A new interpretation of Hong Kong's Basic Law was ratified on April 6 in meetings of the 10th National People's Congress Central Standing Committee (CSC) in Beijing.
With 155 votes for the motion and one abstention, this kind of landslide victory with nary a peep of disagreement is the preserve of a totalitarian government, and clearly demonstrates that the committee's loyalties lie with the party, not the people. This phenomenon fuels the people's calls for democracy, and explains these leaders' complete inability to understand them.
Hence we have the new "interpretation," the second time that the Central Standing Committee has shed such new light on the Basic Law.
The first came in 1999, after a clause in the Basic Law stating that children of Hong Kong citizens living abroad could claim residency caused many thousands of people to pursue legal citizenship.
Some were turned away by the authorities, either for entering the territory illegally or for overstaying. This group succeeded in overturning these rulings in the courts. After all, how could they have entered illegally or overstayed if they had already been accorded permanent residency under the Basic Law?
Given this situation, the Hong Kong government argued that over a million new residents would proceed to vie for jobs and food with other Hong Kongers. Beijing, when asked to interpret the law following public protests, reversed the original decision of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.
This severely compromised the Hong Kong courts' independence and opened the door for Beijing's direct manipulation of Hong Kong's laws. In the end, the individuals who lost their case for residency, the children of Hong Kong citizens, held protests against Beijing's intervention that resulted in bloodshed.
This month's second Basic Law interpretation showed either that the law Beijing itself had praised was full of loopholes, or that Beijing decided it had offered too many concessions in the past. Since Hong Kong had already been returned to China, it was time to pull things another step closer to "one country, one system." This interpretation focused on the Basic Law sections governing the Special Administrative Region leader's appointment and the Legislative Council's formation.
Yet Beijing has gone beyond interpreting the law and has actually amended it, as it increases to five the original three criteria for revisions to the Legislative Council formation law. Originally, any proposed changes needed to be passed by at least two-thirds of the council members, then approved by the chief executive and finally by the NPC Central Standing Committee. Now these stages are to be preceeded by the chief executive announcing any proposed changes followed by a CSC decision.
With this, the right to instigate reforms via revision has been transferred from the council to the chief executive. If the latter decides he no longer sees the necessity for reforms, it will be very difficult for public opinion in Hong Kong to be realized. Even if the chief executive agrees to go ahead with reforms, there is the obstacle of the CSC.
Further hampering potential revisions, both the chief executive and the CSC will have the opportunity to block the process in the final two stages. Only 50 percent of the organization's members are democratically elected, and it will be extremely difficult for them to amass the required two-thirds majority.
What with the right to instigate reform in the hands of a chief executive appointed by Beijing, and the right of the unanimous CSC to veto such proposals twice in the process, any reform must pass five hurdles. This makes it next to impossible for Hong Kong's people to achieve their long-voiced dreams of democratic general elections.
Ever since Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong (
First, Beijing has made concessions by bringing forward electoral reforms to include the year 2007; they were originally to start after that year. This was the first consideration that they acceded to among the four points considered in the Basic Law's interpretation. The problem is that China has taken away the right to instigate reform and strengthened its own dominant role in the decision-making process.
The people may be able to discuss political reform but what good will it actually do? Beijing is sure to say no.
Second, Beijing has sent officials to Hong Kong to discuss the interpretation after previously refusing any communication with the democracy movement. Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa (
More recently the Central Government in Hong Kong's Liaison Office (formerly the Hong Kong branch of Xinhua News Agency) has made contact with the democracy movement, especially with lawyers who had won many votes for the movement in local elections. Officials sent to Hong Kong from Beijing nowadays no longer avoid contact with democratic activists.
Beijing's softer approach has fooled some observers, including members of the movement and of media sympathetic to Beijing. The majority of Hong Kong residents, however, have their eyes wide open. The April 11 protest against Beijing's interpretation of the Basic Law tells us much about how people really feel in Hong Kong.
Paul Lin is a political commentator living in the United States.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS