HONG KONG: Basic Instinct Triumphs
Hong Kong's legislature gives Beijing unlimited power to sack the territory's chief executive, deepening despondency among pro-democracy forces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By David Lague/HONG KONG
Issue cover-dated July 26, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THERE WAS IMMEDIATE disquiet when the Hong Kong government in March introduced a proposal to give Beijing unlimited power to dismiss the local administration's top official, the chief executive. Some opponents of the move suspected that the government of Beijing-installed Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa was acting under orders from the central government to voluntarily surrender what they argued was this potentially crucial authority, a linchpin of post-colonial Hong Kong's autonomy. Others thought it more likely that Tung was simply anticipating Beijing's desires.
In what is now becoming a familiar pattern whenever Tung takes an unpopular or controversial initiative, the question quickly boils down to: Did he jump or was he pushed?
"I don't think, as some people suggest, it is directed by Beijing," says independent political commentator Kitty Poon. "This is in line with Tung Chee-hwa's inclinations. I tend to think he is more politically conservative than the leadership in Beijing."
After a debate in the Legislative Council on July 11, the Chief Executive Election Bill interpreting the powers of the central government to remove the chief executive and laying out procedures for the election in March of Hong Kong's next political leader was passed into law by 36 votes to 18.
As usual, the majority consisting of pro-Beijing, pro-business lawmakers carried the day for the administration. All that was left for 17 of the opposing lawmakers was to stage a walkout. The predictable defeat without lasting protest from the wider community deepened a sense of gloom surrounding pro-democracy forces in Hong Kong. What hopes there were that the pace of democratic reforms begun under British colonial rule would continue after the 1997 handover have evaporated as Tung's administration has carefully consolidated and entrenched its control through an electoral system that guarantees a minimal role for pro-democracy forces.
Or, as the South China Morning Post editorialized succinctly on July 12: "At present, for the most part, the government decrees and the legislature concurs."
This is unlikely to change in the near future as Tung shows no inclination to speed the pace of political reform. He has secured the renewed endorsement of the central government and is almost certain to win a second five-year term when an 800-member selection committee stacked with sympathizers meets to vote for a chief executive on March 24.
The malaise for advocates of greater democracy is compounded by a relatively sluggish economy and a continuing identity crisis as Hong Kong struggles to come to terms with its role as an addition to a rapidly changing nation.
Notwithstanding the serious challenges China faces in its quest to become a great power, the mainland now seems to be the focus of hope for the future. Beijing's winning of the vote to host the 2008 Olympic Games was another example of this shift. In many respects, the spotlight has shifted from Hong Kong and it is darkening the city's mood. Poon believes that in this climate, Hong Kong's democratic forces have become marginalized through their lack of political clout and their inability to unite and to spell out policies that are readily understandable by the electorate. "It's very depressing," she says.
However, this latest setback failed to quench the fire of some government critics. Lawmaker Margaret Ng was scornful of the government's motivation--whatever it was. "If in taking this position, the government was acting on Beijing's instruction, Hong Kong's autonomy would only be an illusion," Ng told local radio. "If the government was acting on its own, the clear message to us or to Beijing is that it does not want to take any responsibility for making a decision, or any risk of giving the impression that Hong Kong is acting too independently. The government will wait to be told. A government which can think like this is despicable indeed."
In the debate, the secretary for constitutional affairs, Michael Suen, denied that Tung was acting under orders from Beijing or had consulted the central government. "I believe the chief executive did not exchange views with the central government in this respect," he told lawmakers. Suen flatly rejected suggestions that the move compromised Hong Kong's autonomy. "It is impossible, allow me to repeat, impossible, for any provisions of the Chief Executive Election Bill to have any impact on the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong," he said. "In these four years after reunification, the central people's government has steadfastly implemented 'one country, two systems' which is a fact obvious to all."
The basis for Suen's argument was that Beijing already had the power to dismiss the chief executive under the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution. He acknowledged this was not explicitly stated but argued that it could be "reasonably deduced" from provisions in the Basic Law. This meant that nothing changed with the passing of the bill, he said.
However, the Law Society also contested the official line. In its submission on the bill, the society said that the central government's power to fire the chief executive was subject to "constitutional, legal and conventional restraints." It argued that Beijing could only exercise its power if moves to dismiss the chief executive were already initiated from Hong Kong. There is no explicit provision in the Basic Law that gives Beijing unlimited power to remove the chief executive without Hong Kong bodies, such as the courts or Legislative Council, beginning the move.
For lawmaker Emily Lau of the Frontier Party, the administration's translation of its interpretation of the Basic Law into an explicit clause in the bill exposed a "fundamental" flaw of reasoning. "What is the source of that power?" she asks. "It is not stated in the Basic Law. But, if it is implicit in the Basic Law, why put it in the bill?" Lau says that the territory's government would have done better if instead it had concentrated on moving toward electing a chief executive by universal suffrage as laid out in the Basic Law. "I think they have handled this very badly," she says. "It's been a real fiasco."
For some critics, the vote was yet another in a series of attacks on the rule of law since the handover that have endangered Hong Kong's freedoms. Other often-cited examples are the government's appeal to Beijing to overrule Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal on an important immigration ruling; the decision not to prosecute tycoon Sally Aw for allegedly fradulently inflating newspaper circulation figures because of the potentially damaging economic consequences; and the award of a contract for the Cyberport project to Richard Li's Pacific Century CyberWorks without calling for tenders.
Veteran pro-democracy lawmaker and Democratic Party leader Martin Lee said he believes things will get worse before getting better. "Although prospects for Hong Kong are dim in the short term, we are hopeful that the situation will be positive in the long run," he told his party. He said he hopes democratic progress in Hong Kong will come when similar forces are set loose in China as it opens up to the global economy.
Fellow opposition lawmaker Lau acknowledges that in the meantime it is going to be tough for pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, but insists even in defeat there will be no surrender. "By and large, Hong Kong's freedoms are still here," she says. "Why? Because people are always agitating. I think we can work harder."
Copyright ©2001 Review Publishing Company Limited, Hong Kong. All rights reserved.
feer.com |
