Hong Kong electoral reform is clearly set out in the Basic Law. Has the pro-establishment camp conveniently forgotten?

The National People’s Congress Standing Committee 2004 interpretation set out a five-step process for amending the chief executive or Legco election process
These rules should not be bypassed by a pro-establishment camp eager to please Beijing

Albert Cheng

Published: 6:45am, 5 Mar 2021

Why you can trust SCMP

China’s two sessions are taking place this week. Last Sunday, Xia Baolong, director of the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, met the pro-establishment camp and hosted a two-day seminar on how Hong Kong’s electoral system should be changed.

His latest statements align with what he said earlier on the principle of “patriots governing Hong Kong”. Clearly, the central government is setting out new rules to gain full control of the Legislative Council and chief executive elections. Beijing is determined to eliminate the democrats and localists from the political landscape.

Since the enactment of the national security law last July, Legco elections have been put on hold. Fifty-five democrats and localists who participated in the democratic camp’s Legco primaries have been arrested and 47 charged under the national security law.

06:05

47 Hong Kong opposition activists charged with subversion under national security law

The opposition camp has collapsed, just as Beijing wished. In fact, following the resignation of the democratic lawmakers, the legislature is now dominated by the pro-establishment camp. The government basically has carte blanche to get all bills passed swiftly. So, it is totally unnecessary to insist that only patriots can run Hong Kong.

Not surprisingly, not only do pro-establishment figures back the proposal, to please Beijing, some seek to twist the Basic Law.

Former chief executive Leung Chun-ying has suggested that the city’s leader could be selected without an election, an idea later dismissed by Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. However, the government does not oppose Hong Kong’s political reform being led by the central government.

Who’s a patriot? Vague meaning raises fear of political persecution

Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai has shamelessly suggested that district councillors should be barred from the chief executive Election Committee. She has also proposed that Legco election candidates should have to be nominated by the same Election Committee.

Such proposals violate Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and “one country, two systems” formula. The Basic Law will cease to function soon if the Hong Kong government hands over its statutory powers to the central government.

04:35

What does ‘one country, two systems’ mean?

Some people seem to have forgotten that Hong Kong’s political reform process is laid out clearly in the Basic Law. Initially that entailed a three-step process, as set out in Annex One and Two.

It said that if there was a need to amend the method of electing the chief executive and Legco, such amendments must be endorsed by a two-thirds majority of Legco, followed by the consent of the chief executive. The decision shall then be reported to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee for approval.

However, the procedure was amended in 2007. The NPC Standing Committee interpretation, set out in 2004, extended the process by saying that, before the initial three steps, the chief executive should report to the Standing Committee on whether there was a need to amend the method for election. Any amendment can only take effect if it has gained approval from the NPC Standing Committee.

Will the chief executive become no more than a mayor?

The amendment bills are to be drafted by the Hong Kong government and introduced to Legco for endorsement. Once they are passed, the chief executive will report the resolution to the NPC Standing Committee for approval.

One should be mindful that this procedure, stated in the Basic Law, is still effective at the moment. Anyone who intends to make any amendments to the election methods is required to follow the five-step procedure. In other words, the ball is still in the Hong Kong government’s court. Rules are rules, no one should bypass the Basic Law or the NPC Standing Committee resolution.

Apparently, however, pro-Beijing politicians cannot wait to surrender Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, choosing instead to ignore and disrespect what is written in black and white in the Basic Law.

In that case, they may as well just ask the central government to terminate one country, two systems and change Hong Kong’s status to that of a special economic zone.

Albert Cheng King-hon is a political commentator