It appears almost certain that the proposed two-year term of office for the next chief executive will be challenged in the local courts. The way the matter is handled - by the central government, by the Hong Kong administration, and by the local judiciary - will have a profound impact on the rule of law.
The present law appears quite clear. Article 46 of the Basic Law says: 'The term of office of the chief executive ... shall be five years. He or she may serve for not more than two consecutive terms.'
Article 53 says that where the chief executive vacates the office before the end of his or her term, a new leader shall be selected within six months. And, under Section Three of the Chief Executive Election Ordinance, the term of office 'shall be five years'.
Unlike in other countries, such as the US, there is no provision anywhere for the remainder of a chief executive's term to be served by his or her successor. Thus, it is hard to see how a two-year term can be justified.
The power of the courts to interpret the law only arises where the language of the statutory provision is unclear. Where the wording is clear, there is no basis to change the meaning through an interpretation.
The lawful way to implement a two-year term of office is to amend both the Chief Executive Election Ordinance and the Basic Law.
The present controversy is a test of the rule of law. Is it to be regarded as a system of rules that even a government must abide by, or is it just something to be obeyed only by the people that it governs?