Time to quell the noise on patriotism
Too much noise makes clear thought and calm discussion impossible. There has been too much noise in the debate on Hong Kong's constitutional change. Statements from Beijing on who can be considered a patriot have added to the din. They have personalised, and polarised, the discussion.
The higher noise level started with the assertion that patriots must form the main body of people ruling Hong Kong. That was followed by calls for everyone to refer to Deng Xiaoping's 1984 definition of the word. On Tuesday, Xinhua published a commentary outlining more detailed criteria; now some lawmakers are being branded as unpatriotic.
What the debate needs is clarity of thought. The central government recognised the value of a cool discussion early in the piece when it insisted on a calm and rational debate. But the patriotism issue has taken the debate away from the principles that matter most in a discussion of constitutional reform - those to be found in the wording of the constitutional document, the Basic Law. Returning to these legal provisions would cool the temperature and get the debate back on track.
The constitutional debate should begin, and end, within the confines of that solemn document. The central government should recognise this point, for the Basic Law is its law: it was adopted by the National People's Congress in 1990.
One of the key functions it serves is to provide Hong Kong with guarantees about life after reunification. So the words of the Law are of the utmost importance, and should generally be given their normal meaning, in keeping with our common law tradition. This allows us to organise our lives with some certainty and instils confidence in Hong Kong's future.
Ensuring strict observance of its 160 provisions and three annexes is central to maintaining the rule of law and lies at the heart of the 'one country, two systems' concept. This is borne out by the Law itself. Article 48 says the chief executive is responsible for 'implementation of this law', while Article 64 says the Hong Kong government 'must abide by the law'. Importantly, Article 11 provides that the executive and legislative systems 'shall be based on the provisions of this law'.
It should be noted there is no stipulation in the constitutional document that most of those governing Hong Kong must be patriots. Deng Xiaoping's comments, uttered before the Basic Law was promulgated, offer wisdom and guidance. But they are not part of the Law. It contains no Deng definition - and no patriotic principles of the kind laid down by Xinhua on Tuesday. Officials and lawmakers are required - as is right - to swear allegiance to China and Hong Kong. But it is a big leap to use that provision to declare legislators unpatriotic - let alone unfit to govern.
So what does the Basic Law say? The preamble states that the Basic Law is intended to ensure implementation of China's 'basic policies' towards Hong Kong. These are to be found in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984.
Upholding China's national unity and territorial integrity are, naturally, included. But the basic policies also state that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in 'foreign and defence affairs'. The fourth basic policy states simply that the government 'will be composed of local inhabitants'. There are no patriotic principles here, either.
Beijing has claimed that the 'patriotic' requirement is founded in the Basic Law. And the ultimate power to interpret it lies with the NPC Standing Committee. But to give the Basic Law the meaning suggested by mainland commentaries involves twisting its words and undermining its spirit. Allowing the patriotism debate to go on will not just hinder the process of political reform - it will damage confidence in the Basic Law and the rule of law.
