|
Hong Kong's autonomy passes a crucial test LI Che-lan, Linda Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong Kong |
|
|
|
The recent developments on the
National Security Bill have shed useful light on the evolving relationship
between Hong Kong and the central government. The crucial turnaround of the
Liberal Party legislators took place after party leader James Tien Pei-chun
flew to The following day, accountancy
legislator Eric Li Ka-cheung was reportedly in It appears Mr Tien forced Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's hand with the central government's backing, calling into question whether national leaders have been dragged into what it itself admits are Hong Kong's internal affairs. The question is: have we unintentionally undermined Hong Kong's treasured high degree of autonomy? Such knee-jerk concerns are understandable in these early years of one country, two systems. The high level of restraint exercised so far by central government leaders towards Hong Kong is arguably attributable, at least in part, to a highly vigilant local and international press, which spotlights the national leadership's every move in relation to Hong Kong. Yet, we need to move on and deepen our understanding of one country, two systems. The importance of Mr Tien's Beijing trip was not that he returned with an alternative package endorsed by the central government, but that he clarified and reconfirmed with national leaders the parameters and scope of Hong Kong's authority to decide our own policies. The leaders Mr Tien met were evidently thinking in the spirit of one country, two systems when they concluded that the National Security Bill was an internal affair, and that its details and timetable should be decided by the people of Hong Kong. The Liberals' conclusion that the bill's second reading should be deferred was a local decision, made in the context of public opinion, with the knowledge of national leaders. One could argue that such reiteration of a constitutional principle, in the context of a specific piece of legislation, is still central intervention - by using a broad definition of the word. In that case, one must distinguish between at least two types of intervention. Under the first type, the central government would make major decisions for Hong Kong, or reveal its views on substantive issues so as to influence decision-making in Hong Kong. The second type is akin to the situation surrounding the National Security Bill, in which the major central intervention is, ironically, a reconfirmation of its policy of non-intervention. It is essential to take note of the distinction, since it is only the first type of intervention that the local and international communities are worried about. Had Mr Tien returned saying the central government had specific requirements for the bill's details or timetable, then our scepticism about one country, two systems, would be justified. Reconfirmation of the central government's policy on non-intervention - the second type of intervention - has always been much sought after. Any announced policy needs to be implemented and reconfirmed repeatedly to become established. Constitutional principles require tests in realpolitik to become entrenched. An unintended positive contribution of the controversy over the national security bill may prove to be that, having gone through a major test, the principle of one country, two systems will, in a delightful twist, command more confidence in the public mind. |