Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung recently said that the government was currently studying submissions received during the second round of consultations on political reform. He also expressed hopes that a consensus would be reached on three major issues. One of them was to establish a lower threshold for anyone aspiring to be nominated by the Nominating Committee (NC) and a ceiling on the recommendations which each aspirant seeking nomination could obtain from NC members (i.e., the number of member recommendations). A slew of proposals have emerged with the number of recommendations ranging from 100 to 120 or 150 by NC members in order to qualify for the next stage.

The cap on NC member recommendations could be viewed as a pre-selection in the nomination process. The upper limits currently under consideration for member recommendations are 200, 240 or 500. Yuen said "the final outcome would depend on our thorough discussions and research".

A lower threshold for would-be candidates is now generally accepted by most political parties and social sectors in Hong Kong. This suggestion seems pretty harmless because, firstly, it does not contradict the Basic Law and the decisions of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC). Moreover, a lower threshold would guarantee a sufficient pool of potential candidates from which NC members could choose. Additionally, to enact such an arrangement would be relatively simple. As for the required recommendations for anyone presented for nomination by the NC, the government could refer to the current mechanism used by the existing 1,200-member Election Committee (EC) to select CE election candidates. The number of EC member endorsements required in the last CE election stood at 150. However, some say the required recommendations should this time be lower than 150; otherwise, the government's commitment to a competitive nominating process will be futile. The required number of recommendations could be reduced to 80, or even 60.

The outstanding difference between the NC and the current EC is the possible arrangement of "member recommendations". This aims to set a cap on the number of recommendations each aspiring nomination candidate can amass for formal (final) nomination. This suggestion requires careful consideration, particularly under the following circumstances: First of all, if more than half of NC members recommend one particular aspiring nomination candidate, that person would be considered a certainty for CE election candidacy. This may render the legally binding clause of "institutional nomination" by the NC in the Basic Law irrelevant and the NC a mere rubber stamp.

Secondly, a higher cap on NC member recommendations would result in a smaller number of candidates for nomination and leave the NC with a more limited choice. While it does not violate the Basic Law, such a stringent requirement may undermine the democratic spirit of the law, which is to motivate the voting public to participate in the election of the CE by universal suffrage.

Finally, anyone with more recommendations than others could be seen by NC members as a "safe pick" when it comes to nomination, in anticipation of possible "rewards" coming their way if that person eventually wins the CE election.

It is essential to set a limit on the number of recommendations. This is in keeping with the democratic spirit of broad representation and fair competition. But it is also conducive to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

As Rimsky Yuen has stated, the suggested cap on NC member recommendations is 200, 240 or 300. This means between 4 and 6 aspiring nomination candidates. There must be a set of criteria in order to decide which is best. I believe this can be summarized as follows:

First, it should allow the NC to nominate two or three CE election candidates from the right number of aspiring nomination candidates in order to reflect the democratic spirit. Only in this way can the nomination process be as widely accepted as possible. Otherwise, the NC may be blamed for low voter turnout in the election of the CE and for leaving the elected CE vulnerable to further obstacles in administration than anyone can handle while putting the legitimacy of the NC in doubt.

Second, it should allow reasonable room for democratic consultation. Apparently it would be easier for the NC to nominate three candidates from six aspiring nomination candidates rather than, for example only four. This is because there would be more room to "negotiate" for the sake of equal representation and perhaps the reputation of democratic nomination.

Third, the number of aspiring nomination candidates should be more than the candidates nominated by the NC. If three candidates are to be nominated, the appropriate number of hopefuls should be five or more. This means the proposed upper limit of 300 recommendations per aspiring candidate would be unacceptable because it may leave the NC with only four candidates from which to choose. The following dispute over who is in and who is out in a situation like this can be too difficult for society to handle.

The discussion on setting a cap on NC member recommendations is crucial to the government in its efforts to reassure the public that the electoral system featuring universal suffrage can be improved upon after 2017. However, it by no means suggests the criteria for CE election candidates can be "lowered".

The author is a veteran journalist based in Hong Kong.

(HK Edition 04/01/2015 page11)