Advertisement
Advertisement

An unfair test of integrity and ability

Ever since Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa announced several months ago that in the Legislative Council to be elected in May, only members of 12 specified functional constituencies would be allowed to have foreign nationality or right of abode, I have been asked whether I would give up my British citizenship in order to take part in the Legco geographical constituency election.

On December 16, I said the answer was yes.

Although article 67 of the Basic Law permits not more than 20 per cent (or 12 members) of Legco to have foreign citizenship, Mr Tung has chosen to implement this article in the most wilful way by arbitrarily handpicking 12 functional constituencies. The provisional legislature has rubber-stamped his proposal.

Article 67 was put in the Basic Law because the Chinese Government recognised that hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people have acquired foreign citizenship as an insurance against the excesses of communist rule, and it did not want to create a political system that would completely alienate these people.

However, Mr Tung has turned the concession on nationality into a hurdle for pro-democracy candidates. Those with foreign citizenship cannot run in the geographical constituencies unless they give it up. At least two are reluctant to do so.

I have spoken to lawyers about the possibility of challenging Mr Tung's decision in court, and was told not to waste time and money because they felt the judiciary would side with the administration.

Some people argued Legco members should not have foreign citizenship because they should show commitment.

I have taken part in two Legco direct elections, in 1991 and 1995, and have scored resounding victories on both occasions when the voters knew I was a British citizen.

Thus my conclusion is that the voters' main concern is with the candidates' integrity, ability and track record.

If there is a consensus in the community that Legco members should not have foreign citizenship, we should amend the Basic Law, and I would have no problems with that.

Unless and until the Basic Law is changed, one would expect the Government to implement it fairly.

Commenting on my decision, a diplomat naively said it could be taken as a vote of confidence in the SAR. I quickly disabused him of that.

The truth is that I remain unremittingly pessimistic about the future of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, but will continue to play a pro-active role in the pro-democracy movement.

Given Hong Kong's peculiar situation, foreign nationality is a particularly sensitive subject.

Many of the worthies chosen by Beijing to run Hong Kong have one or more foreign passports.

When questioned by the media, many tried to evade the subject. Others dismissed it as a 'convenience'.

Some of the 36 people recently handpicked as local delegates to the National People's Congress are foreign citizens.

Some reporters asked whether I would re-apply for British or other foreign citizenship in the future. My answer is I would not rule it out.

I may consider doing so if I find myself in grave personal danger. Some people say I should say I would never leave because that would go down well. That is not my style.

It is for the Hong Kong people to judge whether I have the credibility and integrity to serve as their elected representative.

Apart from serving without any conflict of interests and conflict of roles, I want to demonstrate that a politician can be honest and still survive.

Post