The debate on the governance system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is in no way academic, nor is it a matter of freedom of speech.

The relentless effort over the years by some quarters of society to obliterate the HKSAR’s executive-led system, as prescribed by the Basic Law, serves an underlying objective — turning the region into an independent or semi-independent political entity by compromising the central government’s overall jurisdiction over the SAR, which is carried out through the executive-led system.

Understandably, the central government saw the need to set the record straight on the design of the SAR’s political structure when an attempt to obliterate the SAR’s executive-led system emerged. Hence the issuance of statements on this matter on Monday by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, and the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong SAR that clarified the SAR’s constitutional status. 

Indeed, the central government has been consistent with its position of upholding the SAR’s executive-led governance system over the years, as it is fundamental to the full and faithful implementation of the “one country, two systems” political framework.

In the first place, then-State leader Deng Xiaoping, architect of the “one country, two systems” principle, categorically excluded the idea of adopting a “separation of powers” system for the Hong Kong SAR in 1987 when discussing the design for its political structure. His words were well-documented: “Hong Kong’s system of governance should not be completely Westernized. … For a century and a half, Hong Kong has been operating under a system different from those of Great Britain and the United States … It would not be appropriate for its system to be a total copy of theirs with, for example, the separation of powers and a British or American parliamentary system.”

Eventually, an executive-led system was adopted, as clearly laid out in the Basic Law. It is a modified version of the executive-led governance model established under British rule, with added features on checks and balances among the three branches of power.

Ever since, State leaders and central government officials have taken pains to reaffirm the nature of the SAR’s executive-led political structure when necessitated by circumstances, leaving no room for misunderstanding. It is therefore safe to say that any misinterpretation of the SAR’s political system is essentially ill-intentioned and serves only a sinister purpose.