Executive-led principle in HK must be fully practiced
Paul Yeung says the Basic Law enshrines the right to express multiple views on politics, but also is crystal clear that there is no such thing as ‘separation of powers’
Public debate over Hong Kong’s governance system being executive-led or one with “separation of powers” grabbed eyeballs yet again recently. Following an official clarification by the secretary for education that “separation of powers” does not exist in Hong Kong, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor publicly reiterated the official stance in support of the education secretary. Meanwhile, many people have joined the debate over whether “separation of powers” indeed does not exist in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Hong Kong society enjoys free speech, which is enshrined in the Basic Law. That is why there are always multiple views in public debates, especially over constitutional and political issues. “Separation of powers” is one of the principle concepts of political structure and cannot be decided upon by merely citing the opinion of some scholar or publication. Any argument over the question of Hong Kong’s political structure must be based on the Basic Law of the HKSAR. It is a well-known fact that the Basic Law does not contain the phrase “separation of powers” at all, but does list in Chapter IV the political structure as, from top down, the chief executive, the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judiciary, district organizations, and public servants, which is explained in six corresponding sections, complete with their respective roles and powers. However one reads Chapter IV of the Basic Law, there is no way to conclude that Hong Kong’s political structure is characterized by “separation of powers”.
Chapter IV of the Basic Law, regarding the political structure of the HKSAR, spells out the division of labor among different branches of the SAR government, and that is where the executive-led principle shines through unmistakably. Deng Xiaoping made it clear back in 1987 that “separation of powers” would never apply in Hong Kong because he knew it would foment separatism and therefore must be kept far away from Hong Kong.
A spokesperson for the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council also issued an official statement on Monday that the executiveled system with the chief executive as the core is enshrined in the Basic Law of the HKSAR and, under that principle, the executive and legislative branches of the SAR government are expected to collaborate and serve as checks and balances of each other. The assertion that Hong Kong cannot have judicial independence without “separation of powers” is a false proposition, because the Basic Law stipulates in Section 4 of Chapter IV that Hong Kong courts perform their judicial duties according to existing law — free from interference.
Using false propositions like this in public debates over political issues is nothing new in Hong Kong. The opposition camp in particular is obsessed with attaching their own illegitimate political ideas to the Basic Law of the HKSAR.
For example, the Basic Law clearly stipulates that the selection of the chief executive requires nomination by a broadly representative nomination committee, but the opposition camp came up with “citizen nomination” and used it as an excuse to launch the illegal movement of “Occupy Central” in 2014, which not only took away the opportunity for Hong Kong society to achieve universal suffrage in the 2016 chief executive election, but also sowed the seeds of violent social unrest in the city. Similarly, the opposition camp has also used “separation of powers” as a talking point more than once to mislead the public over Hong Kong’s political structure in recent years.
They are addicted to “separation of powers” because, in political science, the concept has been adopted as political power arrangement by some independent political entities. Since Hong Kong is a special administrative region established according to Article 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and its powers are granted by the Central People’s Government, of course its political structure cannot be “separation of powers” by any stretch of the concept. On that note may I suggest, in order to understand the issue, Hong Kong society should thoroughly learn the Constitution of the PRC as well as the Basic Law of the HKSAR.
Also, worth noting is that this debate is not only about a political concept, but also actual practice. The executiveled principle of Hong Kong’s political structure is set in the Basic Law, but in the past 23 years it has not been practiced fully. The reality is that the political energy of the chief executive, and the executive branch of the SAR government for that matter, is not even close to that of the colonial governor under British rule. As a result, the decisions made by the chief executive and the executive branch were frequently obstructed, if not butchered, by the opposition camp one way or another. As such, the SAR government has not been able to achieve as many positive results as it should in terms of executive-led governance, especially when it comes to resolving deeper issues of local society. That has created difficulties for members of the public to support the SAR government wholeheartedly, too.
In conclusion, we must not be content with winning the debate over Hong Kong’s political structure only, but rather do our best in making the executive-led principle of governance as tangible as apples and oranges.
Chapter IV of the Basic Law, regarding the political structure of the HKSAR, spells out the division of labor among different branches of the SAR government and that is where the executive-led principle shines through unmistakably.