BEIJING, Jul। 2
http://www.upiasiaonline.com
As Hong Kong celebrates the 10th anniversary of its return to China, the world is paying closer attention to the success of the "one country two systems" formula and the potential for the territory to enjoy full democracy.
At the beginning of June, Wu Bangguo, chairman of China's National People's Congress, pointed out that Hong Kong's autonomy comes from the central government and that Hong Kong does not have any "residual authority" beyond that granted by Beijing. He also said the system of separating authority into three powers -- executive, legislative and judicial -- as practiced in the West was not suitable for Hong Kong.
Wu's comments generated a great deal of discussion in Hong Kong. The pan-democrats felt that the Beijing government was purposely seeking to limit the power of the Hong Kong government ahead of its issuance of a green paper on political reform.
Although Wu quoted provisions from Hong Kong's Basic Law as evidence of Hong Kong's limited authority, those provisions were related to procedural matters, not values or principles embedded in the law. Wu bit off more than he can chew in seeking to challenge the principle of "one country two systems."
Where does Hong Kong's autonomy come from? We have to look at the fundamental principle of "one country two systems" and the context of Hong Kong's return to China, the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 and the Basic Law.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration acknowledged the historical nature of Hong Kong's status and reality. It stated explicitly that Hong Kong would enjoy autonomy in all matters except those related to diplomacy and national defense, which would be handled by the central government. The Sino-British Joint Declaration is a valid legal document, but this does not mean that Hong Kong's autonomy was granted by the two governments. It was a promise made by the Chinese government, an agreement between China and Britain, and the premise upon which Hong Kong's return was negotiated.
Wu said the key feature of Hong Kong's political system was its executive-led government. He also quoted from Deng Xiaoping, saying that Hong Kong's political system should not completely imitate the West, including the separation into three powers and a parliamentary system similar to those of Britain and the United States. Moreover, Wu said it was inappropriate to judge whether or not Hong Kong is democratic based on these standards.
Regarding the political system of Hong Kong after its return to China, a number of legal documents refer to it as a capitalist system. There is no mention of "partial capitalism" or "somewhat capitalism." Also there is no mention that the separation into three powers or the parliamentary system are inappropriate for Hong Kong. The understanding of the term "capitalism" as applied to Hong Kong should be the same as in the rest of the world.
The first article of the Joint Declaration clearly says that after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong will not follow a socialist system or implement socialist policies. Instead, it will maintain its capitalist system and lifestyle for 50 years without change. Since this system is called "capitalism," it will surely include the capitalist political system and economic system, and the separation of three powers is a natural part of it.
What is meant by "maintaining its capitalist system"? Certainly this refers to an already existing system. This article came before, not after the Basic Law. It is a promise, agreement and premise. Therefore, the various rights and special status of Hong Kong after its return to China are not simply decided at the pleasure of the central government. They originate from the Sino-British Joint Declaration, an effective international agreement, and are based on the pledge that the Chinese government gave to international society.
How can such a dignified pledge and international agreement, which includes certain constraints, be changed or interpreted at will? For the reasons cited above, the central government's approval of Hong Kong decisions as mentioned in the Basic Law has only procedural significance, nothing else. If Chinese officials insist on confusing procedural matters with basic principles and values, people will naturally suspect their intentions regarding the 50-year pledge for "one country two systems." I am wondering if Wu, the head of the highest legislative body of a large nation, knows the difference between procedural principles and basic principles and values embedded in law.
Constraining its rulers is a great achievement of human civilization. However, Wu's speech forces us to realize that Chinese politics are still far from civilized. How to constrain our rulers and make them understand civilized values remains a difficult and unresolved issue facing the Chinese people.
--
(Qi Ge is a freelance writer in Beijing, who has published numerous commentaries in overseas media. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original may be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Qi Ge.)
没有评论:
发表评论