LettersHong Kong’s Basic Law does not see the city as a colony of China
- Article 22 of the Basic Law does not expressly exclude institutions established before 1997 from its ambit
- Articles 1 and 2 are not clearly defined, and can raise questions about whether autonomy takes precedence over Hong Kong’s status as a special administrative region of China
Her primary argument is that, since the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office was established before the handover, it is clearly not under the scrutiny of Article 22 which states that departments of the central government cannot “interfere” in Hong Kong’s internal affairs. Article 22, which Ip quotes in her article, makes no reference as to whether institutions predating the Basic Law are bound by the Basic Law. By this argument, any governmental institution established before 1997 can function without adhering to the law.
Ip goes on to argue that Article 1 and Article 12 clearly point out Hong Kong’s relationship to the mainland as a “local administrative region” directly under control of the Central People’s Government but also with a “high degree of autonomy”. Perhaps this is the largest point of contention.
Neither of these articles are clearly defined, neither by Ip nor by the Basic Law. Does this mean that Beijing can strip away Hong Kong’s autonomy should they please? How far does the “high degree of autonomy” go? Whether we believe Beijing has already overstepped is besides the point – the question is whether autonomy from Beijing or being a local administrative region of China takes precedence.
Finally, and perhaps most chillingly, Ip ends her article by implying we should give Chinese troops and political representation immunity from local laws, as British troops and representation were not bound by them.