One Term, Two Interpretations

Abstract

Following the resignation of the first chief executive (CE) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) in the middle of his second term, a controversy arose over whether his successor would serve the remainder of the outgoing CE’s second term or a new term of five years. A judicial review application was filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI), seeking a declaration that “the true effect of Article 46 of the Basic Law is that the term of office of the CE shall be five years, whether or not the vacancy in the office of the CE arises otherwise than by reason of expiry of term of office.”1 Before the court could make a decision on the application, the question was resolved by an interpretation issued by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), which states that “prior to the year 2007, when the CE is selected by the Election Committee with a five-year term of office, in the event that the office of CE becomes vacant as he fails to serve the full term of office of five years as prescribed by Article 46 of the Basic Law, the term of office of the new CE shall be the remainder of the previous CE.”2