Hong Kong lawmakers reject electoral reform bill

Lawmakers in Hong Kong on June 18 voted down a Beijing-backed draft electoral reform bill that pro-democracy activists said would only bring “fake democracy”.

The bill, if passed, would allow Hong Kong people to vote directly for the first time in the 2017 election to elect the special administrative region's leader.

Pro-democracy lawmakers call for “genuine” universal suffrage after voting down reform bill (Photo: SCMP).

However, candidates will have to be selected by a committee believed to be loyal to Beijing, which democracy activists say will only bring about “fake democracy”.

China has insisted that the reforms will go ahead and be legal regardless of the outcome of the vote. Some in Hong Kong had hoped that if the bill was rejected, China would be forced to introduce more sweeping reforms.

“Unquestionable legal validity”

On August 31 last year, Beijing decided to control the selection of candidates for the 2017 election of the head of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. And this decision was met with strong backlash, sparking many protests that attracted more than 100,000 people to the streets.

Thursday's election results mean Hong Kong's next leader could be chosen, as before, by a 1,200-strong committee that is now largely seen as "pro-Beijing".

Many "pro-Beijing" lawmakers left before voting (Photo: SCMP).

Several pro-Beijing lawmakers left the chamber just before the vote on the afternoon of June 18. Of the remaining 37 lawmakers, 28 voted against while only 8 voted in favor. The bill needs at least 47 votes in favor to pass.

“Although the universal suffrage campaign was not approved, the orientation towards universal suffrage and the legal principles put forth must continue to be maintained in the future,” the Chinese legislature said in a statement carried by Xinhua.

The announcement also stressed that the decision on August 31 last year “will continue to serve as the constitutional foundation for Hong Kong in the future” and that “its legal effect is beyond doubt”.

(According to BBC/Dantri)