BACKGROUNDER

HK 2047 MONITOR

CHING CHEONG

19/1/2015

WHY THE NEED TO MONITOR?

The 1 country 2 systems unification model is premised on recognizing the basic inherent differences between the 2 systems, esp in

- Political,

- Ideological and

- Legal areas

Failure to respect such differences would strain the relation between HK and the central govt

In the 1st 5 years after handover (1997 – 2002) Beijing honored both the letter and spirit of the Basic Law

After 2003 there is a discernible change in its policy towards the SAR

In many occasions, BJ took actions that amount to a de facto amendment of the Basic Law

2003: BJ urged HK to enact Art 23 legislation

This is deemed as a pressure from BJ because under Art 23 HKSAR shall do so “on its own”

HK protested against this pressure from BJ knowing that BJ wanted to do so because it wanted to outlaw FLG which is entirely legal in HK

BJ seriously mis-read the 2003 protest, attributing it to:

- HK people being unpatriotic;

- Strong colonial legacy;

- Hostile foreign forces.

To Beijing,

- 1997 marks only the legal return of HK to China

- The administrative power is still not in China’s hand

- Worse still the hearts and minds of the HK people have not returned.

Based on its mis-interpretation, BJ considered these remedial policies:

- National education has to be enforced

- De-colonization process has to start

- Greater role in the running of the SAR

To prepare for major policy changes BJ started two debates:

- Meaning of patriotism

- Nature of the Basic Law (whether the Basic Law is a social contract law or an authorization law)

2004: NPCSC Resolution on the election method of the Chief Executive (April 6, 2004) amounts to an amendment of the Basic Law

From 3 steps to 5 steps

By increasing two more hurdles the power of initializing a change is removed from HKSAR to NPCSC

It also deferred the timing for universal suffrage, which is supposed to be 2007

Basic Law Provisions Original Provision BJ’s de facto amendments

Art 7 of Annex 1(on the change of method of electing the chief executive after 2007)

The power of initializing a change in the CE election method is vested in HK.The procedure for making such a change is governed by 3 steps

This power is effectively placed under the NPCSC

The procedure for making such a change is governed by 5 steps instead of 3

Annex 2 (III)(on the change of method of constituting the legislative council after 2007)

The power of making changes in the make-up of the legislative council is vested in the SAR(report to the NPC for record)

Any such changes have to be approved by BJ

2007 (10 years after the HK’s return) marks a number of policy changes towards HK.

- Hu Jintao urged national education in HK. This violates Art 136 of Basic Law

- Cao Erbao proposal to set up a 2nd governing team (CGLO) in HK to bolster the 1st (HKSARG) This violates Art 22 of Basic Law

2007: NPC chairman Wu Bangguo proclaimed that the Basic Law is an “authorization law”

Why does it require a parliamentary speaker to adjudicate a seemingly academic debate?

(any power the SAR possessed comes from the central government’s authorization)

2007: NPCSC Decision

Deferred universal suffrage to 2017

Additional stipulation that the future “nomination committee” (when universal suffrage is practiced) should be based on the “election committee” (when all previous CE were selected)

The dampening effect of this stipulation on free election was not obvious at the time, but becomes very apparent now

2013: the speeches by Qiao Xiaoyang and Li Feion universal suffrage in HK also introduced new terms not provided for by the Basic Law:

- The “loving China and loving HK” criterion;

- The nomination process is by an institution (the nomination committee) instead of by an individual in order to reflect “collective will”

2014: White Paper

Blatantly deleted “executive power” from the list of autonomous powers vested in the SAR.

Both the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law declared that HK is to enjoy high autonomy in executive, legislative and judicial powers, yet the White Paper listed only the latter two, omitting the first.

2014: NPCSC Resolution (Aug 31) violates both the letter and spirit of the Basic Law

Basic Law 831 ResolutionMethod for electing the chief executive and legislative council

Both methods were defined by Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively.

the 831 resolution lacks any constitutional basis.

Role of NPC in the SAR’s chief executive election

The BL did not specify.The 2007 NPCSC decision limited NPCSC’s role to decide whether there should be any change to the CE election method(the 2007 NPCSC decision is in itself inconsistent with the Basic Law)

Prescribed a restrictive framework for CE election to render it a fake election 1. candidate’s ideological criteria2 organization of the NC3. mode of voting in NC4 no. of candidate

Role of NPC in the SAR’s legislative election

Report to the NPC “for record” only

Decide when and how to hold election

Principle of gradualism Art 45 and 68 specified gradual progress towards universal suffrage for CE and legislature respective

CE election: a backward move (threshold increase from 1/8 to 1/2)Legislature: a standstill

Principle of pragmatism Art 45 and 68 specified pragmatism in designing CE and legislature election

Grossly disregard the actual situation in HKNone of the proposals suggested by HK are as restrictive

HK not to embrace socialism

Basic Law meant to preserve capitalism in HK. Art 5 declares explicitly that HK does not practice socialist system and policy

It specified an election system that is typically socialist (democratic centralism) meant to bar democrats who enjoyed 55-60% of popular votes

Inherent contradiction Annex 1 specifies that each election committee member shall vote for only 1 candidate

831 decision provides for 2-3 candidates each requiring 50% support. Technically this is not possible if the Basic Law is faithfully adhered to.

After the Umbrella Movement further encroachment on the HK system are expected:

- Rao Geping: HK has to undergo a thorough de-colonization process

- Chen Zuoer: HK education system had produced bitter fruits and poisonous beans. The education minister has to be placed under direct supervision of the central government (this violates Art 136 of the Basic Law)

These words show that Beijing’s mis-reading of the HK situation continued and became more intensified.

Unfortunately the CE fails to perform his inter-facing role

Hence HK people need to take up their own watchdog role to monitor closely the changes that could be detrimental to the SAR

Let me quote a lament by a young journalist:“In one hundred year from 1947 to 2047, my family had to make three major decisions to flee the communist party: in 1947, my grandfather fled the CCP and came to HK. In 1997 my father fled the CCP again and emigrated overseas. Now when I think of my new-born girl who would be in her 30’s by 2047, I have to consider fleeing again”.

If we don’t want to leave the city we call home, we all have to be vigilant of what’s in store for us.