‘Overall jurisdiction’ does not equate to ‘total control’

Falsely linking exercise of sovereignty to blanket command over administration misleads HK public, Xiao Ping warns

The Information Office of the State Council issued a policy white paper on June 10, 2014. Under the title “The Practice of the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”, the white paper reminds people that the central government holds the right to maintain overall jurisdiction over the HKSAR. Since then certain individuals in Hong Kong have shown some serious symptoms of “system depression”, including misinterpretation of the white paper, wild assumptions without facts and desperate attempts to confuse Hong Kong people.

Someone wrote in a commentary recently, claiming “overall” means “everything” and overall jurisdiction will turn “one country, two systems” into “one country, one system”, meaning “Hong Kong’s capitalist system will be replaced with socialist system and policies through and through”. That person is known for his favorite tag of “No fake, I promise” but his definition of overall jurisdiction shows he is a fake expert through and through.

Overall jurisdiction is not hard to understand at all. It is an inherent characteristic of the relationship between the central government and the HKSAR under “one country, two systems” and clearly defined in the Basic Law of the HKSAR as well as the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.

First of all, overall jurisdiction is a sovereign right. Why does the central government always say China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997 instead of “handover” of sovereignty? Because it was never handed to another sovereign state and no Chinese government since the end of Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) recognized any unfair treaty the Qing court had signed with foreign powers. What Britain took from China was the exercise of jurisdiction over Hong Kong, which means Hong Kong was never a colony and therefore never had the option of national independence or self-determination. That is why the PRC government demanded that Hong Kong and Macao be removed from the United Nations’ list of colonies as soon as the PRC regained its rightful seat in the international body in 1972. By “Hong Kong’s return to the motherland” we mean China taking back the overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong. What’s the point of taking Hong Kong back if we don’t have overall jurisdiction over it?

Also, overall jurisdiction and high degree of autonomy are not mutually exclusive. That the central government authorizes the HKSAR to maintain a high degree of autonomy does not mean giving up overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong but rather the central authorities fully trust the people of Hong Kong. The central government exercises its powers according to the Constitution while the HKSAR exercises its powers under the supervision of the central government. That is the complete illustration of the relationship between the sovereign state and an SAR by authorization. Some people insist the central government is only in charge of foreign affairs and national defense matters while the Hong Kong SAR handles everything else. That is another typical misinterpretation of high degree of autonomy. Doesn’t the central government hold the right to appoint the chief executive of the HKSAR? Doesn’t the National People’s Congress hold the right to interpret the Basic Law of the HKSAR? Those rights are vested in the central government by the Constitution and the Basic Law. The central government has always been committed to exercising those rights according to the Constitution and the Basic Law without overlooking its responsibilities or overstepping the limits since the day China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong.

Why is the central government emphasizing the overall jurisdiction over the HKSAR now after all these years? Of course there is an obvious reason. There is a political force in Hong Kong that has been challenging the overall jurisdiction by the central government with their ill-definition of “high degree of autonomy” in a bid to breach the “one country, two systems” principle. The central authorities were forced to respond this way, so that the great majority of Hong Kong residents would not fall for the lies. As for those spreading lies about overall jurisdiction and high degree of autonomy, they will get burned if they don’t stop playing with fire now.