The statement by Xinhua on constitutional development, following the visit to Beijing by the government taskforce, hammered home the message that decisions on Hong Kong's democratic future are a sovereign right of the central government and not a matter for Hong Kong alone. It leaves no room for doubt. And according to Chief Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, Beijing thinks that Hong Kong people have not seriously considered its fears, and that there has not been sufficient discussion on matters of principle.
While some of the principles set out in that statement amount to a reiteration of what is written in the Basic Law, others are rattling assertions about which Hong Kong people should speak up. To begin with, Beijing states that patriots must form the main group of people ruling Hong Kong. The question is, what does 'patriotic' mean, exactly? According to Mr Tsang, such principles have their roots in Deng Xiaoping's remarks in 1984. One Beijing official is said to have questioned whether those who opposed the Article 23 legislation were patriotic, under the 'one country' principle. The pro-Beijing camp joined the chorus by accusing Democratic Party members of being unpatriotic.
If those who do not support the national security legislation are unpatriotic, by the same token, those who took part in the historic July 1 march and those who clamour for direct elections of the chief executive would fare no better. If 'unpatriotic' is synonymous with 'dissident', it would spell the end of the 'one country, two systems' principle and that of a 'high degree of autonomy'. This is a matter of grave concern, and the taskforce would be duty-bound to seek clarification from Beijing. Another example of such rattling principles is the statement that political reform must consolidate Hong Kong's executive-led government. Article 45 and Annex I of the Basic Law clearly stipulate the method for electing the chief executive, while Article 68 and Annex II state the principles guiding the formation of the legislation.
Article 68 says that the method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in light of the actual situation in Hong Kong and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. Nowhere in the Basic Law does it say that the formation of the legislature after 2007 must consolidate the executive-led government. And there is no reason why universal suffrage would contravene any principle which Beijing thinks important, as it is written in the Basic Law that this is the ultimate aim for the election of the chief executive and the entire legislature.
Other principles stated by Beijing are almost a reiteration of what is written in the Basic Law, which nobody in Hong Kong ever questions. One is the 'one country, two systems' principle, and that Hong Kong is an inseparable part of China. Political advisers to Beijing and leftists alike have been hitting out at democrats, accusing us of trying to make the city independent by calling for an early introduction of universal suffrage.
Equating our democratic aspirations to the quest for independence is far-fetched. By fighting for universal suffrage, people are merely seeking a political solution to correct the systemic flaws dogging Hong Kong. 'Two countries, two systems', or the quest for independence, has never appeared on the people's political agenda. It is difficult to see how the democratic aspirations for universal suffrage can be incompatible with 'one country, two systems'. If that worries Beijing, then Hong Kong people should clearly tell them: we will never seek independence.
