‘Open-minded gentlemen’ urged to study Constitution

Qiao warns against tolerating separatists who abuse academic or speech freedoms to mask true intent, Tu Hoi-ming notes

iao Xiaoyang, former head of the Law Committee of the 12th National People’s Congress and a legal expert well-known to Hong Kong residents, spoke last Saturday at a seminar in the city to mark the 28th anniversary of the promulgation of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Basic Law. He called on Hong Kong society to fully understand the country’s Constitution and develop the constitutional concept and awareness for the sake of thorough implementation of the Basic Law. He also said letting Hong Kong separatist forces exist and grow would threaten the “one country, two systems” venture and, ultimately, the interests of Hong Kong residents. Hence, he urged Hong Kong people not to act as “openminded gentlemen” over the separatism issue, as some currently do.

Those whom Qiao described as “open-minded gentlemen” are people who lack a good understanding of the country or Constitution and harbor naive fantasies about Hong Kong separatism. They mistakenly think condoning the existence of Hong Kong separatism is permissible under “one country, two systems”; that ignoring separatist words and deeds means upholding freedom of expression in Hong Kong; and that turning a blind eye to separatist forces reflects harmony in the local political arena. Qiao’s speech was in fact a reiteration of the central government’s stance and a timely warning to “openminded gentlemen” in Hong Kong. His remarks help those “gentlemen” and the local community at large to recognize the true self of Hong Kong separatism, to acquire an accurate understanding of the country’s Constitution and laws, and to have a good grasp of the core meaning of upholding national sovereignty, security and development interests. The entire community must be aware that the city could never condone “Hong Kong independence”; this cause must be stopped, whatever it takes, for the sake of national security, “one country, two systems” and the fundamental interests of Hong Kong people.

Using the term “open-minded gentlemen” under the current circumstances here could not be more appropriate and symbolic. Obviously there is a group of people who support “one country, two systems” on one hand and sympathize with separatists on the other. They not only oppose anti-separatist acts but also absolve the cause, which is even worse. This group recognizes “one country, two systems”, but does not really understand this principle’s core meaning, thereby standing, consciously or unconsciously, on the wrong side that is against history, the Constitution and the country as well as Hong Kong’s interests.

These “open-minded gentlemen” exist in various political organizations and parties, the academic sector and even inside the pro-establishment camp. Some naively believe inclusiveness means success of the system, while others have hidden agendas — beneath the “open-mindedness” on the surface is the attempt to protect their own image and to seek political gains. Whatever the mindset, one must clearly recognize that the crux of the existence of “one country, two systems” is “one country”. Once national sovereignty, security and development interests are undermined, so is “one country, two systems”. Condoning Hong Kong separatism is cruel to Hong Kong residents. Letting Hong Kong separatism grow touches upon the underlying issue of institution security, leaving absolutely no room for compromise.

Qiao wanted no such “open-minded gentlemen” because, as he stressed, one must give Hong Kong separatism “zero tolerance” and accept no excuses. Another phenomenon associated with these “gentlemen” is that some separatists have hidden behind the excuse of free speech while evading public condemnation. They have even lashed back at their critics. Free speech sounds like a reasonable argument but it does not hold water. Advocating Hong Kong independence is against the law and no different from serious criminal offenses such as murder and arson. If somebody claims he will set fire to the government headquarters, could he absolve himself by citing free speech as the defense?

Qiao pinpointed without ambiguity that the issue with Hong Kong separatism is not whether it will become a reality, nor is it a matter of free speech. Rather, it is a matter of national sentiment and a constitutional issue. Hong Kong separatism inflicts serious wounds on national sentiment and severely infringes the Constitution, Basic Law and Hong Kong criminal laws. More importantly, Qiao reminded Hong Kong residents not to be taken in by such pretexts as speech or academic freedoms. They must look beyond the shroud of deceit and identify its true nature. The conclusion, regardless of perspective, is a resounding “no” to such unlawful behavior that would wreak havoc in the city.

Voices condoning Hong Kong separatism have, to a large degree, emerged because of a lack of necessary knowledge of the Constitution and Basic Law. For some, therefore, the most urgent and inevitable task is to enhance knowledge in this area.

As Qiao noted, given the way the “one country, two systems” principle and Basic Law have been implemented, what these people have to learn is twofold: the Constitution-established unitary system principle and the country’s fundamental system, highlighting the leadership of the Communist Party of China being the fundamental feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics.