Fu Hualing talks with Chen Zuwei. Three | Yanggang and Hong Kong have different views on power, and collision is inevitable | 01 Weekly

weekly

Written by: Cheng Xue Huang Yunna

2020-09-22 17:38

Last update date: 2020-09-22 17:38

The dispute over the "separation of powers" triggered by the deletion of the contents of general education textbooks has temporarily come to an end.

Reflecting on the views of both sides, it is inevitable that there will be a dilemma of "talking with the same duck". One side believes that the separation of powers is reflected in the mutual checks and balances of the executive, legislative, and judicial; while the other pointed out that Hong Kong does not have "sovereignty" and its power comes from " "Central authorization" instead of "decentralization of powers", so there is no separation of powers, but there is a separation of powers under "executive leadership."

Upon closer examination, the two sides fought fiercely, but they failed to reach an effective consensus on what is "separation of powers."

Why is there such a situation?

How does the discourse gap form?

How does it affect the implementation of "One Country, Two Systems"?

"Hong Kong 01" invites two authoritative scholars-Fu Hualing, Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong who is familiar with the civil law system (used in the Mainland) and the common law system (used in Hong Kong), and Chen Zuwei, a professor of the Department of Politics and Public Administration of the University of Hong Kong who is familiar with Chinese and Western political philosophy , Talk about it

Fu Hualing talks with Chen Zuwei.

1. Why does the dispute of "separation of powers" talk about the same thing?

Fu Hualing talks with Chen Zuwei.

2. What are the political implications of the "new constitutional order"?

01:

In 2014, when the central government issued a white paper mentioning the power of comprehensive governance, it emphasized the high degree of autonomy granted by the central government to Hong Kong, the central government has supervisory powers and Hong Kong has no residual power.

In the past, Hong Kong people rarely involved these issues in their lives, and few Hong Kong people would think about the source of power and the root of the system from the perspective of political science or law.

Fu:

Under normal circumstances, big political topics should not have a profound impact on people's lives. The reason for their impact is because the society is undergoing tremendous changes, which affect everyone's lives.

If everyone feels the impact of big political discourse on a daily basis, it means that a crisis has emerged in society.

Under normal circumstances, everyone lives and works in peace and contentment, and the political system is there, which will not directly affect the lives of most people.

Everyone is now engaged in the discussion of the separation of powers, paying attention to the political system every moment, which is pan-politicized.

Chen:

If you look at the past, no matter what concept you use, whether it is governing power or administrative leadership, you are constantly emphasizing the power of the central government. This creates a fundamental contradiction: people have different views on power.

With such a big power—the central government has so many resources, military, and laws, it is normal for Hong Kong people to be afraid when he speaks, uses power, and re-states things clearly.

Therefore, Hong Kong people are often wary because the central authorities have the ability to do what they want, such as enacting the "Hong Kong National Security Law."

Will a system affect many people?

As a scholar, I have seen that the legal system in Hong Kong has been greatly affected since last year. The power of the police is no longer effectively restricted by the system and the law. In addition, the promulgation of the "Hong Kong National Security Law" has given the police a lot of power.

The way Hong Kong people used to take it for granted has changed.

For example, speech requires self-censorship. If you are engaged in work related to Chinese-funded institutions, you will feel that you need to be cautious.

Fu:

A big tragedy is that we didn't realize how we got here after our return.

There are many practices of "one country, two systems" in China. For example, they did not succeed in Tibet.

The difference between Hong Kong is that its economy is more developed than that of the Mainland. The Mainland believes that Hong Kong is a more advanced political and cultural place that is worth learning, and even a model for copying.

How did that get to where it is today?

First, from the central point of view, the real comprehensive governance in place is the "Hong Kong National Security Law", which directly participates in the governance of an organization.

The anti-revision movement last year was so long that the central authorities did not stop it, but in fact it was unable to control it.

The final determination to formulate the "Hong Kong National Security Law" is probably a big disappointment to Hong Kong's entire system and government.

The biggest problem now is how to fix it?

What's the next step?

We need to realize that we are authors and not listeners.

Why should we consult the Basic Law?

Consent is required for consultation. If society disagrees, no government can govern for a long time.

A contract is needed to agree, so we have to go back to consult and make a contract.

After the return of Hong Kong, there are two main problems. One is democracy and the other is security.

The Communist Party’s worries about Western subversion is a historical issue, and there is a dual self-fulfilling prophecy.

From the central point of view, since the 1950s, it has been said that the West will be subverted, from the color revolution to the peaceful evolution. Recently, I am very confident that it has finally happened.

From the perspective of Hong Kong, I have never believed that the central government should do a good job of "one country, two systems." It has also happened now.

This is very unfortunate.

Now that it has happened, what should we do next?

The security issue that the central government is worried about has been resolved at least from the legal level. The next step is to resolve the issue of democracy.

01:

Both of them mentioned that the two places have different understandings of power. What is the difference?

What is the difference in people’s understanding of such things as the source, use, and restriction of power, and what Hong Kong people have the right to do and what the central government has the right to do?

Chen: After

2004, Beijing's language has puzzled us.

Take independence. Hong Kong had no independent thoughts at that time.

Sometimes it is said that independent or semi-independent political entities will emerge if democratic elections.

What does it mean?

An independent political entity is different from a legal separation from the state.

Beijing requires the Chief Executive not to belong to any political party. My understanding of this is that if there is an opposition party in the Legislative Council that is the majority, and it is the Chief Executive’s political party, it is a political force rooted in the country; then, The central government may not be able to control the chief executive, and there is a tendency to become a political entity.

Hong Kong has the chief executive elected by universal suffrage and the central government appoints them. In the eyes of Hong Kong people, there are two different powers.

If the Chief Executive is appointed by the Central Government, how can we say that we have the right to vote?

Of course, if we elect a party that the central government is not satisfied with, the central government does not need to appoint it. However, this is wrong in the eyes of the central government.

Therefore, you must first guard the front door and set up some checkpoints to ensure that the candidates for the chief executive are acceptable to the Mainland, and then you will be elected.

It can be seen that the power understood by the mainland is power that can be actually controlled. If regional power challenges the power actually controlled by the central government, it is an independent tendency.

Powers collide with each other under the system. From the point of view of Hong Kong, there is no problem. However, the central government does not view it that way. If power is used to challenge the central government, it means independence and disrespect.

This is the understanding produced by the CCP’s political culture emphasizing authoritarian power.

Therefore, the statements about the separation of powers, such as the power of comprehensive governance and the chief executive system, are all based on the central government's request that its own power and will can be realized in Hong Kong, but this is not the case in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is a capitalist system, a system under the rule of law, a system that regulates power, and actual control power is different from the power conferred by law.

Therefore, I have no expectations for universal suffrage and it is difficult to appear.

Central control will now be emphasized. The Chief Executive is so important in Beijing's eyes, how can he be elected in an election that does not know the result?

The central government believes that if you use power to challenge the central government, you will be independent and disrespectful.

(Profile picture)

01: The

Chairman of the Civic Party, Leung Jiajie, once said that the most confident thing about "One Country, Two Systems" is that the Basic Law has shown that the Central Government is willing to self-regulate power.

The central government has a lot of power over Hong Kong, but in order to stabilize the people's hearts, it surrendered power to Hong Kong people and restricted its own power.

However, in the past few years, the central government has become increasingly unwilling to restrict itself.

Liang Jiajie mentioned that when the central government no longer restricts power, Hong Kong people will be afraid. It may not be directly related to life, but imagined that we have less power, such as lack of freedom of speech and democracy.

In the past few years, the central government has continuously emphasized the importance of "one country" and how much power it has. What impact has it had on Hong Kong people?

What impact does it actually have?

Fu:

Before 2003, in the era of Tung Chee-hwa, everyone felt that the well water did not offend the river water. Everyone was quite satisfied with this and thought this was the golden age of "one country, two systems."

The problem in 2003 was not resolved, and the central policy has changed since then.

The first step in the interpretation of the election started in April 2004. From the trilogy to the quintuple, this is an absolute change, that is, the right to speak is in Beijing.

In retrospect, maybe we are not politically mature and imagined too perfect. Maybe we can make some compromises in exchange for political space?

I said that this topic is not to criticize or criticize, but to say that we must move forward. When we need to compromise, we can compromise through negotiation, and there may be better results.

From this perspective, society needs some self-reflection.

Chen:

I hope the central government will give us confidence that compromise is not so easy to do. Compromise represents the first step to establish a relationship of mutual trust, and then continue to go.

In many cases, the central government will not tell you clearly. Instead, it asks you to go ahead and does not tell you whether there is still room for development. For example, we set out two conditions for universal suffrage. First, meet the requirements of the Basic Law for universal suffrage. Second, is there still considerable room for development?

I personally think that this sovereign country is so big that it should be clear and not directly vetoed.

They have so many power, force, and legal tools. I should be more afraid of you than you.

Fu:

This is because Hong Kong's position in China (Mainland) over the past few decades is too important, so psychologically there will be more prevention.

In my opinion, the central government does not know Hong Kong at all, nor does it know how to administer Hong Kong and what to do with this system.

Our society also lacks think tanks, universities have not been able to put forward more plans, and there is a lack of policy research on specific plans for constitutional reforms. Therefore, they have failed to come up with constructive opinions on constitutional development. This has led to disagreements between Hong Kong and the Central Government. Understand what the other person is saying.

(Profile picture)

01:

Many scholars say that intermediaries often contact them to understand Hong Kong and then write reports.

When we hear a lot of such voices, we will feel that a lot of reports have been written, and the central authorities should understand Hong Kong.

Why do you say that the central government does not understand?

Fu:

This is related to the design of the Basic Law.

The motive of the Basic Law is to separate Hong Kong from the Mainland, but now it is completely the opposite. The Basic Law does not work here.

After the emergence of the high-speed rail, Hong Kong was brought into the southern economic circle. The Basic Law, which used to be a guarantee, has now become an obstacle.

Chen: During the

Xi Jinping era, China emphasized that China should become stronger and have confidence in Hong Kong and the whole world. Therefore, many research centers on Chinese institutions have emerged.

However, Qiang Shigong once wrote and analyzed that China has not fully understood the operation of the world's capitalist system, let alone can participate in the management of the world's economic system.

The West has been doing it for hundreds of years, but China has only participated in this system game for more than 30 years. How can we say how to manage this system?

This article uses Hong Kong as an example, saying that we don’t know how to manage Hong Kong or the world.

The above excerpt was recorded in the 232th issue of "Hong Kong 01" Weekly (September 21, 2020). The original title of the article is "When the Rule of Law Meets Politics-How Fu Hualing and Chen Zuwei's Dialogue Cross the Discourse Gap between Yangtze and Hong Kong?

".

If you want to read the full text, please

click here to

Selected content of the 232 issue of "Hong Kong 01" Weekly News:

[Cover Story] When the rule of law meets politics-How do Fu Hualing and Chen Zuwei discuss how to bridge the discourse gap between Yangtze and Hong Kong?

From the shorting of steel bars on the Sandy Central Line to the delay in the launch of the new signal system "Whistler" on the evils and evils of MTR governance

Cleaning up the diplomatic mess left by Trump How does Biden reshape the global image of the United States?

Global retail awaits victory from the epidemic

Disney is still the final winner, why not please the mixed-blood "Mulan"?

The revelation of "Three Little Pigs" The new version of the brain-computer interface wants to use the "pig brain" to turn around

The imaginary way to travel after the epidemic: pretend to be abroad

In-depth report on the separation of powers, one country, two systems, and Hong Kong independence universal suffrage 01 Weekly