Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam said on Thursday there is little chance "civil nomination", "party nomination" and "three-track format" will be included in the next stage of public consultation over constitutional development plans. This is because they lack statutory grounds, would make it very difficult to achieve consensus and pose many challenges in implementing.

His view was shared by Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, who heads the leading group for the constitutional reform. Lam also noted that Hong Kong is a free society - but all constitutional reform plans must comply with the Basic Law and relevant decisions of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC). Considering that all three plans for voters to choose in the "e-referendum" next month require "civil nomination", she also questioned whether they constitute a legitimate choice.

Lam, Tam and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen are tasked with overseeing preparations for the next phase of Hong Kong's constitutional development. Their comments reflect the views of the SAR government. As far as arrangements for the 2017 Chief Executive election by universal suffrage are concerned, the central government has made itself very clear. The bottom line is the whole process must comply with the Basic Law and relevant decisions of the NPCSC. Although the SAR government has yet to present its official plan for the 2017 CE election to the NPCSC, there is no question the government plan will fully comply with the Basic Law and NPCSC decisions. That is why the three-member leading group repeatedly emphasized in recent months that public discussions about various proposals for universal suffrage should make sure they all follow the law.

Some from the opposition camp went so far as to suggest that an "international standard" could override the Basic Law. That is completely untrue. The fact is no such "international standard" exists and no sovereign countries in the world allow any international convention to unconditionally take precedence over their constitutions or domestic laws. In Hong Kong's case the right to provide a final interpretation of the Basic Law rests with the NPCSC. This is because Hong Kong is only a special administrative region of the country, not an independent political entity. No institution, organization or individual in Hong Kong is in a position to decide whether any international convention can take precedence over local laws. Until the NPCSC decides otherwise, the Basic Law and relevant decisions of the NPCSC remain the only standard for Hong Kong's constitutional reform plans.

(HK Edition 05/16/2014 page9)