Decolonization - cure for HK's woes?
Updated: 2015-09-30 09:48
By Regina IP(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
Regina IP writes that while colonial features were written into the Basic Law, HK should seek new systems for the years ahead while embracing its destiny as part of China
At a recent public forum in Hong Kong, Chen Zuo'er, chairman of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, dropped a bombshell by attributing Hong Kong's lackluster economic performance to its failure to "decolonize", while at the same time allowing attempts to "de-sinofy" to spread in Hong Kong.
Chen's statements sparked much concern about the central authorities' intentions. Do his remarks herald actions in the pipeline to decolonize, in the sense of dismantling the separate systems in Hong Kong?
My view is, for as long as the Basic Law is in force, decolonization in the form of removing the "colonial" features of Hong Kong's governance system, however outdated and objectionable, would be hard to accomplish. That is because many of these features have been written into the Basic Law, and cannot be excised without major surgery.
Take for example the Legislative Council's annual debate on the Chief Executive's policy address. This practice is based on the British parliamentary tradition of the State Opening of Parliament, on which occasion the Queen delivers a speech outlining the government's agenda, and the two houses of Parliament debate her speech. The vote in the House of Lords on the motion to thank the Queen for her "Gracious Speech" is a formality and passes unanimously. The vote in the House of Commons on the motion has never failed.
By contrast, the opposition in Hong Kong's legislature has turned the formality of a vote to thank the CE for delivering his annual policy address into an opportunity for attacking the government and humiliating the CE. The requirement in Annex II to the Basic Law that motions introduced by legislators must require a simple majority vote in both the functional and geographical groups of legislators present makes it hard for pro-government legislators to secure passage of the vote of thanks motion.
Another remnant of colonial practice is the public finance management ideology enshrined in Article 107 of the Basic Law, which prescribes that the government must keep expenditure within the limits of its revenues in drawing up its budget. Though well-intentioned, such a provision fosters a highly conservative, risk-averse mentality among the public officers responsible for public finance management, and takes away the government's flexibility in using public funds to boost the economy in times of economic downturn. It provides legal cover for the resistance on the part of many senior officials to discard the "small government" philosophy of the colonial era, or to use the vast resources at the disposal of the government to steer and reshape the economy.
The incorporation of such colonial practices and ideology into the Basic Law stems from the well-intentioned desire to maintain in Hong Kong, under "One Country, Two Systems", the separate systems which worked well in the colonial era, and which should be preserved in order to maintain Hong Kong's prosperity, stability, vibrancy, and the people's confidence.
In hindsight, a major problem of the Basic Law is that it was drafted very much with a view to preserving old systems and practices rather than ushering in new systems consonant with Hong Kong's new reality as a part of China. In other words, too much clinging to the past but not enough envisioning of the systems that would truly work well for Hong Kong under "One Country". Too much clinging to the old systems means that Hong Kong has not been able to adapt to the transformational change which has taken place in the country in the past 18 years, and the consequential change in Hong Kong's place in the rest of the country and in the world.
Naturally, "One Country, Two Systems" being a new, bold and innovative concept, it was very hard for the Basic Law drafters to have a very clear vision of what would work well under this arrangement. "One Country, Two Systems" is a work in progress, and it behoves all of us who have lived through the changes in the past 20 years and witnessed the difficulties in implementation to think hard about what systems would best suit Hong Kong in the years ahead.
Chen Zuo'er was certainly right when he stressed that the forces to "de-sinofy" Hong Kong, that is to remove Hong Kong's Chinese characteristics, would only hurt both the "country" and the "separate systems". "One Country" and "Two Systems" are closely intertwined: Hong Kong cannot survive without its motherland and Hong Kong's separate systems would be weakened if the nation lost faith in them.
The cure for Hong Kong's woes is not a simple move to decolonize, but a wake-up call for Hong Kong people to embrace their destiny as part of China. Hong Kong can always be a very special part of China with its unique advantages and characteristics, but it would continue to be mired in restlessness and internal divisions if it were unable to come to terms with that reality.
(HK Edition 09/30/2015 page10)