Unworthy ignorance
THERE has never been any uncertainty about the nationality restrictions that apply to candidates in this year's Legislative Council elections. As far back as 1990, the Basic Law made it clear that anyone with the right of abode overseas would not be allowed to stand in most constituencies.
In 1995, extensive publicity was given to the Preliminary Working Committee's proposal that this include beneficiaries of the British nationality scheme, even though Beijing refuses to recognise their passports. In 1996, the Preparatory Committee's acceptance of this recommendation was widely reported.
If anyone politically active in Hong Kong was still in the slightest doubt about the restrictions that apply to those with the right of abode overseas, the publicity surrounding the passage of the Legislative Council Ordinance last autumn should have dispelled this. The threat by ousted legislator Emily Lau Wai-hing to challenge the Government's decision that they could only stand in 12 designated functional constituencies was headline news at the time.
Nonetheless seven candidates, who put themselves forward as sufficiently competent to represent the people of Hong Kong, now claim to have been unaware of these well-publicised restrictions and have had to withdraw their nominations after the rules were brought to their attention.
Several of those who withdrew were destined for certain defeat on May 24 and so, had their candidacies gone ahead, stood to find themselves without either legislative seat and passport. Nor is credible for those whose foreign passports had expired (such as Democrat Albert Chan Wai-yip) to say they believed they were no longer covered by the rule. The Basic Law makes clear that disqualification is dependent upon right of abode not passports: and Mr Chan was specifically questioned on the issue by this newspaper as long ago as 1991.
It is important to remember that this is not a restriction which even democrats oppose in principle, although some dispute the manner in which it is being applied. There is a widespread consensus that those who seek to represent the community should be committed to Hong Kong, and that renouncing the right of abode overseas is one way of showing this.