editorial
Written by: Hong Kong 01
2020-03-30 06:00
Last updated: 2020-03-30 06:00On April 4, 1990, the National People's Congress officially adopted the "Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China", translating the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", and "high autonomy" into specific legal provisions, and on the day of Hong Kong's return Started. Along the way, the Basic Law has worked well as a whole, but there have been many disputes in its implementation, including 23 pieces of legislation, the interpretation of the National People's Congress, and the difficult political reform situation. These disputes arise not only because the drafting committees discussed the "small constitution" in the past, but also because many citizens misunderstood Hong Kong's constitutional status and even deliberately misunderstood it. Now that so many problems have accumulated, a responsible approach is to conduct a comprehensive and in-depth review and, where feasible, make amendments to the Basic Law to consolidate "one country, two systems."
It is undeniable that large-scale social movements in Hong Kong have occurred frequently in recent years, from "occupation in central China" to riots in Mong Kok, to anti-revision legislation movements, which have exposed the headwinds of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, reflecting the positioning of many people in Hong Kong, dry ports The relationship and the value of the Basic Law lack the necessary understanding. What is even more sighing is that some young people have not even thought about these issues, otherwise how could they wave the British flag of Hong Kong and intentionally damage the Chinese flag and national emblem? In fact, these acts ignore the fact that Hong Kong is a part of China. They are essentially just venting emotions. They can neither solve the problem nor help the society to further explore the issue.
If the state of "chaos" is allowed to continue, "one country, two systems" will be difficult to achieve stability. Therefore, society must make deep reflections on related issues. Specifically, after the Legislative Council elections in September, the authorities could launch a "Basic Law Debate" similar to the Land Debate, and refer to the "Basic Law Drafting Committee" and "Basic Law Advisory Committee" models that year to set up a "Basic Law Review and Amendment "Committee" to straighten out the myths of the Basic Law since its implementation in 1997, as well as the disputes in the implementation process, and deal with issues as small as "Ding Quan" as traditional rights and as large as "Constitutional order". However, it must be noted that any review and modification must follow a basic principle-to consolidate and deepen the "one country, two systems" policy that both the central and Hong Kong citizens adhere to.
Anti-revision demonstrators broke into the Legislative Council on July 1 last year. (Profile picture / Photo by Luo Junhao)
The constitutional status is appropriate, the principle of one country precedes the two systems
In the debate on the Basic Law, the society should not simply start with the "current situation", but must trace the history of Hong Kong, including the Opium War, Hong Kong-British governance, the process of return, etc., because it helps us understand the substantial relationship between China and Hong Kong . Before the reunification, Britain and Hong Kong were the relationship between the colonists and the colonized. "Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" did not exist. Democracy was even worse. The most direct evidence is the implementation of electoral democracy in the United Kingdom, but the Governor of Hong Kong was directly appointed by the British court. Many senior civil servants are not local Chinese. Until the return of Hong Kong, the United Kingdom handed over its "full governance power" to China, and the Chinese government, after resuming the exercise of sovereignty, authorized Hong Kong Special Administrative Region through the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law based on Hong Kong's special historical background. And implement "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", "high degree of autonomy."
For a long time, many citizens have unilaterally quoted Articles 13 and 14 of the Basic Law, thinking that the central government has nothing to do except national defense and diplomacy. Therefore, when the central government proposed "full governance power", it questioned that this was a "high degree of autonomy" "Destroying arbitrarily." This view is wrong and undesirable, ignoring the fact that the "one country" and "two systems" dominate the latter, and they are by no means parallel concepts; the central government and Hong Kong are not equal, but "authorized" and "Authorized" relationship. Hong Kong's "constitutional order" originates from the "Chinese Constitution" and the "Basic Law", both of which set the legal framework for the operation of the SAR and are the key to the orderly operation of the "one country, two systems". Therefore, the question of "What is the constitutional status of Hong Kong" must be clearly stated in future major debates, otherwise some people will only continue to live in fantasy and mistakenly believe that "self-determination" and "Hong Kong independence" are Hong Kong's Way out.
Hong Kong's "constitutional order" originates from the "Chinese Constitution" and the "Basic Law", both of which set the legal framework for the operation of the SAR and are the key to the orderly operation of the "one country, two systems". (Profile picture / AFP)
Ostrich mentality must not take a pragmatic look at national security legislation
"One country, two systems" and the "Basic Law" are related to the well-being of Hong Kong. Therefore, honestly facing some problems that have been exposed, including the 23 legislative and political reform disputes, and then thinking about the way to amend, it is really right. In all fairness, when drafting any legal document, it is impossible to fully predict what will happen in the future. Even if it is passed, it may not be able to find loopholes in it, and disputes often arise because of this. We do not agree with the ostrich mentality. This is only a matter of procrastination and avoidance. Therefore, taking advantage of the 30-year opportunity of the Basic Law for a big debate, it is both responsible to Hong Kong and to future Hong Kong people.
I believe no one will object to the National Security Law, which has long been a problem in Hong Kong. Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Hong Kong Government should "voluntarily legislate" in this regard, but it does not mention how the Hong Kong Government should follow up if it has not done so. This is the deficiency of the Basic Law. A real question arises: Why, as a part of Chinese territory, has Hong Kong been left with a national security loophole for 23 years without being filled?
It is worth mentioning that in the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China last year, the Central Government stated that "the systems and mechanisms of the Special Administrative Region related to the implementation of the Constitution and the Basic Law" and "the establishment and improvement of the legal system and implementation of the Special Administrative Region to safeguard national security" Mechanism ", in particular," prevent and curb external forces from interfering in (Hong Kong) affairs and conducting secession, subversion, infiltration, and sabotage activities to ensure long-term security in (Hong Kong). " It is conceivable that if Hong Kong has enacted legislation on Article 23, the central authorities will not have the above-mentioned position. This is a reminder that Hong Kong has not fulfilled its constitutional responsibility under the Basic Law. Of course, due to the complexity of the matter, how to and when to legislate should be fully discussed in Hong Kong society, and the government must also explain to the public that legislation will not affect the various rights they enjoy under "one country, two systems".
Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Hong Kong Government should "voluntarily legislate" in this regard, but it does not mention how the Hong Kong Government should follow up if it has not done so. This is the deficiency of the Basic Law. (Profile picture / Photo by Yu Junliang)
Facing the fundamental interests of Hong Kong
Regarding the provisions of the Basic Law, Hong Kong society should not accept it selectively. On the one hand, it refuses to legislate for national security, on the other hand, it requires the central government to fully accept the demands of the Pan-Democratic Party for universal suffrage. Besides Article 23 legislation, another controversy surrounding the Basic Law is political reform. This constitutional document clearly stipulates that the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council shall adopt the method of "general election" as the ultimate goal. However, as the Hong Kong Government ’s political reform plan based on the 2014 National People ’s Congress "831 Decision" was rejected by the Hong Kong Legislative Council, general election Stuck into a bubble. The reason why Fanmin did not accept the "831 Decision" was because the relevant arrangements eliminated the candidates who were not accepted by the Central Committee during the nomination stage. Therefore, the final candidates must be candidates accepted by the Central Committee. The universal suffrage held in accordance with the above-mentioned decision is not the same as the general suffrage under Western standards. This has also become a contradiction between the central government and the general public.
What is worrying is that related disputes may continue to intensify. After the anti-revision law campaign, the general public sought to use "popularity" to obtain more than half of the seats in the September Legislative Council election, forcing the Hong Kong government to respond to the "five major demands" ( (Including restarting the political reform), otherwise all government bills will be rejected. We disagree with this kind of political operation, because it will only keep Hong Kong awry. The truly realistic approach is to use rational discussion to let the public understand Hong Kong's political and legal status and understand that Hong Kong must implement "one country, two systems", provided that it recognizes and maintains the fact that Hong Kong is Chinese territory. Create greater political space yourself.
As far as the promotion of universal suffrage is concerned, there are voices in society that the overthrow of the "831 Decision" of the National People's Congress is a prerequisite for restarting the political reform. However, it is impossible to push forward the administrative reform from the Basic Law. In fact, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress also has Discretion. (Profile picture / Photo by Luo Junhao)
As far as the promotion of universal suffrage is concerned, there are voices in society that the overthrow of the "831 decision" of the National People's Congress is a prerequisite for restarting the political reform. Discretion. So, is it necessary to adopt an attitude that is either one or the other, or is it a phased plan for sustainable optimization under the "831" framework? Which of the two is more practical and feasible? If Hong Kong can take into account the central government's consideration of national security and take a big step forward in political reform, it will have a positive effect on the practice of "one country, two systems" and the implementation of the Basic Law.
Many polls over the years have shown that mainstream public opinion in Hong Kong accepts "one country, two systems," and the central government has regarded "one country, two systems" as one of the "significant advantages" of 13 national systems and national governance systems. It can be said that maintaining "one country, two systems" is the "most common divisor" between the two places, which is in the fundamental interest of the central government and the fundamental interest of Hong Kong. In this case, even if there are individual or short-term conflicts between the two places, they can be resolved through frank discussions; and the shortcomings of the Basic Law in practice can also be reviewed and amended.
However, no matter how we discuss, review, and modify, the general principle is that citizens must accept the fact that Hong Kong is part of China, and understand that "full governance" and "high autonomy" reflect the dominance of "one country" over "two systems." If we break away from this constitutional order, everything will become illusory, and the road of "one country, two systems" will also be difficult to follow.
View more weekly articles: [01 Weekly Page]
Please pay attention to the 207th issue of "Hong Kong 01" weekly published on March 30th. It is available at major newsstands, OK convenience stores and Vango convenience stores.
You can also click here to subscribe to the weekly report to read more in-depth reports.
One Country Two Systems Basic Law Basic Law 23 Articles of Political Reform 01 Weekly Editorial Hong Kong 01