/ FT.com Comment & analysis / Editorial comment
Friday Apr 9 2004. All times are London time.
Roger Bove Edit Profile Take a tour Log out
Home World Business Markets Markets & funds data Industries Lex Comment & analysis Editorial comment Columnists Discussion & polls Letters Analysis Comment Technology Management Your money Arts & Weekend Sport Jobs & classifieds
In today's FT FT Reports Creative Business FTfm FT-IT World reports Business reports
News in depth Rebuilding Iraq Combating Sars US elections 2004 Global security Science briefing Arab-Israel conflict Columnists Martin Wolf Lucy Kellaway Philip Stephens Quentin Peel Lombard Gerard Baker Amity Shlaes Comment & analysis / Editorial commentPrint article | Email
Basic mistake on Hong Kong Published: April 7 2004 5:00 | Last Updated: April 7 2004 5:00 It is bad enough that China, without being asked by Hong Kong, suddenly decided less than two weeks ago to "interpret" parts of the territory's constitution, known as the Basic Law. That decision in itself clearly contradicts the spirit of the "one country, two systems" formula under which the former British colony is supposed to keep its autonomy and its special rights and freedoms - including an independent legal system - for 50 years. The way the unilateral interpretation was carried out over the
weekend and disclosed yesterday was just as offensive. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber-stamp parliament, met behind closed doors. Xinhua, the official news agency, then announced tersely that the committee had decided the meaning of two crucial annexes about how to elect Hong Kong's chief executive and legislature from 2007; in a caricature of authoritarianism, the NPC did not immediately say what its interpretations were. Beijing could hardly have found a better way to demonstrate why Hong Kong needs the "high degree of autonomy" agreed by China and Britain two decades ago and confirmed in the Basic Law before the handover in 1997. Pro-Beijing politicians and business leaders in Hong Kong argue that the wording of the NPC's ruling - finally revealed last night shows China's reasonable response to Hong Kong demands for more democracy. As the expected, decision appears to yield to democratic politicians in agreeing that changes to the voting system are theoretically possible as early as 2007. Qiao Xiaoyang of the NPC Standing Committee went further, echoing in a news conference the Basic Law's words that the ultimate aim is for Hong Kong elections to be by universal suffrage. Sadly for Hong Kong's future, these are irrelevant details. The most important part of the NPC's interpretation suggests that China could refuse to accept new, more democratic voting systems - even when the Basic Law states these have to be reported by Hong Kong to the NPC only "for the record". It also says only the Hong Kong chief executive and his government, who under the present system are anointed by Beijing, have the power to initiate changes. The point is that China's Communist leaders have set a precedent by arrogating to themselves the right to interpret Hong Kong's constitution whenever and in whatever way they want. Like the insults heaped on "unpatriotic" Hong Kongers who dare to press for more democracy, this action has alienated many Hong Kong people previously well-disposed towards Beijing. It has also bolstered Taiwan's determination to resist absorption into China. The most plausible explanation for Beijing's attitude is that the mainland government is alarmed by the flowe...