATIC ELECTION !!!!!!!!!!!
Chuchu, I absolutely agree with you that screening committee is not a good way to eliminate candidates based on political affiliation and I don't particularly trust the nominating committee to voice our view without consideration their own benefits. I hope there is a better way to find a capable candidate which "love Hong Kong and love China"...it's just I couldn't find. Perhaps we should accept the system as it is but Beijing also gives HongKonger a power (say when there is over 350k, or 5% of population voters voting against CE) to initiate a mechanism to remove CE if he does not do the job. It makes sure CE is held accountable to Hongkongers but not just limited beneficiaries.



SCMP.com Account