LAU NAI-KEUNG

In the 2000 US presidential election, the result was so close that it had to be decided by a panel of judges. Once their verdict was delivered, challenger Al Gore gracefully conceded defeat, although he actually won more of the popular vote. All contesting parties abided by the rules. In the latest US election, the results were also close. But again, once the winner was declared, all squabbling stopped. This is the spirit of the rule of law, which is the foundation of parliamentary democracy; a very important element that is conspicuously missing in the Hong Kong political scene.

The National People's Congress Standing Committee ruled in April that universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 was not an option. According to the Chinese constitution and the Basic Law, this ruling was final. In fact, it was made with the intention of stopping all debate on the subject.

But in Hong Kong, at least among the democratic camp, some people do not respect any authority or set rules. Immediately after the ruling, the head of Hong Kong University's law faculty, Johannes Chan Man-mun, declared, either out of ignorance or defiance, that the ruling was not binding. Since then, the political squabbling on the topic has never ceased, and now has reached a crescendo.

Many politicians in the democratic camp, notably members of the Article 45 Concern Group, have taken the more rational position of not insisting on the 2007 and 2008 timetable. Even shortly after the Legislative Council election, they stated on many occasions that as long as there was a fixed timetable, then 2012 was fine for them.

Like all politicians, however, they are able to switch positions. Now, they are not only standing firm on the 2007 and 2008 timeline, but they also support the idea of a government-sponsored referendum on the issue. This has now become the united stance of all the 25 members of the democratic camp.

The Standing Committee's ruling is, of course, final, say the democrats, but the committee members could always change their mind in the light of new information. And a referendum would show Beijing that people in Hong Kong want direct elections in 2007 and 2008. The argument for this is somewhat dubious, especially from those with a legal background. Put in a Hong Kong setting, it is like asking the Court of Final Appeal to reverse a ruling made only six months ago. It is possible, of course, but highly unlikely.

Also in the Hong Kong context, in the beginning of the new Legco session, the newly elected legislator for the welfare constituency, Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung, moved to reverse the previous session's decision on further cuts to welfare payments for the sick and elderly.

Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a member of the Article 45 Concern Group, opposed the motion on the grounds that one should uphold the authority of the Legco decision. What about the authority of the Standing Committee? Should that be upheld, too?

The democrats claim that they do not intend to use the results of a referendum to put pressure on the Standing Committee. If this is the case, then there is no point wasting public resources to undertake such a meaningless exercise.

What is final is final. No matter whether we like it or not, we have to accept the decision, and move on. And if we do not, this can be construed as a clear sign that Hong Kong's democrats are much too immature to handle parliamentary democracy under the rule of law.

To many of Hong Kong's democrats, "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung is their hero. But anarchy and the parliamentary system do not mix.

Lau Nai-keung is a Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegate.