Professor Michael Davis claims the chief executive and his team are not standing up for Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy under "one country, two systems" ("On our own", January 21).
It is disappointing that basic statements in the policy address on the constitutional relationship between Hong Kong and the central authorities have been distorted.
Professor Davis said: "The Basic Law text makes it difficult to understand how the chief executive can disavow a slogan alleging Hong Kong responsibility for resolving Hong Kong's problems."
When the chief executive said in his policy address that the slogan of "Hong Kong shall resolve Hong Kong problems" does not conform with our constitutional arrangements, he was clearly referring to the matter of constitutional development. Annex I of the Basic Law clearly states that changes to the method of selecting the chief executive "shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval". In other words, the power of approving constitutional development in Hong Kong rests with the NPC, not just within Hong Kong.
The above example clearly shows that, as the chief executive also said in his policy address, the autonomy of Hong Kong is a "high degree of autonomy" and not "absolute autonomy".
The crux of the matter is that both the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and the central authorities should and do follow the Basic Law in exercising their respective powers and responsibilities. Since the promulgation of the Basic Law in 1990, the high degree of autonomy that Hong Kong enjoys has no longer been expressed as general principles. It has been specified in many of its 160 articles.