Letter underlines HK’s constitutional obligation
argues that the SAR needs to draw lessons to enhance mechanisms of accountability under the ‘one country, two systems’ arrangement
Both the website of the Central People’s Government and Xinhua News Agency reported recently that the State Council issued an official letter to the SAR government on Feb 26 regarding the banning of the separatist Hong Kong National Party. The move has indeed set a precedent in the relations between the central government and the Hong Kong SAR for two reasons. Firstly, the central government had previously issued several official letters to the HKSAR Government since July 1, 1997, but none of them was made public. Secondly, letters previously issued by the central government were all related to administrative issues. But this one is related to a political matter, specifically the banning of the Hong Kong National Party in accordance with the law.
In a knee-jerk reaction, the opposition camp in Hong Kong quickly cried foul, claiming the central government’s move undermined the “one country, two systems” principle.
The truth is the central government has shown great respect to the HKSAR by issuing an official letter to and asking the chief executive in a polite manner for a report on the banning of HKNP. Those who are familiar with the administrative procedures on the Chinese mainland know this very well. It is absurd for members of the opposition to claim that the central government has “issued an order” to the SAR.
The letter consists of three paragraphs. The first paragraph comprises three sentences, of which the first two are factual statements, and the third one expresses the central government’s support for banning the HKNP. The second paragraph makes clear the intention of the letter: to remind the HKSAR Government and all Hong Kong residents of their constitutional responsibility to safeguard national security, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity. The third paragraph merely states that the chief executive is accountable to the central government and the HKSAR; the CE should report major events regarding national security, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity to the central government.
The third paragraph is intended to optimize the mechanism where the leader or the chief executive of the SAR is held accountable to the central government. Such a mechanism has been established according to the country’s Constitution and the Basic Law since the establishment of the SAR.
In the past, the central government issued only a few official letters to the SAR government and did not bother to publish them as no major problems ever arose from the practice of “one country, two systems”.
Now that the SAR is facing new issues in implementing “one country, two systems”, there is a need to optimize this mechanism of accountability. Nevertheless, some of the official letters will still remain undisclosed, or perhaps the number of undisclosed letters will remain bigger than the disclosed ones.
The second paragraph can be interpreted as setting forth the purpose of submitting the said report to the central government. The CE said earlier that the SAR government would explain in the report the process, as well as the legal grounds and proceedings involved in banning the operation of HKNP. This is in order to demonstrate that the ban was executed in accordance with the law. But this will be far from enough.
The central government actually has full knowledge of how the SAR government has handled the HKNP in accordance with the law. It is suggested that the CE’s report will focus on summing up the experience and analyzing in details the root causes of the emergence of separatism in Hong Kong, as well as elaborating on what specific measures the SAR government is going to take to show its zero tolerance toward separatist forces. This is the correct way to respond to the central government’s reminder, in the second paragraph, of the SAR government and Hong Kong residents’ constitutional obligations.
Although the HKNP has been banned, several other separatist groups are still operating and exerting their influence on Hong Kong. Whether to allow or discontinue their operation is an unavoidable question for the SAR government and Hong Kong residents. Is it necessary to procrastinate when a quick decision can be made? Hong Kong compatriots should show their resolute support to the SAR government in banning the operation of these secessionist groups.
Members of the opposition camp argue that the HKNP might file a judicial review on the SAR government’s ban, and that the central government is encroaching Hong Kong’s judicial independence by pre-empting the likely judicial review with the issuance of the letter.
This argument is ludicrous. President Xi Jinping made a clear declaration on July 1, 2017 that the central government had zero tolerance for the advocacy of Hong Kong independence. This is a policy the SAR government, and the judicial authority included, must comply with. Even if the HKNP files for a judicial review, a veto to their application by any judicial body will be beyond controversy. It is an insult to the Hong Kong judiciary if the separatists believe they can seek refuge under our judicial system. Regardless of their political stance, the judges must fulfill their oath — they have all pledged allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
“One country, two systems” embarks on a great exploration in a political territory where there is no precedent for reference. We need to constantly draw lessons along the way to enhance the various mechanisms and systems under the “one country, two systems” setup, including the central government’s authority over the SAR and the chief executive’s accountability to the central government. Such mechanisms are crucial parts of the “one country, two systems” principle that ensure its smooth and correct implementation.
We need to constantly draw lessons along the way to enhance the various mechanisms and systems under the “one country, two systems” setup, including the central government’s authority over the SAR and the chief executive’s accountability to the central government.