If you feel ain’t nobody got time to read the epic transcript or watch her speech, here’s our edited summary of the key points of the government proposal on electoral reform, as presented to the Legislative Council yesterday:
– The existing nominating committee, comprising of members from four main sectors of society, remains unchanged. The composition of the committee will also be based on the existing arrangement.
– Candidates for the 2017 chief executive election are required to collect between 120 and 240 recommendations from nominating committee members in order to qualify. This arrangement will only qualify 5-10 people to proceed to the the next stage. Each member of the committee should back only one person.
– A secret ballot among the nominating committee would then select up to three out of the qualified candidates to participate in the election; each committee member must endorse at least two qualified candidates, and each nominee must collect more than 600 out of a possible 1,200 endorsements from the committee.
– The top three (or two) people with the sufficient endorsements can run for the election, in which Hong Kong’s five million eligible voters can then participate.
– The government proposes a one-off “first-pass-the-post” system, whereby the candidate with the most votes wins. Unmarked ballot papers will be invalid and a majority vote is unnecessary.
Lam says the proposals are “achieving universal and equal suffrage […] in strict compliance with the Basic Law and the relevant decisions” of China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) .
She claims the government has “fully taken into account the views expressed by various sectors of the community”.
Chief Secretary Lam added that the plan is open to amendment in the future, but that is “to be considered by the then chief executive in accordance with the actual situation prevailing at that time”.
She also calls for “pause and reflection” from the pan-democrats and believes the public would be “greatly disappointed” if the plan was vetoed.
