We don't want independence
The statement by Xinhua on constitutional development, following the visit to Beijing by the government taskforce, hammered home the message that decisions on Hong Kong's democratic future are a sovereign right of the central government and not a matter for Hong Kong alone. It leaves no room for doubt. And according to Chief Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, Beijing thinks that Hong Kong people have not seriously considered its fears, and that there has not been sufficient discussion on matters of principle.
While some of the principles set out in that statement amount to a reiteration of what is written in the Basic Law, others are rattling assertions about which Hong Kong people should speak up. To begin with, Beijing states that patriots must form the main group of people ruling Hong Kong. The question is, what does 'patriotic' mean, exactly? According to Mr Tsang, such principles have their roots in Deng Xiaoping's remarks in 1984. One Beijing official is said to have questioned whether those who opposed the Article 23 legislation were patriotic, under the 'one country' principle. The pro-Beijing camp joined the chorus by accusing Democratic Party members of being unpatriotic.
If those who do not support the national security legislation are unpatriotic, by the same token, those who took part in the historic July 1 march and those who clamour for direct elections of the chief executive would fare no better. If 'unpatriotic' is synonymous with 'dissident', it would spell the end of the 'one country, two systems' principle and that of a 'high degree of autonomy'. This is a matter of grave concern, and the taskforce would be duty-bound to seek clarification from Beijing. Another example of such rattling principles is the statement that political reform must consolidate Hong Kong's executive-led government. Article 45 and Annex I of the Basic Law clearly stipulate the method for electing the chief executive, while Article 68 and Annex II state the principles guiding the formation of the legislation.
Article 68 says that the method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in light of the actual situation in Hong Kong and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. Nowhere in the Basic Law does it say that the formation of the legislature after 2007 must consolidate the executive-led government. And there is no reason why universal suffrage would contravene any principle which Beijing thinks important, as it is written in the Basic Law that this is the ultimate aim for the election of the chief executive and the entire legislature.
Other principles stated by Beijing are almost a reiteration of what is written in the Basic Law, which nobody in Hong Kong ever questions. One is the 'one country, two systems' principle, and that Hong Kong is an inseparable part of China. Political advisers to Beijing and leftists alike have been hitting out at democrats, accusing us of trying to make the city independent by calling for an early introduction of universal suffrage.
Equating our democratic aspirations to the quest for independence is far-fetched. By fighting for universal suffrage, people are merely seeking a political solution to correct the systemic flaws dogging Hong Kong. 'Two countries, two systems', or the quest for independence, has never appeared on the people's political agenda. It is difficult to see how the democratic aspirations for universal suffrage can be incompatible with 'one country, two systems'. If that worries Beijing, then Hong Kong people should clearly tell them: we will never seek independence.
Equally illusory is the claim by leftists that direct elections for the entire legislature in 2008 would bring about a welfare state. The Basic Law has prescribed a low tax policy, a balanced budget and that the growth in public expenditure cannot exceed economic growth. This has circumscribed the development of social welfare services, making a rapid expansion of such services impossible.
Some of the principles on which Beijing seeks reassurance are those which are never questioned, while others are bones of contention with no definite answers, such as 'in light of the actual situation' and 'in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress'. They need not be discussed infinitely, nor should they get in the way of the constitutional review. The reform issue has rocketed on the list of Hong Kong people's priorities, and it warrants immediate public discourse.
But the way in which the government conducts public consultation has been contentious. With the legacy of Article 23 still lingering, a politically astute government, and one which respects the rights of its people, should consult with an open mind, analyse the views objectively, and truthfully reflect the people's views to Beijing. Above all, it should uphold what Hong Kong people want; namely democracy and a high degree of autonomy. And to issue a timetable for the constitutional review, it is imperative to embark on a formal public consultation, listing concrete proposals in a consultation document.
We hope such assertions by Beijing are meant to mark the beginning of dialogue with the people of Hong Kong, and not to dash hopes for political reform. And if these statements of principles are intended to make Hong Kong people understand Beijing's worries, then we should help allay the fears. The ball is in our court. People need to voice their democratic aspirations and tell Beijing that we will never seek independence. If a viable solution is to be worked out, constructive dialogue based on mutual trust and understanding is essential. And let us move on to the substance of the review.
Yeung Sum is chairman of the Democratic Party and a directly elected legislative councillor