Guest Comments by Audrey Eu

Editor's Note: The writer leads the Civic Party, a political group at the forefront in Hong Kong’s long battle for universal suffrage. Five pro-democracy legislators have resigned to force Hong Kong-wide by-elections as a referendum on the need for valid universal suffrage. Representatives of the central government in Beijing call the referendum move “illegal”.

HONG KONG -- Li Fei, deputy director of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, has said in Beijing that civil law can’t be applied to interpret public law and that it’s a legal misunderstanding to claim that whatever isn’t prohibited by the Basic Law is permitted.

In Hong Kong’s Five District Referendum movement, we call on people to vote in favor of true universal suffrage and the eventual abolition of functional constituencies to reflect public opinion. Whether in public law or civil law, the referendum movement doesn’t contravene the Basic Law. Otherwise, the Hong Kong government would have taken prosecution action.

Some things may not be legally binding, but that doesn’t make them illegal. For example, on July 1, 2003, half a million people took to the streets to demand that the Hong Kong government shelve Article 23 legislation. Through their actions, these citizens spoke their minds. The demonstration wasn’t legally binding or illegal. Similarly, the Five District Referendum reflects public opinion through votes. The poll results, which aren’t a legally binding referendum, are in no sense illegal.

Governments sincerely wanting to implement true universal suffrage, as promised in the Basic Law, shouldn’t fear the people’s voices.

The Hong Kong Government only consults the public on a constitutional arrangement for 2012, without producing a roadmap or saying all functional-constituency seats will be abolished. Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law say the methods for selecting Hong Kong’s chief executive and forming its Legislative Council will be specified in light of the “actual situation” in Hong Kong. Therefore, the Five District Referendum does what the government should, but fails to do. It considers the “actual situation” in Hong Kong. It allows Hong Kong people to speak their minds through ballot boxes.

The non-stop, high-profile and oppressive attacks on the referendum movement aim to intimidate Hong Kong people so they won’t vote on May 16. Again, I appeal to Hong Kong voters to exercise their civic rights to demand the abolition of functional-constituency seats so as to bring about a more just and fair society.

ARCHIVES