Motion Debate on That this council do now adjourn

Madam Deputy, I think it is fair to say that the resignation of the Chief Executive has taken all of us by surprise. With Hong Kong assuming its new identity as a Special Administrative Region only for the eighth year, we are presented with this constitutional challenge which we must, for the sake of Hong Kong, handle sensibly and rationally.

In the last two weeks, a lot of debate has taken place regarding the way ahead. Hong Kong made headline news again on the BBC, the CNN and other news channels. The current main focus has been on the term of the new Chief Executive, whether it should be two years or five years, and whether it is lawful in either case. This is the topic I would like to concentrate on today.

Many lawyers have quickly concluded that according to Article 46 of the Basic Law, the term of the Chief Executive is five years. So, the new Chief Executive should serve for five years. However, the majority of the public feels that the new Chief Executive should really serve out the remaining term, which is the remaining two years from the day the new Chief Executive will be elected in July.

The Liberal Party's position is that the Basic Law does not deal with any by-election. However, given the new Chief Executive will still be elected by the existing Election Committee, and the method of election of the Chief Executive in 2007 is now subject to a consultation exercise which may result in the broadening of the Election Committee, it is in the interest of Hong Kong to adhere to the schedule already set down for constitutional development.

Since the Basic Law is silent on by-election, clarification is definitely required to ensure that the election and the term of the new Chief Executive would not be threatened by judicial challenge, serious or frivolous. Such clarification can take a number of forms. It can take the form of domestic legislation, which I believe is what the Administration proposing. However, the community is still smarting from the Link REIT fiasco, whereby one person, in fact any person, can bring forward a judicial review to the Court. That would put an immediate stop to the election process. Do we want another saga where Hong Kong would once again become the laughing stock of the world? Do we want to face a scenario where we cannot conduct the election of the new Chief Executive here and therefore have to force the Central Government to appoint a new Chief Executive with an order after six months?

Madam Deputy, I am very much aware of the reluctance which Hong Kong people have against the interpretation of the Basic Law. In fact, I believe the Central Government is equally reluctant as interpretation involves a decision at the highest level and should not be used lightly. However, I think we are facing an extraordinary situation, and in the interest of Hong Kong, certainty is needed. I would like to hear what better ideas the Administration or the opposition parties might have which would safeguard the election of the new Chief Executive in July. If not, the Liberal Party would like to reiterate our position, that is, among all possible choices, an immediate interpretation of the Basic Law to clarify the legislative intent by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress is still the most viable option.

Thank you.