Advertisement
Opinion | Why Beijing’s offices in Hong Kong cannot be guilty of interference, despite the legal community’s misgivings
- Both the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the liaison office were established before 1997 and so cannot be regarded as departments of the central government established after 1997 under Article 22(1) of the Basic Law
- The two offices have legitimate power and responsibility to express concern over developments in Hong Kong or issue warnings
Reading Time:4 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
0
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Basic Law. Forget about organising webinars to celebrate the anniversary, a debate about the core constitutional issues underlying the implementation of the Basic Law – China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong and the extent of Hong Kong’s autonomy – is unfolding right before us.
The debate was triggered by statements made by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) of the State Council, and the central government’s liaison office on April 13, chastising legislator Dennis Kwok Wing-hang for abusing the Legislative Council’s rules of procedure to delay the election of the House Committee chairperson.
After 15 meetings presided over by Kwok over six months, the House Committee remained bogged down in procedural matters, holding up the passage of scores of bills and motions, including the appointment of the chief justice of the Court of Final Appeal.
The unprecedented, open reprimands provoked a sharp response from the Hong Kong Bar Association, which issued statements and a letter to the secretary for constitutional and mainland affairs, pointing out that the actions of the two offices could “easily be perceived as interference”.
04:35
Ever since Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997, efforts have never ceased to be made, in some quarters, to resist China’s exercise of its legitimate power over Hong Kong.
Advertisement