To participate is part of Liaison Office’s mission
Last week I attended a high-profile conference at the Peking University in Beijing. The event made headlines in Hong Kong as, among other things, at a sideline event of the conference Wang Zhenmin — the director of legal department of the central government’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong — dismissed the need for the city to achieve universal suffrage in the “next five or 10 years”, citing failed Middle Eastern experiences of democracy that resulted in civil wars and refugee crises.
I have also been referred to as “outspoken” after I argued at the conference that Chief Executivedesignate Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor would not have been able to win the election by a big margin without the help of Liaison Office, and that Beijing’s support did not constitute interference in Hong Kong affairs.
Perhaps even more to the dismay of some in Hong Kong, I also added it was part of the Liaison Office’s mission to participate in Hong Kong’s governance. Allow me to elaborate on what I meant. According to Article 22 of the Basic Law, “no department of the Central People’s Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the central government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law”. Some in Hong Kong use this as a reason to reject any central government participation in the governing of Hong Kong.
The word “interfere” has a number of different meanings. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, interfere may mean “to enter into or take a part in the concerns of others”, or “to interpose in a way that hinders or impedes”. The first meaning is neutral, the second is negative.
Most of us use “interfere” in the negative sense. In telling us that “interfere” may mean “to take part”, Dictionary.com adds “meddle” at the end to supplement the meaning. Meddle, of course, means to involve oneself in a matter without the right or invitation.
Taken as a whole, to interfere is not simply to participate. Interference is involvement which is unwanted and counterproductive. This is even clearer when we also consider the word used in the Chinese version of the Basic Law — ganyu, which has a strong negative connotation.
Article 22, in its entirety, also supports this interpretation. If the drafting committee aimed at banning all types of involvement, the article can simply use the word “participate” instead of “interfere”.
We should also note that Article 22 only seeks to control the behavior of departments and local governments under the central government. It does not place limits on the actions of the central gov- The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.
Without the Liaison Office communicating the central government’s strategic intentions to the Hong Kong government, and getting feedback, the CE will be at a loss.
ernment itself, as this would be unconstitutional.
Taken as a whole, the Basic Law prohibits “interference” — unwanted involvement from the mainland — but not rightful and productive participation by central government authorities.
The distinction between “interference” and “participation” is so obvious and reasonable that I should not have to write about it here. However, Hong Kong people have been fed so much disinformation by the local anti-mainland media that they fail to realize such a simple but important principle of the Basic Law and “One Country, Two Systems”.
The participation of the Liaison Office in Hong Kong’s governance is not only legal and constitutional but also necessary. Hong Kong has never been governed entirely locally. Our local government elites, since the colonial days, comprise mostly administrative officers — affectionately known as the AOs. This title suggests the nature of their job, which is execution rather than strategy.
Before the reunification, London set the strategic direction of the colony first and foremost by appointing the governor. The people of Hong Kong did not have a say as to who that person is. Under “One Country, Two Systems” Hong Kong people are guaranteed that the Chief Executive is one of their peers, and that they can influence who that person is based on a democratic process.
The arrangement after reunification is much better than the one that existed during the colonial era, but it does not mean that the central government therefore somehow forfeits its rightful place in the political structure. Without the Liaison Office communicating the central government’s strategic intentions to the Hong Kong government, and getting feedback, the CE will be at a loss. This function, coincidentally, is called liaison.