Reasons for Ruling CHU Hoi Dick Eddie’s Nomination Invalid L Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance (Cap. 576) provides that a person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes ot is accompanied by a declaration (“Declaration”), signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law (“BL”) and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”). The declaration is contained in Section 5 of Part II of the nomination form. 2. On 22 November 2018, Mr CHU Hoi Dick Eddie (“Mr CHU”) submitted the duly signed nomination form including the Declaration. He, however, did not submit the Confirmation Form which had been prepared by the Electoral Affairs Commission for the use of the Returning Officer, in order that every candidate may confirm that in signing the relevant declaration in the nomination form, he / she has clearly understood Articles 1, 12, and 159(4) of the BL, the legal requirements and obligations. 3. When considering the validity of Mr CHU’s nomination, I have taken all relevant factors into account, with the objective of ascertaining whether Mr CHU has the requisite intention to uphold the BL and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) at the time of nomination,4. The Declaration requirement under the Rural Representative Election Ordinance imposes a substantive requirement that a person must uphold the BL and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR. A Returning Officer would generally regard the Declaration requirement as having been complied with if a candidate has submitted the nomination form with a signed Declaration, ‘This position would not apply in a plain case where, there are cogent, clear and compelling materials which would demonstrate to an objective reasonable person that the candidate plainly cannot have the intention at the time of the nomination, 5. In Mr CHU’s Facebook , I note that he was a party to the joint declaration (“2016 Joint Declaration”) made on 30 July 2016 by himself, Demosists (237i) and LAU Siu Lai “LAU”) entitled “EREZERS EE ASE FEAT ARISES. The contents of the 2016 Joint Declaration, which support independence as an option for Hong Kong people to self-determine their future, does in my view have a bearing on the validity of his nomination, 1 also take into account other relevant acts and conducts of Mr CHU in totality in order to determine whether Mr CHU has the professed present intent to uphold the BL. The contents of the 2016 Joint Declaration stated, inter alia, that — @) “GUMOARIECARKE "RAB > REA MNECe RA PETA NAR» URE CAAT) AYIA > DL FOEMS SORA RUE BS Ae ADA... BBADEAR > EECA > BUPPRRE | CAI) EASE AUR RR EN BARE > TIE CEASA) >» GRICE ERAT © ”; and CD) BUMS" ARAERTL PEASE A SUORIRABEDA °° 6. I also notice Mr CHU stated in Stand News article dated 31 October 2016 that “ "EG3E 47% 1+ TERSEBUASEHE CAA) (WHERE » RmIEAEES GEACK) ELLIE OP EYE > EE TOEASA > TFRIL REIT CRLA + AOHIRERIE + BERT LE Ho” 7. Similarly, in Mr CHU’s Facebook, I noted that he made another joint statement (“Joint Statement”) with Nathan LAW Kwun Chung and LAU on 7 November 2016, which echoed Mr CHU’s aforesaid stance on the status of the BL. The Joint Statement stated, inter alia, that “=) F225 (ER ER EMO CATER + ARAVA ROME TIA ° CEA TE) PECA TBI > TH ELAPSED T° AR BLL AREER GT RAVER EAE» Aa A RR ° ec WRI RAF CLARK)» SPR OPENS + ECE WREALAIG BRAD - RUE IRS ABSIT (BEAR) AY REAGAN 1 ERICA > HE ETREE CATED BAK BEREAN] ©” 8. While the notion of “democratic self-determination” appears several times in the above statements quoted in paragraphs 6 and 7, there are