REPEALING THE OUTDATED AND INADEQUATE POLICY
Hong Kong Basic Law: Repealing the Outdated and Inadequate Policy
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China is considered nowadays as one of Asia’s major financial capitals after Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Many international agencies, institutions and business firms based in the country, allowing the economy and development of the country flourish to what is now seen today. However, since the country was returned to China by the British Empire in 1997, political movements started to develop within Hong Kong due to the desire of many Hong Kong Nationals to repeal the current constitution or the Hong Kong Basic Law. Many citizens found the Basic Law restrictive as the People’s Republic of China is given full dominion over Hong Kong – from its decision-making capacity to the rights of its citizens. Others even argue that the Basic Law is an outdated colonial model and inadequate for the political needs of Modern Hong Kong. Repealing the Hong Kong Basic Law would permit Hong Kong to gain its long deserved autonomy as the current outdated colonial Basic Law restricts political transparency and democracy with only a few determining the future of the country.
Hong Kong and the Establishment of the Basic Law
Hong Kong Island was first regarded as a fishing community and an isolated outpost of Imperial China before it became a British colony in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanking and the end of the First Opium War. According to Cullen (2006), Britain aimed to open China’s doors for Opium trade and stop the intent of the Empire to stop British trading to the country. As opium first came into the hands of the Chinese, the demand for opium grew and allowed Britain to take Hong Kong after the war. Slowly, Hong Kong Island was turned into a colonial outpost by Britain and permitted Britain to enact its own laws in the region, whilst still allowing the Hong Kong nationals to have a law making capacity similar to other colonies. The Letters Patent for Hong Kong served as the country’s primary constitution until 1997. The Second Opium War led to Britain’s dominion over Kowloon and Stonecutters Island, permitting the Empire to modernize Hong Kong. As conflicts raged across the Pacific, Hong Kong became the supplier to the newly established People’s Republic of China while Britain enjoyed prosperities despite the regional and international crises that befell the country.
On July 1, 1997, China had managed to reclaim sovereignty over Hong Kong under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. In the discussions, the Hong Kong constitution – the Basic Law- would sustain the belief “One Country – Two Systems” agreement that cemented Hong Kong’s return to China. The Basic Law was passed in 1990 and enforced on July 1, 1997. The constitution ensures that Hong Kong or the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) would be given autonomy even if they are under the People’s Republic of China. The Basic Law also has enabled the creation of Hong Kong’s own set of individual rights, the Common Law system that was used by Britain for Hong Kong’s criminal justice system, economic autonomy and Hong Kong’s international image .
Chinese Sentiment over Hong Kong and the Basic Law
Regaining sovereignty over Hong Kong through the Basic Law has several positive implications to China, primarily for its intent to reestablish itself as a global power and regard the edge brought by Hong Kong. According to Flynn (2009), the PRC wished to regain back Hong Kong and Macao after failing to regain control over Taiwan. China forced England to withdraw from the island when the lease that granted Britain the chance to claim the country had expired in 1997. England did yield and concede to the request on June 30, 1997 considering that they cannot fight against the surrounding territories where the Chinese forces are stationed. It also doesn’t help that if war did break between Britain and China, it would just destroy Hong Kong. For China, Hong Kong was a financial advantage they cannot ignore given that Hong Kong is perceived as a part of China. Hong Kong should not be harmed in any way and it was integral that the Chinese get this island back to establish China’s return as a world power. If they did seize the island without warning, it would only cause China to be feared by the people. Eventually, they did settle a compromise with Britain that if Britain relinquish its administrative control, China would swear not to change the current structure of Hong Kong’s economic and social system for the next 50 years. Both parties agreed to the concession, declaring that it is hoping in reviving their relations with their former territory under the premise of the Basic Law regarding the “one country, two systems” scheme.
The establishment of the Basic Law, according to Fong (2014) assures the Chinese government that the overall political and economic interests in the territory would be retained in accordance to the “one country, two systems policy’. The Chinese government also aims to use this same policy to ensure that the state-business alliance would continue as it is an important element to government strategies meant for Hong Kong. The Chinese also used the Basic Law to ensure that the business sector would become the founding members of the HKSAR government. China established the Chief Executive Election Committees and the Legislative Council to secure business elites’ position in the government . Rezvani (2014) added that China also fears that possible reforming of the Basic Law would disrupt the legitimizing effects brought in by large-scale foreign direct investments that Hong Kong supplies for China .
Hong Kong on the Basic Law and Chinese Dominion
While China perceives that Hong Kong is indeed a part of China and should adhere to its rule, Hong Kong nationals do not share the same sentiment. Hong Kong nationals see the Basic Law as an outdated colonial model of its previous government and is no longer fitting for the political needs of the people. In terms of being outdated colonial model, Goodstadt (2005) stated that China retained many aspects of the colonial government’s policies to ensure that democracy would not be possible for Hong Kong. China retained the classical colonial political structure used prior to the withdrawal of Britain from the country, further stimulated by the appointment of officials and businessmen who were included in the colonial system. As a result, the outdated system caused conflict between officials who were ignored by the appointees for the first Executive Council and the appointees who were excluded from the policy-making structure. Further issues with the outdated model became visible after the first economic recession of the country in late 1997. Senior officials immediately wiped their hands from the responsibility of reviving the economy. The new Provisional Legislative Council had been tasked to revise the country’s legislature to launch policies to revive the economy, but they were confused as to how they should act towards the issue. In the following year, the Legislative Council did move immediately to recover from the recession .
In addition to the retained political structure from the colonial model, there are also provisions that continue to exist which dates back its history in the colonial government. Gaylor and Traver (1997) cited that the criminal justice system would be affected by the Basic Law as several provisions are still the same as that of its colonial period. Some of the examples that warrants attention is Chapter III of the Basic Law, which states residents’ rights and duties which may contradict with the current Bill of Rights. The HKSAR is also required to define criminal activities which are not proscribed under the law. The Central People’s Government may apply ‘the relevant national laws’ in Hong Kong should the National People’s Congress declare war. Many considered this particular aspect ‘Draconian’ in nature as only a few would determine as to which events should be considered threatening. There is a high likelihood that the government may induce their own turmoil to declare martial law. Other questions that were raised by the public and experts pertains as to who should be considered for selected seats in office, especially in the judiciary .
Hong Kong nationals also find the Basic Law and the leadership of China in their government to be inadequate given their conflicting ideologies which has been influenced by the country’s diverse history and relations. Lau (1997) stated that even before the island became the SAR, Hong Kong was against Chinese preference to communism. While some of the island’s population would proudly say they are Chinese, they detested communism given the pain and harsh treatment of the Communist China. For the younger generation, China was just their neighboring country. While they adhered to Chinese values, Hong Kong nationals are well aware of the Western world and the ideologies they value. Many Hong Kong nationals, especially the younger generation, were taught in British-style education. China also became unpopular for some due to the continuous divide in the country. For those who wished to revolt against the Chinese rule, they are most likely to be executed even if the crime was just to speak out about the weaknesses of the communist system. A few Hong Kong nationals were also weary of the impacts of allowing China to have such influence in the region once the British Empire relinquishes its control over the region. There is a possibility the Chinese government would use it as a chance to transform Hong Kong into its perceived image .
The fears regarding China’s total control over the Island through the provisions of the Basic Law is justified according to pro-democracy and anti-Beijing movements within the Island. According to Cheng (2014), the administrations that have passed failed to support the Hong Kong people as social services and welfare were decreased as the years progressed. Hong Kong was still able to amass more than HK $1.4 trillion in recent years, but there is no proposed action as to what would be done with these assets for the sake of the people. Hong Kong has reported that there is already a growing gap between the rich and the poor as the income each Hong Kong national is getting is now becoming unequal to the intended bracket for the salary they gain. Although there have been attempts to improve the situation of the Hong Kong public, it was visible for the public that the Hong Kong government was mostly concerned in pleasing business leaders and investors. This legitimacy deficit from the government poses many questions and problems for the people as controversial issues and policies remain unanswered and affects the majority of the population .
Finally, it is also criticized by the people that the Hong Kong government is not as “autonomous” as people thought given the control of the Chinese government to the country’s state of affairs. Rezvani (2012) stated that China’s influence in the country suppresses civil and political freedoms which restrict them from challenging China without repercussions. Analysts stress that it would be difficult to assert reform in the country given the unilateral fiat the Chinese have over the country. China can easily change Hong Kong’s constitution whenever it sees fit, restricting the possibility of appealing against it. Some remarked that the introduction of the Basic Law assured the death of Hong Kong’s autonomy even if it is still capable of doing normal functions. There is also a sentiment that it would not be easy for Hong Kong to counter any policy raised by China given the lack of provisions in the Basic Law that would permit it .
Current Situation
As the debate regarding the Basic Law still continued to reign around Hong Kong, there were still sentiments of the possibility China would heed Hong Kong’s request for greater autonomy. Chan (2014) reported that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has officially requested Beijing to permit Hong Kong nationals to elect his successor on July as he reported many were “eager” for universal suffrage. He even cited that reforming the Basic Law is essential to establish democratic reform that would allow voters to select their leaders in 2017. However, pro-democracy groups such as Occupy Central with Love and Peace criticized the report as it did not stress anything about permitting the Hong Kong people to select their own bets for the Executive without Beijing interfering the selection. Pro-democracy leaders like Charles Mok and Raymond Wong commented that the report was like a “script written by the Communist Party” .
However, China did not concede to the request of Hong Kong for freer elections and laid down limits on voting reforms in Hong Kong on August 31st. According to the report of Forsythe (2014), the decision of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee in restricting change in would ensure the stability of Hong Kong and at the same time, only brought them head on to the pro-democracy groups in Hong Kong. The move in itself was seen by many Hong Kong nationals, especially the pro-democracy groups, as a proof of the lies China has fed the country since the country was given back to China by Britain. The Basic Law had highlighted the “one person, one vote” principle which China promised Hong Kong in 1997 but it is visible China is no longer going to respect it. Occupy Central, which led various calls for democracy through civil protests, stressed they would gather the people to protest against China’s continuous attempts to suppress Hong Kong sovereignty. For some observers, China’s continuous efforts to stop direct nominations would permit candidates who does not support Beijing’s policies and eventually affect Chinese-Hong Kong affairs .
Conclusion
Currently, it is difficult to determine as to whether or not the situation in Hong Kong would end in favor of democratic reform or continuous Chinese dominance. On the one hand, China’s position in retaining control of Hong Kong is beneficial to China’s desire to become a world power. The Basic Law cements China’s intent in ensuring that Hong Kong continues to benefit China and legitimizes Chinese rule over Hong Kong. On the other hand; however, the continuous presence of the Basic Law should be repealed or reformed primarily as it limits Hong Kong’s growth and development. The law and the continuous Chinese dominance also prevents Hong Kong nationals from selecting their own leaders and exercise their freedoms. It is important that China accepts reforming the Basic Law because if they continue to suppress the Hong Kong people, it is likely that China’s current political and economic growth would falter without the support of Hong Kong.
References
Buckley, C. (2014, September 1). China Restricts Voting Reforms for Hongkong. The New York Times, p. A.1.
Chan, K. (2014). Hong Kong asks Beijing for greater democracy. New York: Associated Press.
Cheng, J. Y.-s. (2014). The Emergence of Radical Politics in Hong Kong: Causes and Impact. The China Review, 14(1), 199-232.
Cullen, R. (2006). Hong Kong: The Making of a Modern City-State. eLaw Journal, 13(1), 24-45.
Flynn, M. (2009). China Contested. New York: Infobase Publishing.
Fong, B. (2014). Hong Kong's Governance Under Chinese Sovereignty: The Failure of the State-Business Alliance After 1997. New York: Routledge.
Gaylord, M., & Traver, H. (1997). Introduction to the Hong Kong Criminal Justice System. Aberdeen: Hong Kong University Press.
Goodstadt, L. (2005). Uneasy Partners: The Conflict Between Public Interest and Private Profit in Hong Kong. Aberdeen: Hong Kong University Press.
Lau, C. K. (1997). Hong Kong's Colonial Legacy. Sha Tin: Chinese University Press.
Rezvani, D. (2012). Dead Autonomy, A Thousand Cuts or Partial Independence? The Autonomous Status of Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42(1), 93-122.
Rezvani, D. (2014). Surpassing the Sovereign State: The Wealth, Self-Rule and Security Advantages of Partially Independent Territories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
