The central government has adopted a hard-line position in the first round of formal talks on Hong Kong's constitutional development. The message in the statement issued by Beijing is clear: Decisions on Hong Kong's democratic future are a sovereign right of Beijing and not a matter for Hong Kong alone. And according to the Chief Secretary, Mr. Donald Tsang, Beijing thinks that Hong Kong people have not seriously considered Beijing's fears, and that there has not been sufficient discussion of matters of principle in Hong Kong.

While some of the principles set out in that statement amount to a reiteration of what is written in the Basic Law, others are startling assertions which are tantamount to a reinterpretation of the mini-constitution. Among such startling assertions is the principle that patriots must form the main group of people ruling Hong Kong. The question is¡Gwhat exactly does 'patriotic' mean? According to Mr. Tsang, such principles have their roots in the late patriarch Deng Xiaoping's remarks in 1984. Tsang also defined 'patriotic' as those who do not act against the interests of both Hong Kong and the Mainland. It was alleged that a Beijing official questioned whether those who did not support the Article 23 legislation were patriotic under the `One Country' principle. If those who do not support the National Security legislation were unpatriotic, by the same token, those who took part in the historic march in 1 July, and those clamour for direct elections of the Chief Executive would be unpatriotic. Declaring all dissidents 'unpatriotic' would spell the end of the 'one country, two systems' principle and that of a 'high degree of autonomy'. This is a matter of serious concern, and the Taskforce on Constitutional Development would be duty-bound to seek clarification from the Central Government.

Another example of such startling principle 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 the election of the Chief Executive, while Article 68 and Annex II of the Basic Law stipulate the principles guiding the formation of the legislation. Article 68 states that the method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong SAR 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. But how the formation of the legislature after 2007 must consolidate Hong Kong's executive-led government is not a principle stated in the Basic Law. An assertion that political reform must consolidate Hong Kong's executive-led government would be tantamount to a reinterpretation of the Basic Law. If Hong Kong people are told to abide by the letter and the spirit of the law, there is no reason why the other parties should not do the same.

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 such principle is the 'one country, two systems' principle, and that Hong Kong is an inseparable part of China. By fighting for election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, Hong Kong people are merely seeking a political solution to correct the systemic flaws ailing Hong Kong. "One country, two systems" has been widely accepted by the people in Hong Kong, and is the cornerstone on which the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong is to be built. "Two countries, two systems", or the quest for independence, has never appeared on the political agenda of Hong Kong people. It is difficult to see how the democratic aspirations for universal suffrage can be incompatible with the principle of "One country, two systems". Equating our democratic aspirations to the quest for independence is far-fetched. If that worries Beijing, then Hong Kong people should clearly tell them: We have never sought independence.

These principles are bones of contention with no definite answers. But they need not be discussed infinitely, nor should they get in the way of constitutional review. The issue of constitutional reform has surged on the list of priorities of Hong Kong people, and the situation warrants an immediate public discourse. Making much ado about nothing would do little to inspire confidence of the people of Hong Kong, whose patience is wearing thin. We urge the Taskforce on Constitutional Development to immediately issue a timetable for constitutional review, and embark on a formal public consultation, with concrete proposals of constitutional development.

We hope such assertions by Beijing are meant to mark the beginning of a dialogue between Beijing and 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 of Beijing. The ball is in our court. Speak up your democratic aspirations. Tell Beijing that we have never sought 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 constitutional review.

YEUNG SUM

Chairman of the Democratic Party and a directly elected Legislative

Councillor

[February 15, 2004]