2024 RT Amination Banner.gif

China Daily

HongKong> Opinion> Content
Wednesday, April 08, 2020, 01:26
Full implementation of Basic Law needs a united patriotic camp
By Zhou Bajun
Wednesday, April 08, 2020, 01:26 By Zhou Bajun

Although the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China has, since its enactment 30 years ago, been implemented in Hong Kong for nearly 23 years, three important articles have yet to be implemented, namely Article 23, the second paragraph of Article 45 and second paragraph of Article 68. Such long delays deserve our attention. It has not only exposed the core issues Hong Kong has faced in the implementation of the Basic Law in the past 23 years, but also reflected the greatest challenge Hong Kong has encountered in implementing “one country, two systems”, “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong” and a high degree of autonomy.

Back in 2002, when the second-term SAR government submitted to the Legislative Council a bill on enacting a national security law according to Article 23 of the Basic Law, the bill was expected to pass with the majority of votes from pro-establishment lawmakers, who effectively controlled the Legislature. However, political groups affiliated with the business sector switched sides after the July 1 rally in 2003. The then-chief executive had to withdraw the bill.

Then, 17 years later, in 2019, history seemed to be repeating itself when the fifth-term SAR government proposed amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance. The government managed to gain majority support for the extradition bill in LegCo after lawmakers representing the business sector pledged their support for the bill after revisions. But the majority support was shaken when the anti-China and anti-communist political forces launched a violent campaign on June 12. The amendment bill was eventually aborted.

These two setbacks exposed the same issue. A portion of the pro-establishment camp comprises staunch patriots who steadfastly support the SAR government. The same cannot be said of some other members of the camp who, when it comes to supporting government policies or initiatives, are easily swayed by the so-called “public opinion” cooked up by the anti-China and anti-communist political forces on certain issues.

We must draw lessons from the implementation of the constitutional document over the past 23 years, and realize that strengthening patriotic groups in the city is a necessary condition to ensure the accurate and full implementation of the Basic Law

The staunch patriotic groups do not waver in upholding the Basic Law and “one country, two systems” because they were suppressed during British rule and are thus no friends of the West. In contrast, political groups affiliated with the business sector often have commercial ties with the West, which makes it difficult for them to stand firm on political issues the West fiercely opposes.

Some may wonder why business-affiliated political parties have sided with the staunch patriotic groups on issues concerning political development in the SAR. To put it simply, the business community worries that populism will be aggravated when the chief executive and legislators are elected by universal suffrage, and populism contests with business interests. Consequently, they oppose the hasty implementation of dual universal suffrage promoted by the anti-China and anti-communist forces.

It should be noted that the anti-China forces have been resisting the enactment of a national security law according to Article 23 of the Basic Law in defense of their own interests. They are trying to preempt the sword of Damocles over their heads in the form of a national security law. On the other hand, the HKSAR’s failure to fully enforce the second paragraphs of Articles 45 and 68 is the result of their “offensives”. As Hong Kong’s political landscape is still favorable for them, they seek to force the central government to let Hong Kong copy the Western-style “genuine universal suffrage”, which they believe can help them snatch the governing power of the HKSAR and turn Hong Kong into an independent entity. Combining offensive and defensive tactics has been a typical trick employed by the anti-China and anti-communist political forces over the past 17 years.

Back in 2003, although Washington, which was already the biggest manipulator of anti-China and anti-communist forces, masterminded the opposition against the legislation for Article 23, it was still primarily focused on counterterrorism. Seventeen years later, as the United States adjusts its global strategy and regards China as one of its major rivals, Hong Kong’s political landscape is shifting. It has become apparent that certain business leaders who have strong ties with the West might not always side with local patriot groups on agendas concerning Hong Kong’s political development in the future. The political stance of these individuals will influence certain business-affiliated political associations.

The anti-China and anti-communist forces have adjusted their strategy. Back in 2014, they staged the illegal “Occupy Central” movement to coerce the central government to introduce “genuine universal suffrage” in the HKSAR. To date, they are striving to first seize the governing power of the administration before pushing for “genuine universal suffrage”: They are trying to — by launching the “black revolution” — snatch the majority of seats in LegCo as well as in the election committee for the chief executive so that they can take over the chief executive’s office. We must not ignore the fact that within the pro-establishment camp, there are quite a few who easily yield to the demands of the opposition camp.

In a nutshell, as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Basic Law, we must draw lessons from the implementation of the constitutional document over the past 23 years, and realize that strengthening patriotic groups in the city is a necessary condition to ensure the accurate and full implementation of the Basic Law.

The author is a senior research fellow of China Everbright Holdings. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.


Share this story

Also Read