The Central Authorities have always had great faith in Hong Kong. The Basic Law reflects their determination not only to ensure continuity after 1997, but also to promote the “one country, two systems” policy. And it is also visionary, as it envisages evolving arrangements for the city as it develops and matures.
Although the Basic Laws of China’s two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macao, adopted by the National People’s Congress on, respectively, April 4, 1990, and March 31, 1993, are, in some respects, identical, for example, over the obligation to introduce national security legislation (Art.23 in both places), there are also significant divergences. Hong Kong’s Basic Law goes further than Macao’s in particular areas, notably, democratic development. Whereas its Basic Law envisages that the “ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage” (Art.45), and that the “ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage” (Art.68), the Basic Law of Macao contains no such aspiration.
In many ways, therefore, Hong Kong was an experiment for China, an exercise in the sort of democratic model which is popular in Western countries. Until such time as it was tried, nobody would know for sure if this type of arrangement was suited to China’s own development. If it succeeded, all well and good, and the lessons learned in Hong Kong could have assisted the Central Authorities as they mapped out the direction of travel for other major Chinese cities. If, however, it failed, it would be a pity, but at least the idea would have been tested, and found to be unsuited to China’s circumstances.
People who want to harm China, or hurt the city and its officials, or promote the agenda of hostile forces, can have no role in Hong Kong’s affairs, at whatever level
In the early years after 1997, there were high hopes that, by stages, progress could be made towards universal suffrage, and the point has now been reached whereby 35 seats in the Legislative Council are directly elected from geographical constituencies, with 35 seats being indirectly elected from the functional constituencies. Although this could have been built upon, the prospects of greater democracy have been scuppered by people who have abused the system, and demonstrated no vision, which is a pity. Instead of seizing their opportunities, they preached hatred of the Central Authorities on every occasion, resorted to violence in the Legislative Council and condoned it on the streets, sought to paralyze the government’s functions, and implored foreign powers to enact laws which would harm Hong Kong and its officials.
Even when Beijing decided that, for the first time ever, the people of Hong Kong could directly elect their own leader in the Chief Executive election of 2017, opposition legislators in the Legislative Council decided that the proposal did not go far enough, and voted it down. If the proposal had been embraced, it would have opened the door to greater democracy in the Legislative Council elections as well, but by their shortsightedness, opposition forces have squandered this opportunity, perhaps forever. Indeed, many of those elected to representative office, at all levels, have shown themselves unfit to serve, and this has inevitably called into question the wisdom of any more moves towards universal suffrage.
Inside the Legislative Council, for example, some legislators behaved like street thugs, openly resorting to violence. When the former Chief Executive, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, delivered his policy address on October 15, 2008, one legislator threw a bunch of bananas at him, while his successor, Leung Chun-ying, had a glass and papers thrown at him when he attended a question-and-answer session on July 3, 2014. After the current Chief Executive, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, was elected, things became so unruly that her regular appearances there had to be suspended altogether, with the policy address being delivered online.
The quality of the opposition legislators has, moreover, been appalling, with some of them, like Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Regine Yau Wai-ching, being unable to take their oaths of office without resorting to blasphemy, crude stunts and secessionist posturing. Some of them were willing to resort to violence, with the former Democratic Party legislator, Ted Hui Chi-fung, now a criminal fugitive, actually revelling in his loutishness. In 2019, for example, after he attacked a government official in the Legislative Council complex and grabbed her mobile phone, he was convicted of common assault, obstructing a police officer and gaining access to a computer with criminal intent. Thereafter, in 2020, he threw noxious substances around in the Council’s chamber, and deposited a rotting plant on its floor, which was presumably his idea of political debate. He was also charged with contempt for obstructing the Council’s officials amid violent scenes in May, which left some of them injured. Apart from indulging in their own violence, the likes of Hui invariably whitewashed the excesses of the protest movement and its armed wing, maligned the police force for saving the city from their depredations, and even tried to block its future funding.
Thuggery apart, other legislators were prepared, in defiance of their oaths of allegiance, to collude with China’s adversaries in the United States. On September 2, 2019, the Civic Party leader, Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, together with his colleagues Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, Kwok Ka-ki, Tanya Chan Suk-chong and Jeremy Tam Man-ho, actually wrote to the leadership of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in the US House of Representatives and Senate, encouraging their intervention in Hong Kong affairs. At the very time when the US Congress was considering the Hong Kong Democracy and Human Rights Act, these legislators urged the Americans to ensure “the swift passage of the Bill into law as soon as possible”. The principal feature of the bill, since enacted, was to empower the US President to impose sanctions on Hong Kong and mainland officials, which, of course has now happened.
Such conduct, by elected officials who have, as the Basic Law requires, sworn “allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China” (Art.104), was despicable, and may well have amounted to misconduct in public office, as the ICAC hopefully appreciates. It must also have shattered the high hopes that Beijing once had for Hong Kong, and was clearly a betrayal of its trust, as were many of their other activities. Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, for example, as deputy chairman of the Legislative Council’s House Committee, was required to preside over its meeting in October 2019, which should have taken no more than an hour. Instead, however, of discharging his duty, he chose, in 17 meetings spanning 7 months, to prevent the election from taking place, as a result of which no bills could proceed, and the legislative process ground to a halt. He claimed, as justification, that it was necessary to block laws like the national security legislation and the national anthem law, which was extraordinary, given that the Basic Law, which he had sworn to uphold, provides that Hong Kong “shall” enact a national security law, just as it was obliged to enact a national anthem law, given that it had been inserted into the Basic Law’s Annex III by the NPCSC in November 2018 (Art.18).
Although Yeung, Dennis Kwok and others were subsequently expelled from the Legislative Council, because of their disloyalty, it was obvious that, so long as it contained people like this, it would be unable to discharge its essential functions, with the people of Hong Kong being the biggest losers. Indeed, on February 28, 2021, Yeung and others, including lawyers and academics, were charged with conspiring to subvert state power. They allegedly plotted to gain control of the Legislative Council in the since-postponed elections by obtaining a parliamentary majority and then using it to block the budget, bring the work of government to a halt, and force the Chief Executive to resign, thereby provoking a confrontation with the Central Authorities.
Although elected legislators should, as the Basic Law requires, be concentrating on debate, legislation and good governance (Art.73), anti-government forces have treated the Legislative Council as a vehicle for promoting chaos, obstruction, and a twisted anti-China agenda of their own, and things are no better at the district level. As the Basic Law explains, District Councils “are not organs of political power”, and they exist to provide advice “on district administration and other affairs”, as well as “for providing services in such fields as culture, recreation and environmental sanitation” (Art.97). This, however, is not how many district councilors see their role. Instead of concentrating on their core functions, which is what they are paid for, they spend most of their time engaging in crude politicking, picking arguments with the police, abusing government officials, and poking their noses into matters outside their remit, like constitutional reform. They have become an embarrassment, particularly as many have openly associated themselves with the protest movement and its excesses and have not the slightest interest in district affairs. Public funds must no longer be wasted upon them.
However sad, the current democratic model has failed, and a new direction is now required. Those who take up public office must be responsible, committed to the city, and loyal to the country. Although Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy, it is an integral part of China, and comes directly under the Central People’s Government. People who want to harm China, or hurt the city and its officials, or promote the agenda of hostile forces, can have no role in Hong Kong’s affairs, at whatever level.
In the 1980s, the former paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, explained that “patriotism” is a broad concept, and that people of different persuasions, whether capitalist or otherwise, could play their part in the city’s affairs, provided they love the motherland and Hong Kong. It was not, he said, necessary for someone to be in favor of China’s socialist system, and, for a pluralistic society like Hong Kong, which is free-thinking and attracts people from all over the world, this was clearly farsighted. While the democratic processes now have to change, the new arrangements will hopefully ensure that people of goodwill are still accommodated, even if they come from elsewhere, have unorthodox views or think outside the box. In other words, Deng’s thinking should provide as much guidance in the future as it has done in the past.
The author is a senior counsel, law professor and criminal justice analyst, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
