What were the opinions of the people who drafted the Basic Law, back in the 1980s? That is the subject of a book being compiled by Zhu Yucheng , director of the Hong Kong and Macau Research Institute under the State Council. Presumably, this is to assist the National People's Congress Standing Committee when it next makes an interpretation of the law, which is Hong Kong's mini-constitution.
Mr Zhu's work suggests that Beijing is not happy with the clear meaning of the words in the Basic Law - which promises that the chief executive and the entire legislature will ultimately be elected through universal suffrage.
Last year, Beijing vetoed universal suffrage for 2007 and 2008. The fact that the institute is possibly paving the way to another interpretation is ominous. Public opinion in Hong Kong is now focused on 2012 as the date for universal suffrage or, alternatively, for the establishment of a timetable for achieving universal suffrage. Beijing may want to delay universal suffrage even beyond 2012.
The Basic Law allows Hong Kong courts to interpret the constitutional document in the judgment of cases. But the Standing Committee has the final right to interpret the Basic Law and all other laws in China.
Hong Kong is fortunate to have a judiciary that, eight years after Beijing's resumption of sovereignty, is still independent. Sometimes, one hears views expressed in China to the effect that in an executive-led system, the legislature and the judiciary should also come under the leadership of the chief executive.
If the central government itself should ever espouse those views, that would be the end of Hong Kong as we know it today - a society with the rule of law where members of the public can be confident that judges do not exist to carry out government policy. No one would want to invest in Hong Kong or do business here if they knew judges favoured the government.
One problem is that Beijing does not believe in the separation of powers into three branches - the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. If it did, there would be no question of the judiciary somehow serving the executive.
