The Basic Law is a phenomenal work of fiction.

Eroding Freedoms of Hong Kong citizens

Capitalism in a communist embrace

One hundred and fifty-six years of British colonial rule in Hong Kong terminated in 1997. As vested interests regarding the sovereignty of the region led to tense negotiations between the British Empire and the People’s Republic of China. Thereafter, implementing Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping’s political theory: One Country Two Systems. Britain’s concern for a smooth transition and protection of the lifestyles of Hong Kong citizens had been tamed by Deng Xiaoping’s reassurance that “The mainland with its one billion people will maintain the socialist system, while Hong Kong and Taiwan continue under the capitalist system” (Lawrance, 2008).

Thereafter Hong Kong’s mini-constitution: The Basic Law (BL), had been drawn out. Enlisting a high degree of autonomy, executive-legislative and judicial power, specifically that of final adjudication. It draws upon the realization of the ‘One Country Two Systems’ principle and its relation to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This is of utmost importance as Hong Kong SAR is believed to enjoy a high degree of autonomy unlike the territories overseen by the Central Government — twenty-six other provinces which observe a unitary state of governance. Most importantly, it is the bedrock for the development of other judicial laws in the region and is held in high accord due to its contribution to the economic prosperity enjoyed in Hong Kong.

As history played along, we come to question the significance of the Basic Law in maintaining the autonomy of Hong Kong, and its relation to the ‘One Country Two Systems’ political policy. Centrally, a high degree of autonomy is tantamount to interpreting it as limited autonomy. Therefore, we will explore the reality of freedom that Hong Kong enjoys as promised and publicized by China in the Basic Law.

“Nowhere in the Bill of Rights are the words “unless inconvenient” to be found.”― A.E. Samaan

The preservation of the way of life lies within the stability and consistency of the constitution of any nation. Contestations of the constitutions have led to the collapse of several great states from the Romans to the Turkish crisis today. Therefore, this section will put forward the notion that the Basic Law has actually demolished the Hong Kong system over the last three decades. However, the illusion of the Basic Law has been relatively unscathed in terms of safeguarding the way of life for the Hong Kong people until recently.

Judicial independence, capitalistic, and individual freedom has been severely undermined by the shadow of neighbouring China. This has been achieved by the contestations and the interpretations in China’s (PRC) favour by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC).

The NPCSC is a tool, rather a Trojan horse designed to push the Chinese agenda into matters concerning Hong Kong. The NPCSC has unlawfully imposed new regulations into the Basic Law disguised as interpretations, an affront of the constitution (BL). Unbeknownst to most, in accordance to article 158: “The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress shall consult its Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region before giving an interpretation of this Law.” The article clearly emphasizes that Hong Kong enlists the help of the NPCSC in judicial matters. Thus, independent and unsolicited interpretations by the NPCSC go against the constitutional terms devised by the PRC and is also seen as gross hypocrisy and erosion of its own principles. Therefore, it cannot be used as a façade to campaign for pro-regime ideals and amend the Basic Law. China’s power to interpret is shackled by nothing.

Do you hear the people sing?

The NPCSC has breached the Basic Law on four out of five occasions. One such example is central in revealing the lack of autonomy present in Hong Kong. Notably, regarding the elections of a Chief Executive in 2004. A promise for universal suffrage as stipulated in the BL is not defined as the general vote for central government-appointed nominees. Moreover, articles 45 and 68 of the BL specifies universal suffrage as the ultimate goal for the region. However, the NPCSC has handpicked pro-regime politicians who dare to undermine the authority of China. Thus, disenfranchising the population to rally behind political candidates that truly represent the majority of views held by its citizens. This is because universal suffrage is not merely the false pretence of the ability to vote, but candidates with different views being able to run, allowing for a genuine majority to vote and represent their rights.

In other words, Beijing enlists a one person, one vote outcome which carries no risk insofar as tainting the reputation of the central government. Effectively, amending the terms set in the BL, the PRC is masking their inauthenticity as an interpretation of the law. It completely subverts the possibility of exercising any autonomy, nonetheless a high level of autonomy reinstated in the Basic Law. This example is tantamount to interpreting the Basic Law as a dead letter in upholding the promise of autonomy.

Dry paint has revealed the cracks

In my view, Hong Kong will only be granted the right for free elections so long as it does not pose a threat to Beijing and the PRC. However, with the recent political movements and instability in Hong Kong, the Central Government won’t hand it over willingly. The battle for genuine universal suffrage against the world’s largest authoritarian regime continues…

Beijing’s repeated denuding of their pledge and obligation in upholding suffrage is strong evidence of the objections held by Hong Kong protesters. By any standard, keeping in mind the definition of universal suffrage, is it possible that all opposition towards the central government in an election can be viewed as true universal suffrage?

Therefore, the Basic Law and its original components are viewed by the public and protestors as milestones in maintaining the highly autonomous institution that Hong Kong’s prosperity has been built upon. To actualize this reality, it is crucial that the Central Government abide by the Basic Law at its face value.

Sadly, the local government’s continuous subversion to the woes of the Central Government hardly espouses the promise of autonomy.

No one is above the law, not even the government. The executive branch of government is essential in upholding the rule of law. Centrally, autonomy is the only reason why the common law was established in Hong Kong. A vicious cycle of undermining the independence and integrity of the executive and legislative branches of the government will directly impact the way of life for the Hong Kong people. Be this through incessant rioting, diluting the ability to stabilize business and institutional operations or naturally unfolding.

It is, however, undeniable that there is no autonomy in the Hong Kong government. It is merely capitalism in a communist embrace that is keeping the One Country Two Systems afloat. If at the highest level the PRC can unabashedly impose contradictions to the constitutions made in their own terms, it has undoubtedly seeped into every nook and cranny of the government. Thereof, signalling a lack of autonomy, and the insignificance of the Basic Law in preserving the Hong Kong system.

Three decades on the paint has dried and we see the cracks.

Raisa Sheikh

Citations:

Lawrance, Alan. China since 1919 — Revolution and Reform: a Sourcebook. Routledge, 2008.

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China: Draft. C & C Offset Printing Co., 1989.