There is no denying that the visit
by mainland Basic Law drafter Xiao Weiyun and legal expert Xia Yong dealt a big
setback to the cause of the democratic camp. Certainly, it seems most unlikely
now that Beijing will agree to allow the chief executive to be elected through
universal suffrage in 2007, or to let the entire Legislative Council to be
directly elected in 2008.
Of course, their words carry
weight only because it is believed that they represent the central government.
And yet, to what extent do they represent the central government? Besides,
don't the central government's views change from time to time? And aren't there
different groups within the central government?
Mr. Xiao said the central
government has the power "to decide the development of Hong Kong's
political system" because it has a bearing on the relationship between the
central government and the special administrative region as well as on the
long-term prosperity of Hong Kong.
Most people know that there is a
big difference between calling for the direct election of the chief executive
in 2007 and calling for the election of the entire legislature through
universal suffrage in 2008. After all, Annex I of the Basic Law says that if
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region wants to change the method for
selecting the chief executive, such a proposal "shall be reported to the
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval."
However, Annex II says that if the
SAR wants to elect the entire legislature through universal suffrage, the
decision must be reported to the standing committee of the NPC not for its
approval but merely "for the record."
However, Mr. Xiao said that even
changes in the way Legco is to be elected must also be approved by the central
government because such a change would affect relations between the SAR and the
central government as well as Hong Kong's economic prosperity. Surprisingly, he
also said that the standing committee could refuse to "record" such a
proposal.
This is astounding because it
seems at variance with what is stated in the Basic Law. Besides, it is also
contrary to what the Chinese Government told Hong Kong, Britain and the world
in the past, something that Mr. Xiao and perhaps Chinese government officials
have conveniently forgotten.
This is because in 1994, the
Chinese government publicly and unambiguously declared that, after 2007, if
Hong Kong wished to choose the entire legislature through universal suffrage,
it does not need central government approval.
This happened in the aftermath of
the Sino-British negotiations of 1993 over the electoral arrangements for
1994-95. The last British governor, Chris Patten, oversaw those negotiations,
which broke down. But, during the negotiations, the British side raised a
number of issues with the Chinese side.
On February 28, 1994, China's
Foreign Ministry issued a lengthy statement giving its account of what had
transpired. The statement was carried in full on two pages of the China Daily
the following day. In that statement, China accused Britain of having insisted
on discussing issues which, China felt, fell within its sovereignty and hence
were none of Britain's business.
The Foreign Ministry statement
said that Britain asked if "the Chinese government would support universal
suffrage for the election of the Legislative Council in 2007, if that was the
wish of the Hong Kong SAR."
The Foreign Ministry declared:
"With regard to election of all members of the Legislative Council of the
Hong Kong SAR by universal suffrage after 2007, Article 68 of the Basic Law and
paragraph 3 of its Annex II contain provisions to this effect. It is a question
to be decided by the Hong Kong SAR itself and it needs no guarantee by the
Chinese government."
Obviously, China meant that if the
SAR wanted the whole Legislative Council elected by universal suffrage after
2007, it could do so. The central government would not object. This is because
how Legco is to be elected in 2007 is something "to be decided by the Hong
Kong SAR itself."
None of Mr. Xiao's points were
mentioned, such as the impact on Hong Kong-central government relations, or the
effect on the economy, or the possibility that the standing committee might
refuse to accept a Hong Kong submission "for the record."
Hopefully, officials of the Hong
Kong SAR also remember these words of the central government. Certainly, when
Chief Secretary Donald Tsang goes to Beijing as head of the task force to
consult the central government, he should remind the central government of
these words and ask whether or not they still apply.
A major power like China does not
give its word lightly. And, once given, it does not lightly renege on such a
public pledge. Mr. Tsang should find out if the Chinese government today stands
by the promise that it made 10 years ago. And then report back to the people of
Hong Kong.
The author is a Hong Kong based
commentator.