Organizers of the illegal "Occupy Central" movement announced on Thursday that the June 22 popular vote, which they call a referendum, will ask voters to make two choices. One is to pick one of three constitutional reform plans proposed by the most radical organizations in Hong Kong - or to abstain. The other is to choose one of three answers to what they term a "question of principle".

That multiple-choice question will read something like this: "If the SAR government's constitutional reform plan is not up to international standards, the Legislative Council (LegCo) should (a) veto it or (b) not veto it." And there will be a third option - abstain.

The three initiators of the "Occupy Central" campaign announced the addition of a second question on the ballot at a press conference on May 23. They said this was to attract more Hong Kong residents to the June 22 poll. They are worried that there may not be enough votes cast to give it credibility. The problem is that they have yet to define these international standards for us.

I am amazed that the "Occupy Central" leaders have failed to do this. They are turning the exercise into a joke by assuming everybody knows the definition of these standards.

Like it or not, the reality is that nations worldwide have yet to agree on a universal code of conduct regarding democracy. Widely recognized principles certainly exist, but these are sometimes sidestepped due to national interests. As for democratic elections, most countries follow their own laws rather than "international standards".

I hope the "Occupy" leaders do not expect us to believe international standards are whatever the leading democracies (read Western powers) say they are. The governments and media of these countries have not been uniformly specific on this subject either. Furthermore there are abundant examples of governments bending certain principles in matters concerning individual rights and calling upon the caveat of "the national interest" for their own country's unique situation. So who is to say what a country can and cannot do?

Remember the Patriot Act which United States Congress passed following the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? This act allowed the US federal government to spy on the private communication of foreign, as well as American, citizens. It also gave more scope, within the law, for intelligence agencies and the military to obtain what they classed as "valuable information", by placing suspected individuals under physical and psychological duress. Even if such practices have ended, as Washington recently promised, it does not mean they will not be reintroduced again in the future. Don't expect any international standards on this issue in the future.

Sometimes, a tacit understanding is acceptable and may even be necessary in certain situations. But not when members of the public who would be eligible to vote are asked to accept or reject an unspecified standard. Hong Kong residents are expected to decide, by voting, whether LegCo should accept or reject the SAR government's constitutional development plan if it is not up to international standards. It is not clear why the organizers have not told us what international standards they are talking about. Are we supposed to know because they assume we do? Do they expect us not to care so they can say the government's plan does not meet international standards? They might then try to force LegCo to veto it, regardless of what these standards are, or whether they actually exist.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 06/03/2014 page9)