Is Hong Kong’s Basic Law just another failed constitution? After 20 years, this question must be asked. Why? If Hong Kong citizens have “freedom of speech, of the press and of publication” (Basic Law, Article 27), then why did five Hong Kong publishers get kidnapped and held on the mainland in 2015? If Hong Kong citizens are to ultimately have “universal suffrage” (Article 45), then why are they still not able to have a democratic vote for their chief executive? If Hong Kong residents have “freedom to engage in academic research” (Article 34), and educational institutions “retain their autonomy and enjoy academic freedom” (Article 137), then why have particular academics been denied promotions for supporting social movements? And if Hong citizens possess “freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration” (Article 27), then why are leaders of the Umbrella Movement – a peaceful demonstration against the status quo politics of both the Hong Kong and Beijing governments – currently being prosecuted?

All of these events directly contradict some of the most important provisions of the Basic Law. And yet, Hong Kong citizens still cling to the text for dear life (given the circumstances, I do not blame them).

Hong Kong’s Basic Law should be amended by national legislature, former diplomat says

To avoid all doubt, I readily admit that I am a strong advocate of the autonomy provided by the Basic Law, and believe the current situation in Hong Kong is undesirable and intolerable for the Hong Kong people. I do not support Beijing’s meddling in Hong Kong affairs.

Discussion surrounding Hong Kong’s Basic Law usually focuses on the conditions in which the Basic Law operates (that is, most commentators focus on Beijing’s lacklustre appreciation for certain rights or freedoms spelt out in the document, or on Beijing’s interpretation of particular provisions), rather than on the lack of effectiveness of the document itself. There has even been widespread speculation that, in relation to Hong Kong-China relations, the governing method of “one country, two systems” has failed. This is nothing new.

However, as the Basic Law is now entering its 20th year in force, the situation in Hong Kong is more desperate than it has ever been as regards the special administrative region’s enhanced rights and freedoms. Thus, it now appears time to recognise the fact that the Basic Law – with all of its promise in 1997 – is just another failed constitution.

Jailing of Occupy police officers highlights flaws in Hong Kong’s judicial system and Basic Law

Given that many critics focus on Beijing when discussing failures of the Basic Law, little critical analysis of the constitutional text itself has developed. Although some claim that the Basic Law incorporates democracy, human rights and the rule of law, none of these terms are actually located throughout its text. The closest you can get are synonyms, or, at times, ambiguities: “universal suffrage” for democracy; “freedom of conscience” and “freedom of the person” in place of more explicit human rights (such as freedom of religion and right to life); and “protection of lawful rights” and “right to institute legal proceedings” accounting for the rule of law principles.

The lack of explicit recognition is not necessarily fatal, however. The United States Constitution of 1789 fails to explicitly mention “democracy”, “rule of law” and “separation of powers”, three things that the US is now well known for (it also initially failed to mention “rights”, although the Bill of Rights was ratified shortly after the US Constitution was enacted).