Chan Tak-leung
Reminds ‘separatists’ of the reality behind the HKSAR’s founding and points out legislators owe allegiance to the population, not just their core voters
Recent visits to Taiwan and Japan by “localism” advocates betrayed not only their ultimate desire to tear away the founding principle behind “One Country, Two Systems” and the Basic Law but also displayed their arrogance, selfdeception and total misrepresentation of the truth on the facts which confirmed Hong Kong’s current status as a special administrative region of China.
Their visits were mischievous, damaging and reinforced their reluctance to acknowledge the terms agreed between China and the United Kingdom contained in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, for this document emphatically declared that “the People’s Republic of China to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong”.
Refusal to accept China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong by “localism” advocates can at best be regarded as simple ignorance — as most of them would claim the declaration was agreed and signed in their absences. This argument won’t wash at all. Would they not eat the food or drink the water that was not grown nor bottled by them? However, one believes strongly that at worst their visits and meetings with other activists who do not believe in the “One China” policy simply demonstrated their intention to promote their socalled “self-determination” idea which by any stretch of the imagination means the promotion of Hong Kong’s departure from China’s sovereignty for good.
Hence one would like to suggest there is an urgent need for these “localists” to take their reality checks before they continue to make false, delusive and damaging statements that will only impair Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity.
Firstly “localism” activists or would-be provocateurs need to be reminded that it was stated clearly and unequivocally, in the second paragraph of the preamble in the Basic Law, that the rationale in setting up Hong Kong as an SAR is for “upholding national unity and territorial integrity, maintaining the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong”. To carry out activi- The author is the director of the Chinese in Britain Forum. He was the first-ever Chinese British citizen to be elected mayor of the Greater London Borough of Redbridge (2009-10) and served as a member of the city council for over 10 years. ties that acted contrary to this principle would be to damage national unity, to break up territorial integrity and jeopardize Hong Kong’s future and its many citizens. Unlike the United Kingdom — created with the union of England, Scotland and Wales — Hong Kong is a region of China, albeit granted 50 years of special administrative arrangements. There are no ifs or buts that the region will have a separate status when the current timeframe runs out in 2047. Hong Kong will remain part of the one country that is China, period. Furthermore it will be China’s sovereign decision at that time whether to continue with the status quo, for how long or otherwise.
The second reality check for “localism” activists would be a reminder that within the Basic Law Hong Kong’s legislative power is “vested”, or in another words “authorized”, by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. This means China has overall constitutional authority over the SAR. Some activists and legislators in the SAR may take exception to either the decision or timing when the NPCSC exercised its legal prerogatives in the past. However, they must understand that this power is not only legal but it is also a manifestation of the “One Country, Two Systems” principle.
Reality check No 3 would be for these activists and some anti-China legislators to acknowledge that Hong Kong’s legislature was set up under provisions in the Basic Law. Accordingly all legislators are elected to “enact, amend and repeal laws, examine and approve budgets, taxation and public expenditure and raise questions on the work of the government”. Once elected, all legislators, regardless of their personal beliefs and political affiliations, are also bound by the Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics in the exercising their roles. It was most unfortunate that in order to appease their supporters and behind-the-scenes funders, a minority of elected legislators have failed to abide by these codes and as a result they failed to behave honorably both in and out of the chamber.
This minority yet disruptive component of the legislature should therefore be tasked to undertake reality checks so they would have a full appreciation of the significance and importance of their roles. They need to understand that once they have gained their votes from their electorates they will no longer be required to look after the concerns and interests of those who elected them but they were elected to serve all constituents. To act irresponsibly in order to appease the ones who voted or funded their campaigns or to waste valuable time in the chamber in order to achieve their personal political beliefs are just plain wrong and an insult to democracy.
One urges and pleads to all these “localism” activists to put the best interest of Hong Kong and its citizens first and face up to realities when they attempt to tarnish the brilliance of this Pearl of the Orient.
One urges and pleads to all these “localism” activists to put the best interest of Hong Kong and its citizens first and face up to realities when they attempt to tarnish the brilliance of this Pearl of the Orient.