Statement of the Progressive Lawyers Group in relation to Government’s proposal for the method for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 (Please scroll down for English)
(a) 提名委員會（「提委會」 ）將由1,200人組成。這1,200人將由一小撮香港人（基於立法設計，絕大部分都是親建制的）及不同類型的實體選擇出來；他們與其隸屬的提委會界別其實未必有任何關連。
(c) 惟每一位（最多2至3 位）給予香港人進行投票的行政長官候選人必需首先取得超過600名提委會委員支持。從香港人手上獲得最多票數的行政長官候選人將被提交予中央政府任命為行政長官。
1. The Government has today released its proposal for the Legislative Council’s consideration on the method for selecting the Chief Executive (“CE”) in2017 (“Proposal”). The Proposal adheres to the Standing Committee of the National People Congress’s decision of 31 August 2014 (“831 Decision”):
(a) The Nominating Committee (“NC”) will consist of 1,200 people. They will be selected by a small minority of(mostly pro-establishment by legislative design) Hong Kongers, as well as by an assortment of entities which may or may not in fact have any connection with their designated NC sector.
(b) Up to 10 persons who each have the support of at least 120 NC members will be put to the NC to consider whether such a person can become a CE candidate.
(c) However, a person can only be presented as a CE candidate to Hong Kongers for voting if he or she is amongst 2 to 3 persons who can garner more than 600 NC members’ support. The person who obtains the most votes will then be presented to the Central Government for appointment as CE.
2. In submissions dated 27 January 2015, the Progressive Lawyers Group noted that:
(a) To the extent that the 831 Decision sought to impose a specific framework for the method for selecting the CE in 2017, it is not legally binding.
(b) Any proposal which adhere to the 831 Decision’s framework is NOT universal suffrage.
(c) If any such proposal is adopted as “universal suffrage”, it would give the false impression that the “ultimate aim” of selecting the CE by “universal suffrage” as stipulated under the Basic Law has been met. It would then be open to those in power to argue (wrongly, in our view) that there is no legal requirement to amend the method for selecting the CE in the future.
3. Against this background, we note the following in relation to the Proposal:
(a) The composition of the NC is clearly unrepresentative of Hong Kongers overall.
(b) The allowing of anyone with 120 NC members’ support to be considered as a potential CE candidate is a smokescreen. Regardless of whether this “entry” threshold is 120 NC members, 12 NC members or even 1 NC member, a person requires support from more than half of all NC members, namely 600 members to become a CE candidate. In other words, Hong Kongers will ultimately only get to choose between 2 to 3 CE candidates from the same political camp.
(c) Once Hong Kongers have been denied a genuine choice for CE in this way, in matters not how the voting by the populace takes place. Whoever is elected by purported popular vote would still not be elected by way of universal suffrage.
4. The Progressive Lawyers Group is disappointed by the disrespect paid by those in power to the rule of law in twisting clear legal and constitutional concepts for their own ulterior political ends. We therefore ask that:
(a) the Proposal be rejected and withdrawn; and
(b) the Government acts swiftly on its constitutional obligation to present a proposal on the method for selecting the CE in 2017 and beyond that does in fact constitute universal suffrage as a matter of domestic and international law.
Progressive Lawyers Group
22 April 2015