Power play
Call it political sloganeering if you will, but the so-called New Three Principles of the People, championed by the leadership under President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao, have inspired hopes among Chinese people about the political modernisation of the country.
The notion that 'power must be used for the sake of the people, [cadres'] sentiments must be tied to those of the people, and material benefits must be sought in the interest of the people' has gone to the root of the ruling Communist Party's leadership problem since it took power in 1949. Among the three principles, it is hardly coincidental that the national leaders have attached priority to the use of power by the party and government. After all, in China, one-party rule has been enshrined as one of the four cardinal constitutional principles.
Clearly, the current leadership is keenly aware of the importance of how power is used, and this reflects a sober understanding of the catastrophic consequences of power being exercised without checks and self-restraint, as has happened in the past.
In Hong Kong's case, the central government - faced with phobias and uncertainty about the city's fate under 'one country' after the handover - sought to preserve the systems and lifestyle and, more importantly, clearly define its powers and responsibilities in the Basic Law.
Article 158 of the post-handover charter says in its first provision that the power of interpretation is vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. It goes on to say that it will authorise the Hong Kong courts to interpret on their own when determining cases, within a high degree of autonomy.
Underlying the process of delegating such powers has been a sense of pragmatism and understanding of the crucial importance for Beijing to exercise restraint in the use of its power. It is no wonder that it is widely believed the NPC Standing Committee agreed only begrudgingly to the request by the Hong Kong government to interpret the right of abode provisions in the Basic Law, to help stop the flow of an estimated 1.7 million mainlanders into the city in 1999.
That move dealt a severe blow to judicial independence and, more importantly, cast a long shadow over the high degree of autonomy.
Against that background, it should have come as no surprise that the Standing Committee's announcement that it would interpret two electoral provisions in the Basic Law has again rubbed Hong Kong people's most sensitive nerve.
Publicly, NPC officials explained that an interpretation was necessary to correct the different understandings on the relevant provisions. No details were given. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa praised the move, saying it would help end the bickering over constitutional development.
According to a survey conducted by the New Century Forum on Thursday, 38 per cent of respondents thought the interpretation would bring more harm than good. About 27 per cent thought otherwise.
Frustrated with the secrecy behind the interpretation, and Beijing's clear opposition to early universal suffrage, many people see the move as an exercise of power by Beijing designed to scuttle the public clamour for full democracy.
Few have challenged the NPC's power to interpret the Basic Law. But how it uses its power matters most to Hong Kong people, who only have the Basic Law, and the self-restraint of leaders, to rely on.
Their confidence in 'one country, two systems' will wear thin if they find that power has not been used for the sake of the people, but for the powers-that-be to put the democracy debate in a cage.
Chris Yeung is the Post's editor-at-large
