Allan Au: After the Oath, You Belong to Me

Allan Au: After the Oath, You Belong to Me

Translated by HKCT, written by Allan Au [originally posted on 18 Dec 2020 on Citizen News]

Original: https://www.hkcnews.com/article/36554/%E5%85%AC%E5%8B%99%E5%93%A1%E5%AE%A3%E8%AA%93-%E7%B4%8D%E7%B2%B9%E5%BE%B7%E5%9C%8B-%E8%AB%96%E6%9A%B4%E6%94%BF-36554/%E5%AE%A3%E4%BA%86%E8%AA%93%EF%BC%8C%E4%BD%A0%E5%B0%B1%E6%98%AF%E6%88%91%E7%9A%84%E4%BA%BA

 

(left) In Poznan, ethnic German recruits to the German army swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler. January 1940. (original)

(right) The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region held an oath-taking ceremony for Under Secretaries and Political Assistants at the Central Government Offices today (December 16). Witnessed by the Chief Executive, Mrs Carrie Lam (centre), all the 12 Under Secretaries and 14 Political Assistants swore to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swore allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. (original)

On 16 December 2020, all HKSAR government's under secretaries and political assistants lined up and took an oath in front of Carrie Lam to uphold the Basic Law and pledged allegiance to the HKSAR.

This was the government’s Christmas and New Year present for all civil servants. Under the wrapping paper of the oath hid a leash. Soon, similar scenes will probably take place again and gain in scale.

This reminds many of the past when Adolf Hitler rose to power, the German military and civil servants also introduced the requirement of an oath swearing loyalty to Hitler himself with a solemn, grand ceremony. Is this comparison exaggerated?

I still recall in 2017, I read the book “On Tyranny” and wrote “Last Time to Make Love”, in which I used the sentence “When you made love for the last time, you didn’t know it was your last time” as a metaphor to describe history. There were many times when “you voted for the last time, you didn’t know that was your last vote”. Someone asked at that time if it was a bit exaggerated.

After less than 2 years, Hongkongers had their last meaningful vote. It was the 2019 District Council Election. When we voted for the last time, we didn’t know that was already our last fair election.

Everything has been written or said and there is nothing more to add. Seeing all these Hong Kong elite raising their hands and taking the oath, although there could still be some good ones among them, I could only write more reading notes to On Tyranny, and read again those I had written on 2 of the author’s 20 warning lessens to the world:

First lesson: Do not obey in advance

Authoritarian governments’ powers are offered by the citizens. It is humanity to obey, ordinary citizens like guessing the minds of those in power and flattering them. Even before they start to speak, many people already dedicate themselves. These people’s behaviour is often a huge inspiration for those in power. Many dictators are not fully confident with themselves, but when they find out the true humanity that many bow down to the more powerful or even take the initiative to act in obedience, this gives the thugs enough confidence to judge that there is little resistance to carry out tyranny, and they become more determined to do whatever they want. These people who automatically become obedient give authoritarian governments a shot in the arm. (Note: Recently Carrie Lam said, “She regained confidence.”)

Fifth lesson: Remember professional ethics

The professionals always talk about noble dreams, and should be careful not to become accomplices of those in power. The tyranny in the past could not have succeeded without the help of a “professional” team. If lawyers, judges and law enforcers had insisted on open trials and implementing no illegal death penalties, there would not have been 6 million Jews killed; if doctors had insisted on gaining consent on any kinds of operation, there would not have been living people used in medical experiments in concentration camps. Nazi Germany had a quite complete documentation of its killings. If civil servants had been willing to follow regulations and had not handled correspondence related to crimes against the law and constitution, Hitler’s tyranny would not have gone so smoothly.

There were many famous people around Hitler. Coincidentally, they were all trained lawyers. Hans Frank was his personal lawyer and later governed the occupied Poland, millions of Jews and Poles were murdered on his hands. He once said the law served the nation, so everything advantageous to the nation was lawful. In modern China’s way of saying, that means to “use the law as a weapon”. To them law has no noble philosophy, there is no spirit of rule of law and no need for judicial independence. Very often exactly people who are lawyers know how to exploit loopholes most effectively. Today the HKSAR government is desperately looking for “legal resources” to take action against some people, there must be a group of legal elites behind it who have forgotten their professional ethics. (Note: There are now a group of police officers, lawyers, prosecutors and judges behind on all fronts.)

[Ming Pao] Johannes Chan: Do NPC's Draft Resolutions Comply with Basic Law?

HKU Chair Professor of Public Law Johannes Chan: Do NPC's Draft Resolutions Comply with Basic Law?

Translated by John C., edited by Karen L., written by Johannes Chan Man-mun
Original: https://m.mingpao.com/ins/%e6%96%87%e6%91%98/article/20200525/s00022/1590332595169/%e4%ba%ba%e5%a4%a7%e6%b1%ba%e8%ad%b0%e8%8d%89%e6%a1%88%e6%98%af%e5%90%a6%e7%ac%a6%e5%90%88%e5%9f%ba%e6%9c%ac%e6%b3%95-%ef%bc%88%e6%96%87-%e9%99%b3%e6%96%87%e6%95%8f%ef%bc%89 

The current draft resolution of the National People’s Congress (NPC) mandates the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) to enact the National Security Law in Hong Kong. Here we are to explore whether this draft resolution complies with the Basic Law. Perhaps, it is, to some people, a self-explanatory case that needs no further clarification. Yet, as long as China intends to maintain the integrity of the rule of law, and the NPC inclines to abide by the law, but not to override it, the legislation shall not violate the Basic Law. Such is the seriousness of this subject.

There are at least 5 points to indicate why the draft resolutions of NPC do not comply with the Basic Law under the jurisprudence context.

The Basic Law Article 23 Clearly Specifies HKSAR ‘Shall Enact Laws on Its Own’

The then-proposed Basic Law Article 23 designates Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) ‘shall enact laws on its own’ when it comes to National Security legislations, namely that HKSAR shall enact laws according to the tradition of common law and its own legislative process. Given that Hong Kong and mainland China have separate legal systems, values, and legal concepts, the principle of the Basic Law is to allow HKSAR itself to enact laws with relevance to personal liberty and criminal liability for any highly political and sensitive situations. It should be noted that laws relating to the matter of national security have always been considered highly sensitive, and ‘shall enact laws on its own’ serves the precise purpose of protecting the completeness of the HKSAR’s common law. 

There were lots of concerns in the Hong Kong society when the Basic Law article 23 was being drafted, especially to the vague concept of national security in mainland China: the ‘counter-revolution’ charges on Wei Jingsheng were still very fresh in people’s mind as he was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment simply because of his speech yearning for democracy. ‘Shall enact laws on its own’ in Article 23 was then established under this historical background.

Some people suggested the possibility of coexistence between the National Security Law and the Article 23 in attempt to justify the legitimacy of the NPCSC's decision, to which they might not notice that it poses a challenge on the meaning of the presence of an Article 23 (‘shall enact laws on its own’). It's like a father giving a child $10 to buy whatever sweets he likes, but then decides to take away $4 and asks him to get chocolate, while at the same time telling the child he isn't breaking his promise to let the child make his own decision. It is in Hong Kong's duty to legislate an Article 23, but it does not inherently support the idea that NPCSC can enact laws for Hong Kong directly.

Article 18’s ‘Generic Power’ Shouldn’t Extend to Article 23

Some leap to a hasty conclusion that there is no conflict between self-legislation and the implementation of national laws in Hong Kong, whereas this is a blatant violation of the general principles of legislative interpretation. Article 18, as a generic law, allows NPCSC to apply certain national laws in Hong Kong through Annex III, while Article 23, as a concrete law, specifies that laws within its scope shall be enacted by Hong Kong itself. Under the general principles of interpretation, concrete provisions are superior to generic provisions. Thus, the generic power in Article 18 shall not extend to the legal provision stipulated in Article 23. Otherwise, Article 23 would be superfluous.

Furthermore, Article 18 Annex III is only applicable in national laws, to which some people irresponsibly claimed that they refer to all the laws passed by NPC or NPCSC, but not the ones passed by provinces and municipalities. This, under normal circumstances, could be a reasonable interpretation, but not under in Article 18. The 'national laws' in Article 18 Annex III must be relevant to national defense, foreign affairs, and outside of the sphere of autonomy. While the drafting of such national laws has not been within the power of provincial and municipal districts, national laws should be dependent on the nature of the law being applicable nationwide rather than which political body is responsible for the drafting. Under the Basic Law, Hong Kong legislature is vested with legislative power: Article 23 requires the laws within the scope of the article should be enacted by Hong Kong itself; Article 18 states the central government could apply laws related to national defense, foreign affairs, and outside of the sphere of autonomy to Hong Kong. The combined purpose of these laws and articles is to illustrate clearly that only when the matter concerned is of ‘national defense, foreign affairs, and outside of Hong Kong autonomy’ will the central government pass laws for Hong Kong. On top of that, the laws should be applicable to Hong Kong and nationwide, hence, to secure and protect different legal systems in Hong Kong and in mainland China. Thus, the central government shall not enact laws for Hong Kong under these legal conditions.

Some may argue that the Garrison Law is a precedent for the central government to enact laws specifically for Hong Kong, but they must have missed this: People’s Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison is the key stakeholder of the Garrison Law. This article declares the responsibility of PLA personnel in Hong Kong, which is not an applicable article to the general public in Hong Kong. This time, the NPCSC's enactment of the National Security Law in Hong Kong is against the human rights and freedom of Hong Kong people, and these are what the Basic Law is meant to protect.

Constitution Article 31 & 62 Do not Empower the NPC to Disregard the Basic Law

NPC’s draft resolution on the Nation Security Law refers to its legal basis in Article 31 & Article 62 (Item 2, [13] and [15]) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Article 31 of China's Constitution Law is the legal basis of establishing Special Administrative Region (SAR), and Article 11 of the Basic Law clearly states that the SAR’s system, protection of freedom, legislative and judicial system are all based on the Basic Law. The Basic Law Article 11 is applicable on the NPC as well—NPC’s decision ought not to contravene the provisions of the Basic Law. In Article 62 of China's Constitution Law, item 2 refers to the NPC’s power ‘to supervise the enforcement of the Constitution’; Item [13] refers NPC’s power ‘to decide on the establishment of special administrative regions, and systems to be instituted there’; Item [15] refers NPC’s power ‘to exercise such other functions and powers as the highest organ of state powers should exercise’. These generic provisions do not empower NPC to disregard the Basic Law. True, it is within the NPC's power to propose amendments on the Basic Law—abolishing the provisions on ‘shall enact laws on its own’ stated in Article 23 and conferring NPC the power to legislate directly for Hong Kong—but it involves following certain procedures, not by mere decision.

The Unsettling Future of the Courts' Role

Some worrying view suggested that the NPCSC’s scope of legislation does not completely overlap with Article 23. In the NPC’s drafted resolution, NPCSC is authorised to legislate on ‘acts that seriously threaten national security, such as secession, subversion of state power, and organising terrorist activities, as well as foreign and overseas forces interfering affairs of HKSAR’. These are quite vague in scope, which could potentially cause impacts on financial, economic, and network communication, on the links between religious groups and their foreign counterparts, on the cooperation between local NGOs and foreign NGOs, on the cooperation between universities and foreign organisations, etc. As the lines that divide national security and civic rights blur, what is to be done if NPCSC passes laws that are conflicted with the protection of human rights in the Basic Law? Can the courts in Hong Kong declare that the laws passed by NPCSC shall be revoked due to the violation of the protection of human rights in the Basic Law?

What's more distressing is the role of the Courts. According to the Basic Law Article 18, provisions in Annex III shall relate to national defense, foreign affairs and outside of Hong Kong’s autonomy. All these matters are outside of the scope of the Hong Kong Courts' power of review. Unless the laws that NPCSC enacts specifically authorise the Hong Kong Courts the power of review on the matters, the Courts in Hong Kong may not have jurisdiction over cases of this kind. Even if Hong Kong Courts were to have the power of review, how would they interpret this national law? The way how mainland China drafts and interprets law is disparate from the principle of the common law. Mainland’s legal interpretation is primarily based on political consideration over legal provisions. From NPCSC's conversion of the oath-of-office requirement in the Basic Law to the eligibility for election to the Liaison Office reinterpretation of 'mainland government departments' in Article 22, mainland’s stance on legal interpretations is manifest.

I, for 100%, believe that the courts in Hong Kong will not adopt the mainland-China way to interpret or execute the Hong Kong National Security Law. However, another question arises: what if the Hong Kong courts’ interpretation of the law is not in line with that of NPCSC? Precisely, if the Hong Kong courts narrow the scope of related offence in the law in order to protect human rights, or consider certain charges as violating the protection of human rights under the Bill of Rights or the Basic Law, would NPCSC applaud or interfere? 

Beijing has time and again blasted the judgement by the Hong Kong courts, including the severe criticism on the Court of First Instance’s judgement on Emergency Regulation Ordinance. Can NPCSC intervene arbitrarily if the Hong Kong courts’ judgement is contrary to NPCSC's stance of legislative intent? Moreover, NPCSC has the power of interpretation for the Hong Kong National Security Law since it is a national law. While it is still in doubt whether such interpretation has any restrictions on the Hong Kong courts, it is possible for the Courts to bypass the NPCSC’s interpretations on the law in reality?

Establishing New Agency of National Security in SAR Do not Comply with the Basic Law

In the NPC’s draft resolution, the Central People’s Government is given permission to establish certain agencies that are related to national security in SAR, to fulfil the duty of safeguarding national security in accordance with the law. So, what exactly is this agency? It is feared that this state agency does not fall into the category of the Central Government’s 'department' in Article 22, and is thus not subject to Article 22, which only adds to more uncertainty: what power do these state agencies have? And under what supervision? Can the agency exercise the right of investigation, right to arrest, and right of interrogation in Hong Kong? The Ministry of State Security in mainland China is known to have a very wide range of power with little transparency; how does it comply with the Basic Law by allowing state agencies to carry out law enforcement activities in Hong Kong?

The Oppression Will Only Aggravates

In just a few weeks, the Liaison Office declared that it is not, in the ordinary sense of words, a ‘department of the Central People’s Government’, whilst having the power to supervise the implementation of the Basic Law. What followed was the Education Bureau pressured Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) to delete a question on the HKDSE history paper due to political grounds. After that, the Communication Authority (CA) ruled The Headliner, a satirical TV programme produced by RTHK, for breaching the Broadcast Code of Practice, and afterwards a direct law enactment for Hong Kong by Beijing. This series of moves naturally makes one wonder how much more autonomy is left in Hong Kong.

In retrospect, some people think: had the legislation on Article 23 passed, the present situation would not have arisen. Wishful thinking it is. There are many factors causing the current disheartening situation. Years ago, ex-Premier Wen Jiabao enjoined the then HKSAR government to deal with the deep-rooted conflicts in Hong Kong, but rather the government ignored it and stirred up the troubles, aggravating the inner conflicts. Fast forward to today, the self-opinionated government pays no heed to public opinion, and has missed the opportunities to resolve social conflicts over and over. Nonetheless, added with the ongoing trading and political contest between China and the US, this is how today's situation has become what it is. Even if the legislation on Article 23 were passed, the nowadays conflicts and clashes would be inevitable due to the clumsy handling of the most recent two governments. To most Hong Kong people, the now major issue concerns social order, and has nothing to do with national security.

To Beijing, however, whatever happens is always plots and conspiracies organised by external forces (i.e. foreign countries). Instead of holding successive SAR governments to account, it inclines to escalate the issues to the level of national security, and even adopts the approaches which will demolish ‘One Country Two Systems’. Is Beijing’s decision, at what degree, based on alarmist’s talk and people’s act of adding fuel to the fire? It is probably all down to the judgement of history. 

At the end of the day, the power lies with Beijing: such issues will not be resolved after NPCSC's passing of the National Security Law. It will be only followed by a series of prosecutions, suppressions, and restraints, with a view to turning Hong Kong into a submissive society where no one thinks and dares to question authorities. Possibly, in Beijing’s eyes, what 'One Country Two Systems' stands for is merely allowing two economic systems in a country—not enabling a civil society with independent thoughts or values that would question those with power. After all these, Hong Kong’s public freedom will be narrower and narrower with overwhelming stress of political correctness at all times. The high degree of autonomy will then exist in name only. History has taught us a lesson: oppression will only aggravate, and will never enlighten. This is an elegy of 'One Country, Two Systems'.

Speechless: View CCP's Stance on Lee Bo's Case from Global Times' Op-Ed

View CCP's Stance on Lee Bo's Case from Global Times' Op-Ed

Translated by Karen L., written by Speechless
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2016/01/07/26322/ 

(Screen capture of Global Times)

Despite Global Times' editorials on uncertain whereabouts of Causeway Bay Books' associates went absurd, it is referential as to catching a glimpse of CCP's attitude over the incident.

In Abduction Rumours Scotched by Lee's Fax on 6 Jan, it says,

"Combining Hong Kong media's news reports, Lee Bo is well aware that the investigation he has been assisting in involves a serious matter. Causeway Bay Books, for years, had published and sold a great deal of books that are directed against politics in mainland China. Those books are filled with false content, maliciously attacking the country's political system, and have already brought along bad influences. Although the bookshop is located in Hong Kong, the harm it has done has reached across the border to mainland, for which Lee knows it very well. Personally Lee seems to be willing to handle this in a low profile, whereas Hong Kong media's hype is not doing any good on him and on his business. As to the collateral damage it carries, the oppositions are not going to make it up for anything."

In short, Causeway Bay Books is regarded by CCP as the source of chaos destructing the country's efficient management. Metaphorically speaking, it is a pain in the neck someone intends to get rid of as soon as possible. Disappearance of Lee Bo and his fellow workers, by simple deduction, is expected to be work done by CCP itself, so there's something to be condemned scathingly and a chance to "right the wrong". This so-called "willing" to assist in investigation is merely a lie that sounds nice.

On the next day, 7 Jan, in Speculation over HK Bookstore's Investigation Went Completely Wild, it further clarifies,

"first thing first, even though Causeway Bay Books is based in Hong Kong, the business, in a large extent, targets readers from mainland China – thus stepping one foot in Hong Kong and another in mainland China. It creates interference in the mainland's social order, undermining the foundation of stability. The reasonableness of the investigation therefore is solid, and it is in accordance with the law in China."

In this case, Xi Jinping's emphasis on "rule of law" is being implemented. How? Following the above extreme principle of thinking – bookstore as a means to shaken the stability and social order in China – relevant party being arrested and punished is simply a natural consequence.

People may indicate the fact that according to the Basic Law, CCP's officials have no authority in the jurisdiction of Hong Kong even in the condition that Hongkongers engage in activities which endanger CCP's regime. Or else, if this is not strictly followed, the Basic Law will equate to being null and void. That being so, "One Country, Two Systems" will turn into obliteration, of which it turns out CCP did respond to it.

It says in the Abduction Rumours Scotched by Lee's Fax,

"Hong Kong has practised capitalism, and the people there enjoy freedom of speech. Still, the Two Systems exists in the necessary condition – One Country. Accordingly, Hong Kong cannot be a hostile base where involves activities to overthrow the country's political system. Those extreme oppositions have forced their opinion to transform the Two Systems into an unlimited manner... Based on the wrong knowledge, they attempt aggressively to confront the central government by the radical tool of 'freedom of speech'."

 "One Country overrides Two Systems" is unquestionably CCP's stance that will not concede even an inch. Even though it is explicitly stated in the law that only Hong Kong law-enforcement personnel have the legal authority to enforce laws in Hong Kong, the impregnable position is not up to Basic Law. The absolute power decided that the stability of the party and the country secures the foremost importance. Therefore at the unusual time, Basic Law being treated as a doormat is not a problem at all. Besides, Lee Bo being captured by police from mainland China is so far a speculation; CCP would be like, "haven't been known; therefore, 'Two Systems' is still in effect."

It is further elaborated in Speculation over HK Bookstore's Investigation Went Completely Wild,

"it's certainly a no go if the mainland officials are to truss Lee Bo up and stuff him into some police car to get pass in the checking points. In general, there are some methods for the law-enforcement departments to avoid violation of law and at the same time undergo investigation – a win-win situation."

"One thing is important: there should not be any confrontation between the Basic Law in Hong Kong and Law of the People's Republic of China. The former shall not be exploited to shield someone or some organizations which are in an attempt to sabotage the country’s stability..."

"Those Hongkongers who are obsessed in the opposition of politics should indeed straighten out the essential meaning of 'One Country, Two Systems', quit the fantasy which 'Two Systems' dominates 'One Country', and throw away the assumption which Hong Kong can be safe whatever it does to harm the country's operations..."

Basically, CCP has already admitted that it is the police from mainland China who have taken Lee Bo, simply not with violence. Added with the unproven speculation on the police (or CPHK dare not), "One country, Two Systems" does "sustain". Thus, CCP seems to be confident that this is "a win-win situation". The following two paragraphs quoted from the editorial clarify CCP’s stance that "Two Systems" and "the Basic Law" shall make way for the country’s safety at a certain time.

As to whether Lee Bo can return to Hong Kong someday, Abduction Rumours Scotched by Lee's Fax said, "...Sooner or later, Lee Bo will have to go back to Hong Kong..." and from Speculation over HK Bookstore's Investigation Went Completely Wild, it said, "it seems we will have to wait for Lee Bo’s return and his personal explanation to the media." It is expected that the possibility of release is high, while "his personal explanation to the media" seems to indicate an upcoming press conference, so that the public will be relieved and go back to their lives once again.

If I’m not mistaken, Ng Leung-sing’s speech "those five bookstore guys must have been arrested of slipping across the border and visiting prostitutes" apparently does not meet CCP’s purpose. It is the Achilles’ heel of the loyalists – sycophant who couldn’t able to keep up with their master’s steps; no wonder Ng apologized for what he said the very next day.

Have a Look at Lee Bo's Case -- CY Leung's Statement

Have a Look at Lee Bo's Case -- CY Leung's Statement

Translated by Karen L., written by Post-90s Bullshit
Original: http://polymerhk.com/articles/2016/01/07/26327/

(Source: aTV News; CY Leung responding to Lee Bo's incident)

One by one, the employees and shareholders of Causeway Bay Books have gone missing. This includes Lee Bo who disappeared into thin air, for which the international world has shown their concern. The reason being that the books aim at the segment which is interested in dark secrets in China. It is suspected that the whole matter is CCP’s demonstration to violate “One Country, Two Systems” and interference against Hong Kong’s freedom of press.

Four days after Lee Bo went missing, CY Leung said that he will keep a close eye on the events, and indicated that law enforcement in Hong Kong can only be practiced by local officials, but not by officials from mainland China, otherwise it will be the violation of “One Country, Two Systems”.

Yes, CY Leung intended to emphasize that the “One Country, Two Systems” still stands, but nevertheless, from the experiences, such a statement symbolizes an alarm which we should be worried. It always turns out to be the opposite of what he says.

So far, it’s hardly to find examples to disprove this observation. Before the Handover, CY Leung once said that he thinks it’s wrong to send one’s children abroad for studies; but it is known to everyone that all three of his children have studied in England. He said that he himself is not a political material and that he will not run for the CE, but by the same token, he has become the CE now. What is more, in 1989, he expressed his discontent of the violent clearance against students at the Tiananmen Square. And you know the rest of the story.

Following the pattern, the more opposite you view of CY Leung’s “reassuring” statement, the closer it is to the truth. In the case of Lee Bo, CY Leung claimed that officials from mainland China have no authority to execute the law; perhaps, they have already been in Hong Kong lurking somewhere. It’s simply us being kept in the dark. As to whether CCP breaches “One Country, Two Systems”, I believe you've had the answer.

Surya Deva: Students and Political Reforms: The Journey has Begun!

Students and Political Reforms: The Journey has Begun!

Written by Dr. Surya Deva
Dr. Surya Deva is an Associate Professor at the School of Law of City University of Hong Kong. He specializes in business and human rights and comparative constitutional law.
Original: CityU Monthly April 2015 Edition

Should politics be part of the menu at universities? Should Hong Kong students be concerned about political reforms? 

Views may differ, but in my opinion the answer to both questions should be a definite yes, especially in the context of the current political climate in Hong Kong. Several reasons underpin this opinion. The first reason stems from the paradoxical nature of constitution making: a constitutional instrument (like the Basic Law) binds not only the generation that drafted it, but also future generations who had no say in its content. 

But why should the Basic Law bind the Hong Kong youth who were not even born when the Basic Law was adopted in April 1990? This paradox is resolved by giving future generations a right to amend constitutions – regarded as “living” documents – as and when necessary or even adopt a new constitution in certain situations. Therefore, students would need to assess whether the Basic Law meets their aspirations or not. History tells us that denying such a right to current/future generations often results in internal conflicts, coups and revolutions. The case of Hong Kong, despite being a special administrative region of China, is unlikely to be different.        

Second, although the Basic Law guarantees – until 2047 at least – a “high degree of autonomy”, various freedoms, the rule of law and the “way of life” are practiced by Hongkongers, yet the very institutions designed to safeguard these values are undermining them. The role played by the Hong Kong’s Chief Executive (CE) is a case in point. The CE takes an oath to uphold the Basic Law. In practice, however, Mr. CY Leung is doing little to uphold Hong Kong’s autonomy or to pursue the ultimate goal of electing the CE as well as the Legislative Council members by universal suffrage.

The CE is of course accountable to the central government as well. But such accountability is only in accordance with the Basic Law, not in breach of its provisions. Serving two masters is never easy. Nevertheless, Hong Kong people, including students, would need to monitor the CE’s conduct closely, so that he does not pay lip service to his constitutional obligations.        

Third, students as part of civil society do have a role to play in making the government accountable. Their role has become more critical because the local government has not been active enough in catering to the needs of disadvantaged sections of society. The recent statement of the Financial Secretary John Tsang – that if you can’t afford a home, then don’t buy it – sums up the government attitude. Free markets do not mean that the government acts only for the benefit of powerful business tycoons.    

Fourth, after the umbrella movement, the central authorities are showing greater signs of controlling all types of institutions and bodies by packing them with pro-Beijing people. Such a systematic “institutional capture” will not only pose threats to Hong Kong’s autonomy but also stifle the space for creativity and dissenting views. This scenario again requires that all citizens are vigilant about rights and freedoms rather than relying solely on the local government institutions to act as a bulwark against pressures from Beijing. 

In short, students must engage creatively with the process of political reforms – not merely for their future, but also for the future of Hong Kong. The road to democracy in Hong Kong is likely to be long, but the journey has begun. As Professor Fu Hualing aptly reminded us that the seeds of democracy “have been planted; and there is simply no return”.