Beijing appointees running Hong Kong?
Recent reports of discussions between representatives of the central government and the Tsang administration, regarding the political role of members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in Hong Kong, are very disturbing. The pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po actually reported that a 10-point agreement had been reached.
Even though the reports have now been denied, there are credible accounts of remarks by Li Guikang, a deputy director of the central government's liaison office, at a closed-door meeting in Beijing this month.
The administration has confirmed that there have been discussions with the liaison office on improving communication with National People's Congress and CPPCC delegates. So, even if there was no official 10-point agreement, there have been discussions. That in itself is disconcerting, because the object of the discussions seems to have been to allow Beijing appointees to play a political role in Hong Kong.
This is a blatant violation of the 'one country, two systems' concept, which provides for 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong'. If such an idea were to be implemented, it would mean that Beijing could appoint its chosen people to an advisory position on the mainland and that, as a result, the Hong Kong administration would then appoint these Beijing appointees to political and advisory bodies here.
This would amount to Beijing's appointees running Hong Kong.
Apparently to soothe local feelings, another point of the supposedly nonexistent 'consensus' was that the Hong Kong administration would be allowed to propose people to be appointed as advisers by Beijing. After these people were appointed by Beijing, Hong Kong would in turn name them to various boards and committees.
This roundabout system of Hong Kong proposing nominees for the CPPCC to Beijing, who are then appointed by Hong Kong, is farcical. If the Hong Kong administration wants to appoint them in the first place, it can simply go ahead and do so.
The problem, it appears, is that while many CPPCC members are prominent in politics or business in their own right in Hong Kong, there are others who are desperate for greater prominence and hope they can enlist Beijing's help.
Such people should realise that being appointed to the CPPCC gives them a role on the mainland, not in Hong Kong. Their job is to help Beijing govern the mainland better. They can also help Hong Kong people who get into trouble on the mainland. But they have no special role here.
Beijing should only appoint people to the CPPCC who are genuinely interested in the work of the advisory body, and who are willing to put in the time and effort needed. Those who do not take their CPPCC work seriously should not have been appointed in the first place and certainly do not deserve to be given a role in Hong Kong.
And yet, Beijing seems willing to provide such help. Jia Qinglin, the CPPCC chairman, said in his report that Hong Kong and Macau members should play a role in social and political affairs in their own regions.
Since then, Chinese officials have said that any Hong Kong person has a right to play a role in political affairs. That is true. But CPPCC members should not have any special status in Hong Kong. All talk of creating a 'mechanism' for them whereby they can play a political role locally is misplaced.
Eleven years ago, then-president Jiang Zemin and then-CPPCC chairman Li Ruihuan warned NPC and CPPCC members not to interfere in Hong Kong affairs. Chinese officials today seem to have forgotten those injunctions.
In 1998, Beijing was anxious to allow Hong Kong to run itself. Now, it seems, it is increasingly eager to put its own people into positions of power and influence here. Such an attitude does not bode well for 'one country, two systems'.
Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator.
