Opinion | Carrie Lam’s stance on the separation of powers in Hong Kong is self-contradictory
- In acknowledging the division of labour between branches of government, with checks and balances among them, Lam has defined Hong Kong’s separation of powers
- Checks on executive power by Legco have been degraded by the manipulation of the political structure, with the judiciary now primarily performing this role
She reportedly argued that the three branches of the Hong Kong government had a division of work, with each having “their respective responsibilities”, “but there are also checks and balances among them”. She seemingly unwittingly defined Hong Kong as having a system based on separation of powers, while claiming it did not exist.
Separation of powers, in simple terms, is nothing more complicated in most democratic political systems than having three branches of government, the executive, legislative and judicial, each with its own responsibilities, who check and balance each other.
Nobody could read all the features of the Basic Law without concluding that such a system of separate branches, each with its own responsibilities to serve as a check on the other, is exactly what Hong Kong has. Separate sections of the Basic Law spell out these powers clearly.
The Basic Law provides a number of ways in which the Legislative Council is to serve as a check on the executive branch, with Article 64 being explicit that: “The government of the Hong Kong special administrative region must abide by the law and be accountable to the Legislative Council of the region.” A number of avenues of accountability are explicitly listed.
02:31
What is the Basic Law of Hong Kong?
The ultimate check under the Basic Law is the power in the Legislative Council to impeach the chief executive, a role in which the chief justice participates, by leading an investigation regarding the accusations against the chief executive.