Hong Kong’s Legislative Council Votes Down Chief Executive Election Reform
Hong Kong’s Legislative Council Votes Down
Chief Executive Election Reform
June 22, 2015
On June 18, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (Legco) defeated a proposal to reform the city’s Chief
Executive (CE) selection method by a vote of 28 to 8, dimming the prospects for election reforms in
Hong Kong before the 2017 CE election. To pass, the proposal had to receive the support of at least 47 of
the 70 Legco members (see CRS Report R44031, Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: The 2017
Election Reforms). While the outcome was not surprising, the final tally was unexpected—the result of a
walkout by 32 Legco members in an attempt to force a lack of quorum (35 members) and stop the vote.
The official vote was taken with 37 Legco members present (including the Legco president, who did not
vote). The 27 “pan-democrats” who had publicly pledged to vote against the proposal did so, as did one
more member.
Pan-democrat Legco member Alan Leong told reporters, “The message we sent is that Hong Kong people
do not want this fake democratic package.” A spokesperson for China’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs
Office stated, “Such a result is a departure from the mainstream public opinion of Hong Kong. It is also
not what the central government likes to see.” The last joint university rolling public opinion survey taken
before the Legco vote found 47.0% of respondents supported passage of the election reforms and 38.0%
opposed passage.
The official resolution, as submitted by Chief Secretary Carrie Lam on June 17, would have created a
1,200-member Nominating Committee, largely based on the current Election Committee that nominates
and selects the CE as required by China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) in
an August 2014 decision. That decision triggered widespread public demonstrations in Hong Kong last
year (see CRS Report IF10005, Protests in Hong Kong: The “Umbrella Movement” (Update)). The pan-
democrats opposed the resolution because they said the Nominating Committee would have precluded the
nomination of a pro-democracy candidate.
What Next?
The defeat of the resolution does not necessarily end the possibility of CE election reforms by 2017, but
prospects appear dim. Among the options are:
Legco reconsiders the resolution—Given that an insufficient number of Legco members
were present to pass the resolution when the vote was taken, Legco could reconsider the
matter. However, it is unlikely that the pan-democrats would change their tactic or their
vote to alter the outcome.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Hong Kong government submits a new resolution—The Hong Kong government
could introduce a new resolution that would be sufficiently flexible for a pro-democracy
candidate to be nominated. However, current CE Leung Chun-ying has indicated that he
considers the NPCSC’s August 2014 decision binding, which would appear to make it
difficult for him to offer such a new resolution.
The NPCSC revises or amends its August 2014 decision—The NPCSC could revise or
amend its decision in light of the Legco vote. However, China’s official news agency,
Xinhua, reports that the NPCSC August 2014 decision “will remain in force in the
future.”
CE Leung restarts the process for consideration of election reform—Under the
provisions of a NPCSC decision of April 2004, to alter the CE selection process as
proscribed in Annex I of Hong Kong Basic Law, the Chief Executive must first submit a
report to the NPCSC indicating that conditions in Hong Kong are sufficient to
demonstrate a need to alter the election process. CE Leung did this in July 2014, which
led to the NPCSC’s August 2014 decision. In theory he could submit another report, but
observers suggest he is not likely to do so.
The organizers of last year’s protests have stated that they have no intention of attempting new large-scale
events in support of democracy and have agreed to dismantle their tents around the Legislative Council
building. The focus of the pan-democrats appears to have shifted to organizing around the District
Council elections to be held in November 2015 and the next Legco elections to be held in 2016. However,
some new groups have emerged, including a Hong Kong independence movement. It is possible that a
new group or groups could attempt to organize new protests.
Options for the U.S. Congress
Congress has demonstrated its support for democratic reforms in Hong Kong by various means.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific held a hearing
on democracy in Asia on June 11, 2015, that included a focus on Hong Kong among other
locations. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (H.R. 1159) states that it is U.S.
policy “to support the establishment by 2017 of a genuine democratic option to freely and fairly
nominate and elect the Chief Executive of Hong Kong.…” Section 4 of the act would reinstate
the State Department’s annual report to Congress as provided for in Section 301 of the United
States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5731) for 10 years or “until such earlier date
that the Secretary of State certifies that Hong Kong has held free and fair elections for two
consecutive Chief Executive and two consecutive Legislative Council periods.” Section 5 of the
act would amend the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, to require the Secretary of
State to certify to Congress not later than 90 days after enactment and annually thereafter
“whether Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to justify separate treatment different from that
accorded the People’s Republic of China in any new laws, agreements, treaties, or arrangements
entered into between the United States and Hong Kong after the date of the enactment of such
Act.”
Congressional Research Service
3
Author Information
Michael F. Martin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
IN10298 · VERSION 5 · NEW