|
Home>News Center>China | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Barrister Lee 'must apologize for deception'
Fourteen Hong Kong members of the National Committee of
the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) issued a public
letter Monday, criticizing legislator Martin Lee for having attended a hearing
at the US Senate on Hong Kong's constitutional development. We note with indignation the recent trip Martin Lee and two other members of the Legislative Council made to the US to testify at the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the political review in Hong Kong. It is highly inappropriate for legislators in one country to testify in the legislature of another country regarding the internal matters in their own country. The National People's Congress, for example, would never summon US congressmen to fly over to Beijing to testify on human rights violations in relation to the Patriot Acts in the US. And should the NPC be so indiscreet as to commit such a transgression, no self-respecting US legislator worth his salt would oblige to engage in such common indecency. In his testimony, Martin Lee asserted, "the Basic Law would allow the election of our chief executive in 2007, and of the entire Legislative Council in 2008 by universal suffrage, subject to a change to the electoral rules according to certain defined procedures." We failed to find such allowance in the entire Basic Law. The closest stipulations we can find are Clause No.7 of Annex 1 of the Basic Law, which states, "If there is a need to amend the method for selecting the chief executive for the terms subsequent to the year 2007, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the chief executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval." Also Section III of Annex 2 of the Basic Law, which states, "With regard to the method for forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and its procedures for voting on bills and motions after 2007, if there is a need to amend the provisions of this Annex, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the council and the consent of the chief executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record." There is clearly no such allowance as asserted in Lee's testimony. There is no mention even of universal suffrage. The acid test is not "a change to the electoral rules according to certain defined procedures", as testified by Martin Lee, but instead, "if there is need to amend", as clearly stipulated by the Basic Law. Martin Lee's testimony was not only misleading. In so much as the statement came from a barrister by profession, it was also plainly a lie-twisting exercise. It is safe to conclude that Lee's testimony in a foreign legislature was a lie deliberately fabricated to mislead the international community in order to discredit the SAR government, the central government and "One Country, Two Systems". But in the eyes of some observers, such improper behaviour on the part of a popularly elected lawmaker serves only to discredit the judgment of voters and, in turn, cast doubt on the system of universal suffrage as a whole. This is no help to democratization at all. We therefore demand a public apology from Martin Lee for deception and unbecoming behaviour in a foreign country. |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
