• Sat
  • Dec 20, 2014
  • Updated: 1:21am

Basic Law

The Basic Law was drafted as part of the Sino-British Joint Declaration covering Hong Kong after its handover to China on July 1, 1997. The joint declaration stated that Hong Kong would be governed under the principle of ‘one country-two systems’ and would continue to enjoy its capitalist system and individual freedoms for 50 years after the handover.

NewsHong Kong

Beijing to Britain: Stop interfering with Hong Kong's internal affairs

Central government joins CY and Carrie Lam in expressing 'staunch opposition' to minister's offer to help city in fight for universal suffrage

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 17 September, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 17 September, 2013, 3:16pm

Beijing fired a volley of rebuttals at a British minister yesterday, saying no foreign government or official should meddle in Hong Kong's affairs.

The central leadership slammed British foreign office minister Hugo Swire for his remarks - published in the South China Morning Post at the weekend - that it was important for local voters to have genuine choice on the road to democratisation.

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs, its office in Hong Kong and English-language state newspaper Global Times all rounded on Swire on the one day, soundly rebuffing London's offer of support for a "smooth resolution" to the quest for universal suffrage.

Beijing's vigorous reaction added to the double dose of rebuffs delivered by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor over the weekend.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei expressed "strong displeasure" and "staunch opposition" during a regular media briefing in Beijing.

"The British foreign minister published an article in [Hong Kong] media, publicly making irresponsible remarks," Hong said. "The Chinese government is strongly displeased and staunchly opposed to it."

In the opinion piece published on Saturday, Swire, a minister of state at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote that Britain "stands ready to support" its former colony as it "takes its commitment under the Sino-British Joint Declaration very seriously" in protecting the rights of Hongkongers.

Hong also pointed to colonial history to reject Swire's words. "Hong Kong had been under chronic colonial rule. After the handover, the Basic Law has sufficiently protected the basic rights and freedom of Hongkongers," he said. "We urge Britain to immediately stop any form of interference in Hong Kong's internal affairs."

Hong's words echoed an online statement issued by the ministry's Hong Kong office earlier yesterday.

"Regarding the question of Hong Kong's constitutional development, no foreign government or official should meddle in it or make presumptuous comments, not to mention interfere with [it]," the statement said. "We do not need any so-called 'support' from foreign countries.

"We hope the relevant country will be cautious about its speech regarding Hong Kong's constitutional development, and not damage the city's prosperity and stability."

The Global Times, a tabloid affiliated with the People's Daily, called London's act "unwise" in a front page article.

Kenneth Chan Ka-lok, an international relations scholar at Baptist University, said Beijing had "overreacted".

"According to international experience, the best Britain can do is to nudge," said Chan, also a Civic Party legislator. "A more common approach is to speak on the issue or to discuss the subject on international platforms."

Professor Albert Chen Hung-yee, a member of the Basic Law Committee under the National People's Congress Standing Committee, said London probably did not understand the Chinese government's way of thinking. "They might have talked about assistance out of goodwill, but the move backfired," he said.



Related topics

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

I gave credit to originator of ideas I quoted,
whether or not the originator was bmr
If a little less egocentric, you may see
that sometimes I’d seemingly pause in the middle of a discussion,
because it’s futile to carry on when the other side couldn’t follow
The differences are so clear, your line in sand is redundant
though bmr appears among the more reasonable
Persons and groups all have their failures
To simpletons, the GLF, the GPCR and Tianamen Square
serve to provide a mouthful of slogans for condemnation
CCP is the criminal
strike the gavel and move on to other issues
Not many care enough to study the context
and ask why so much in that sequence in that nation
Even fewer are kind and bold enough to face the clear probabilities
that are self-incriminating
Their's: I can condemn you and count your faults but not you me
My failures are better than your benevolence
The US Supreme Court has never changed its name or independence
Consider Dred Scott and Jim Crow in their entireties
Like CCP? As bmr said,
“The people are never heard unless it suits the ruling class”
Mr Brock’s affected generosity is offered for ulterior motives
In the next show of the season the wolf in sheep skin will don a poppy
My deaths are glorious for worldwide remembrance
Your deaths are insignificant, for vain causes to be forgotten
I may go on for many more paragraphs
But those with an open mind knew where these are heading
The lack of a free press and free this and that
used to be what westerners criticized and scorned at Singapore
without regard to whether Singaporean wanted the kind of freedoms
that they tried too hard wished to sell
Not too long ago, American pushed another value - consumerism
complaining under-consumption that the Chinese should spend more freely
without regard that in the given circumstances Asian would prefer to save
Would Singapore and China do better or worse, if they followed western counsels?
Consider the moral irony of scmp readers
most of them enthusiastically demand "democratic" right for Chinese people
while a dumb piece like "Why are Chinese tourists so rude"
continues to top the newspaper's popularity list for months
Like I said yesterday
My <6 months old American brand pc has been acting funny
There are much I want to say
and in fact have long wanted to elaborate
on the points you raised
so thanks for raising them
I don't work well with tablet and laptop
So I'd have to revert when I next have the time with a reliable pc
They can always choose to join the CCP
ch easier than for your to join Oxbridge orr Super PAC
A state can’t behave like a loud-mouth brat
Anyone who wishes to indulge in brats’ gibbersih
should first read the JD and respond to the following comment
“To straddle the middle ground and win elections, we have to be in charge of the political agenda. This can only be done by not being beaten in the argument with our critics. They complain that I come down too hard on their arguments. But wrong ideas have to be challenged before they influence public opinion and make for problems. Those who try to be clever at the expense of the government should not complain if my replies are as sharp as their criticisms.”
― Lee Kuan Yew
Mr Brock offered his help to married people about harmonious marital relations. He has an idea to fill a huge void in limey family education. If there hadn’t been problems between Mr and Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, there won’t have been the consequential difficulties of Ms Spencer and Mrs Bowles. He also has an opinion to fill a huge void. Given the notable weaknesses in its male line, limey regal succession should be passed thru Spencer to the House of Al-Fayed. Thank you Mr Brock.

Do jve & Co think differently? If not, then why not welcome views Mr Brock voices above enjoying his freedom of speech? It is much more disarming to say 'yes, yes, we know that, obviously, duh, thanks' than to draw this much attention by whining about how hurt your feelings are.
jve, if only you knew how funny you have been all along.
typical british arrogance and confucius ignorance and paranoia
My daughter is Chinese. She was born in Hong Kong. What is your point? Can a Hong Kong person not be Chinese? Strange and stranger still that two fools should follow your thinking.
SAR Passport holders are "Chinese nationals," dunce. There is no such things as a Hong Kong citizen. There are citizens of Hong Kong and Hong Kong permenant residents, but all SAR passport holders are CHinese nationals - nothing more.
Eaxtly. This is a fact. The Basic Law was predicated on the joint declaration, a two party agreement between the UK and PRC which defined the future of Hong Kong after the handover until 2047. The UK is definitely an interested party. Futhermore, there are hundreds of thousands of UK subjects that are permenant residents in Hong Kong. I think its fair to say if the UK has concerns they have every right in voicing them.



SCMP.com Account