Legal clarity won't harm high degree of autonomy
Zhang Wen  Updated: 2004-03-30 15:36

Public opinion in Hong Kong differs widely over constitutional reform, and a prolonged debate on this subject will not help the community forge a consensus and map out a development plan.

Since Hong Kong needs to concentrate on economic recovery and improvement of people's livelihoods, wasting time on endless arguments will do no good to the well-being of the local populace.

Thus the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) is going to interpret the Basic Law annexes concerning the election methods for the chief executive and the Legislative Council. The move, which will put an end to the current debates and allow constructive discussions on political reform to start as early as possible, is the most suitable and timely.

The NPC's interpretation of the Basic Law is expected to showcase the legal aspect of "One Country, Two Systems". Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy is endowed by Article 31 of the national Constitution. The Basic Law is adopted by the NPC, and Article 158 of the mini constitution provides that "The power of interpretation of this law shall be vested in the NPCSC".

Moreover, Article 67 of the national Constitution also empowers the NPC to interpret all of the country's laws. And in its statement issued on December 3, 1999, Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal affirmed that the NPCSC has the power to interpret the Basic Law on its own initiative, and this power has no limitation whatsoever. The interpretation exercise, therefore, is absolutely legal.

Critics accept the Basic Law provisions on a selective basis, neglecting those that are not to their liking. They are actually not showing respect to the rule of law.

The provisions associated with constitutional development are relatively vague. The NPCSC explanation, based on legislative intent, will help unify different understandings.

Also, the provisions concerning constitutional development and central-SAR relationship are not within the scope of Hong Kong's autonomy. Thus the interpretation exercise will not affect Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy.

Article 74 of the Basic Law states clearly that the bills tabled at the Legislative Council (LegCo) must "not relate to public expenditure or political structure or the operation of the government". For that reason, the power to initiate Hong Kong's constitutional development does not belong to the LegCo.

The definition of the start-up mechanism can be clarified in the NPC's interpretation. If there is no authorization of initiation mechanism, it will be even more difficult to kick start the political reform process.

The interpretation exercise will certainly proceed according to the principles of the Basic Law and in a fair, reasonable and legal manner. It will definitely not be as some people have suggested: deleting what's already there and adding what's non-existent. Hong Kong people should not worry about this.

Some consider Hong Kong as an independent political entity, thinking that nothing needs to go to the central government. That is seeing only "two systems" but not "one country". That amounts to denying that Beijing has the power to participate in and decide on the SAR's political development.

"One Country, Two Systems" is a kind of autonomous system authorized by the central government. The city can make decisions on its own affairs, but Beijing can have a hand in those beyond local authorization.

Hong Kong people must have confidence in the central government's sincerity and determination to implement "One Country, Two Systems".

Some people are opposing blindly the interpretation exercise, when they do not even know what it is all about. Their attitude, which is to object to everything connected with the central government, aims to prevent Hong Kong people from arriving at a consensus over constitutional development.

(China Daily, HK Edition)

Close