Advertisement

Editorial | Separation of powers row shows need for checks and balances

  • Carrie Lam says the concept common to some Western democracies has never applied to Hong Kong, and this has raised fears city safeguards are being watered down

Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
0
Carrie Lam says the concept common to some Western democracies has never applied to Hong Kong, and this has raised fears city safeguards are being watered down. Photo: Reuters
Hong Kong’s constitutional order has again become a subject of debate after publishers were told to drop references to the “separation of powers” and other sensitive items from liberal studies textbooks.

Whether this concept common to some Western democracies applies to a special administrative region under China’s unitary system may continue to be an issue for wider discussion; but the arrangements for the executive, legislative and judicial branches to function separately under the Basic Law are a fact of life. The checks and balances of the three form an integral part of the city’s “one country, two systems” formula and must be upheld.

It is not surprising that Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor sided with education minister Kevin Yeung Yun-hung, who claimed there was no separation of powers before or after reunification. Stressing it is pivotal to implement one country, two systems accurately and effectively, Lam has vowed to continue to speak out when misconceptions arise.

Lam’s view is indeed nothing new. Questions were raised as early as 2008 when Xi Jinping, the then vice-president, appealed for “mutual understanding and support” among the three branches during a visit to the city. The notion of separation of powers was further dismissed by former Beijing liaison office chief Zhang Xiaoming during a debate over the chief executive’s status in 2015. This was echoed by former chief executive Leung Chun-ying, who said the city never had full executive, legislative and judicial powers as in some Western states.

China’s unitary system does not recognise the separation of powers. Lam has merely underlined the political reality that the city’s powers and high degree of autonomy come from Beijing and the Basic Law rather than being intrinsically vested in the three branches. But since the notion of separation of powers has been manifestly upheld by top judges in rulings and speeches over the years, Lam’s denial has inevitably added to concerns that many long-held concepts and boundaries in relation to the city’s operation and safeguards are being overridden or watered down.
Advertisement