- By Denis Chang, SC

Much has been said and written about the speech which Wu Bangguo, head of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, made on 6 June concerning the origin, limits and principles of Hong Kong’s “authorized autonomy” under “One Country, Two Systems”.

As I see it, the problem is not in what he has actually said but in what he has not said or emphasized.

In this regard I would like to highlight six important points.

The first point is that the NPC, when establishing the Hong Kong SAR under Article 31 of the Chinese Constitution, was exercising power which according to Article 2 thereof belongs to the people. In other words, that the NPC exercises power under and by authorization of the Chinese Constitution and ultimately of the people.

The second point is that the NPC Standing Committee does not have the same extensive powers of supervision over an SAR as those conferred on it under Article 67 of the Chinese Constitution over ordinary administrative divisions of the PRC (which are listed separately from an SAR in Article 62).

To take an example, the NPC Standing Committee’s powers to invalidate laws which are incompatible with the Basic Law are by virtue of Article 17 confined to laws regarding affairs within the responsibility of the Central Authorities or regarding the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region.

The third point is that the Basic Law is binding not only on the HKSAR but also on the Central Authorities. Not only are all the departments of the Central People’s Government bound to observe the Basic Law and not interfere with HKSAR’s internal affairs. Even the NPC itself by Article 159 of the Basic Law has stipulated that no amendment of the Basic Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the State regarding Hong Kong. Such basic policies are also enshrined in the Joint Declaration.

It follows that although the mandated high degree of autonomy takes the form of an authorization, there is at the same time limitation or self-limitation of power, as the case may be, of the relevant Central Authority. The autonomy, once conferred in accordance with the established basic policies, is effectively entrenched and cannot be withdrawn or curtailed at will.

The fourth point is that self-restraint in the exercise of power on the part of the Central Authorities is in any event necessary to give to the Hong Kong SAR the full measure of autonomy promised in the Joint Declaration and mandated under the Basic Law. Thus the NPC Standing Committee should develop constitutional conventions that will protect the Region’s autonomy; in particular that it will refrain from interpreting those provisions of the Basic Law which are within the HKSAR’s autonomy.

The fifth point is that the Basic Law, notwithstanding various constraints, does give the people of Hong Kong a say in the development of the SAR’s political/electoral system even where an amendment of existing arrangements requires the approval of the NPC Standing Committee. Articles 45 and 68, read together with Annex I and Annex II of the Basic Law, speak in broad terms as to what principles are applicable, what matters are to be left to the SAR and what matters require the approval of the NPC Standing Committee.

The sixth point, in relation to the goal of universal suffrage, is that Article 39 has already incorporated the principle of “equal and universal suffrage” enshrined in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. This means that when Article 45 refers to the ultimate aim of selection of the Chief Executive by “universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures”, the internationally accepted standards for equal and universal suffrage cannot be ignored.

Indeed there is a constitutional duty on all those charged with the implementation of the Basic Law to ensure that the internationally accepted standards are met and words such as “broadly representative”, “democratic procedures” and “the principles of democracy and openness” used in different places in the Basic Law are not just beautiful labels signifying nothing.

Wu Bangguo in his speech repeatedly spoke of “A High Degree of Autonomy” and “Hong Kong People Ruling Hong Kong”. He then said something which I think is worth noting; namely that the people of Hong Kong have shown that they love Hong Kong and love China, that they have all the wisdom and every ability to run and build up Hong Kong. I cannot agree more. He has correctly judged what the “actual situation in the HKSAR” is.

Why I am joining Civic Party

That this A45 newspaper has come to its last issue and is closing is why I like helping Civic Party. It is obviously tight with money and without money, no political party on earth can run effectively. So I join and show support. For in a civilised society, there should always be a healthy balance of viewpoints, and Civic Party in Hong Kong certainly provides many which I would regard as certainly not mad, and possibly very popular, and probably eminently sensible.

So one might ask why Civic Party is not better funded? I do not pretend to know, but I can guess. First of all, its policies are at least seen to be generally anti-establishment. This is not to say it is good or bad. It’s just a fact. As a fact, the consequences are that most of the wealthy tycoons who support the establishment (because they can then more easily curry favour with those in power) would not want to be associated with an organisation such as Civic Party, let alone contribute money to it.

Secondly, the general population of Hong Kong, rightly or wrongly, is still unspontaneous about subscribing to political parties. This does not at all mean that people in this community are not politically conscious or not mature enough for political debates and actions. On the contrary, we as a society consist of some exceedingly smart people and probably possess a higher IQ than most. And a few major demonstrations have also shown that Hong Kong people can respond vehemently in charged politics. But this is not the same as their joining a political party. The structure of the Hong Kong Government has been ossified to the exclusion of party politics. In time, I have no doubt that the whole community would react better and more from what appears to be prevelant apathy. And of course, if there were to be some positive movements on a greater franchised vote or even, God forbid, universal suffrage, then I am certain that Hong Kong people would spring into political action much more readily. Politics always feeds on itself.

Thirdly, I also believe that Civic Party is doing itself no favours by not offering some very easy membership or subscription to the ordinary folks with no strings attached nor locus standi for any executive decisions within the party. * I only make this point because I am convinced that opening up a populist membership of the Civic Party would not only bring in much-needed moolah, but also secure better marketing and what modern universities, I gather, nowadays call “communications”.

But Civic Party has done well. Much more importantly, it has done the right thing for Hong Kong – for offering us who treasure our home the opportunities of political representations – opportunities which check against unilateral actions carried out by our largely unelected Government under an obsequious Civil Service and a very conservative Chief Executive which together hold all of the powers.

Ergo, I congratulate Civic Party for its work and dedication which I have seen – dedication against the odds which is hard and admirable. As a citizen of Hong Kong, I urge others to lend support so that those who selflessly work for the Civic Party can at least be cheered up both financially and spiritually. It’s important to add to the general fervour of “加油!”(Add oil). I say farewell in this passing-out publication, but I hope it will come bouncing back before long!

*Membership subscription of Civic Party is $100 and anyone over 18 without other party affiliation can join. See www.civicparty.hk.− Editor