I Read the Basic Law

This week, I’m going to focus on the Basic Law itself, and not the asterisks, annexes and instruments that run in the “PS” section. Caveat time: I am no legal expert. I’ve read the US Constitution before and also the Japanese constitution (long story). That should not matter; I’m not reading the Basic Law for its legalistic aspects. A constitution should be more than an instrument of legal power; a constitution should also tell the story of a people in a place at a certain point in time. I’m going to look at the Basic Law as the story of Hong Kong since 1997.

There are nine chapters of the Basic Law comprising 160 Articles. Of the nine chapters, chapters 1, 2, 7, 8, and most of chapter 4 are basically about establishing the relationship between China and Hong Kong. Chapter 4 is a key chapter that establishes how Hong Kong’s government does (and does not) function, and how it fits in with China as the ultimate headmaster. Chapter 3 is a “Bill of Rights” that guarantees us our blessed freedoms (all the stuff our mainland compatriots don’t get). Chapter 5 is entirely about the economy, monetary policy, land policy, and shipping/aviation.

If you’re keeping score, we’ve had one chapter so far that actually deals with the human beings of Hong Kong (chapter 3). We can add to that chapter 6, which rather aggressively crams in “Education, Science, Culture, Sports, Religion, Labour and Social Services.” This is where all the livelihood stuff a mayor would normally focus on goes. So we end up with two chapters out of nine about the people. The other seven are about power and economic structures. That’s less than a third about the people of Hong Kong; two-thirds about the power structures. As a mechanic might say when he opens your hood to find the engine has exploded: “There’s your problem right there.”

Here are the major themes that struck me:

1. China is the boss. This is a recurring theme that is compulsive and, actually, colonial. Article 1 simply declares Hong Kong is an “inalienable” part of China. There is a latent inferiority complex in needing this declaration as the very first thing, and a symptom of the bigger problem. The US Constitution comes off as a contract between a government and its people; the Basic Law is unequivocally a one-sided dispensation of special governmental power, and the people are squeezed in where there’s space.
    
2. Very few nuts and bolts about running a city. When we think of the great cities of the world, we think of their powerful mayors improving the everyday livelihood of citizens. If we use the Basic Law as a guide, our Chief Executive may spend two-thirds of his time dealing with power structures and one-third with the people. This feels about right, actually, considering the past year.  
    
3. The “Chief Executive” really is a strange term for the leader, but it makes sense for the Basic Law. China has created a position that is essentially its vessel for exercising executive power in Hong Kong. And based on the underlying suppositions of the BL, this power is mostly going to be about making sure Hong Kong is an “inalienable” part of China.

So what to make of all this? Well, for one, the Basic Law is the basic problem. This document is a blueprint for a powerful Hong Kong leader who acts like a mini head of state, subservient to a colonial master. Because of this, the Chief Executive’s chief aim over all else is satisfying the two-thirds of the Basic Law that are intended to ensure the dynamics between Hong Kong and China. This may seem like an obvious conclusion, but any fix to Hong Kong has to be deeper than simple “universal suffrage.”