//Edward Wong via Steve Chan 1. What she says here is really the nonsense of nonsense 2. The only bases for which she claims the proposal is inconsistent with the BL are the reference to a "nominating committee" in art 45 and the 2007 NPCSC decision (both of which, incidentally, are constitutional anomalies that are very seldom seen let alone used in real democracies). 3. The relevant parts of art 45(2) reads: "The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures. "/"行政長官... 最終 ... 由一個有廣泛代表性的提名委員會按民主程序提名後普選產生 ...". 4. I accept of course there is a requirement of the establishment of a nominating committee, but the exact manner in which that committee is to exercise its power to nominate candidates has not been precisely delineated anywhere in the BL (nor for that matter anywhere in any NPCSC Decision or Interpretation), being only vaguely denoted by the phrase "in accordance with democratic procedures". 5. It follows that, save by way of another NPCSC Decision or Interpretation, which issuance would be most unwise and counter-productive given the increasing heat in HK of the current talk about political reform, there is no reason to doubt that even the most restrictive reading of art 45(2) - having regard in particular to the epithet "democratic" - must allow for compelling (legally or effectively) the nominating committee to accept nominations submitted and endorsed by a sufficient number of HK residents. 6. As for the claim that the composition of the nomination committee must somehow mirror the sectoral divisions of the Election Committee, it is equally unable to hold any water. All that the 2007 NPCSC Decision (which legitimacy I only very reluctantly accept anyway) provides is that "The nominating committee ****MAY**** be formed with reference to the current provisions regarding the Election Committee in Annex I to the Hong Kong Basic Law."/"提名委員會****可****參照香港基本法附件一有關選舉委員會的現行規定組成。" (emphasis added) As anybody with some knowledge of English grammar should know, the auxiliary verb "may" gives flexibility, making it clear, therefore, that there is no obligation whatsoever when devising the nomination committee to refer to the provisions governing the Election Committee.//
Posted on: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:37:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015