In the press
Updated: 2013-05-09 06:52
By Ngau Jyut(HK Edition)
|
|||||||||
What's 'Occupy' up to?
It goes without saying that "Occupy Central" is against the law in many ways. Even the initiator has admitted that participants will submit to arrest by law enforcement officials by the end of their actions and plead guilty. However, its violation of the local security regulations is less destructive when compared with its wicked nature, which is going against the Basic Law and subverting the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. Clearly, the campaign is set to trigger a constitutional crisis and social disorder in Hong Kong.
The movement's initiator has repeatedly vowed that their intention is never to challenge China's sovereignty in Hong Kong or seek independency. He also emphasized that his campaign is nothing like the 'color revolution' and will respect the central government's decision to deny the legitimacy of the Chief Executive (CE) elected who is found not in line with Beijing's stance and interest. His words cannot be taken so easily because devils are always in the details.
In another speech he openly declared that "if the universal suffrage plan provided by the SAR government is unacceptable to the general public due to its inconsistency with the international standard, the plan will probably be rejected by the pan-democracy lawmakers. Under this condition, the small-circle election will inevitably be followed again, which is an injustice law needed to be overthrown." According to him, the "injustice law" includes not only the local laws for elections of the CE, but also the Basic Law and the National People's Congress Standing Committee's (NPCSC) decision to set the objectives of universal suffrage and guide the future development of Hong Kong democracy.
The NPCSC guaranteed in 2007 that by 2017 Hong Kong can enjoy a universal suffrage of the CE, provided that the timetable must followed the "five-step process" which people often mention. Hence, going through the "five-step process" is required to achieve a universal suffrage of the CE. Missing any step in the process will make the result ineffective. Such being the case, the NPCSC has beforehand prepared corresponding solutions: "If no amendment is made to the method for selecting the Chief Executive the method for selecting the Chief Executive used for the preceding term shall continue to apply." The decision is perfectly reasonable. With new laws not being produced, the preceding methods should rightly be followed.
The author is a current affairs commentator. This is an excerpted translation of her article published in Hong Kong Commercial Daily on May 8.
(HK Edition 05/09/2013 page1)