Public interest trumps variety of voices in LegCo

The Candidate Eligibility Review Committee on Aug 26 rejected Civic Passion lawmaker Cheng Chung-tai’s eligibility to sit on the Election Committee because the seven-member review panel had no reason to believe Cheng upholds the Basic Law or bears allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The decision also stripped Cheng of his seat in the Legislative Council immediately. 

It is not surprising that Cheng was ousted from LegCo, as many people believe the decision was long overdue. Still, some people expressed doubts about the promise by the central authorities that LegCo will not have only one voice following the electoral reforms. However, the critics did not say what “one voice” really means, which rendered their arguments moot.

Some people have come up with the “one voice” notion because they fell for two misconceptions. One is that LegCo has only one voice if all lawmakers are pro-establishment. The other one is that the legislature has only one voice if all members are patriots. Apparently, those views are flawed.

Some people maintain that LegCo should be a stage for characters from across the political spectrum, so that all political groups are represented, meaning that “pan-democrats” are indispensable in LegCo. Such arguments may sound reasonable, but they have missed the point by ignoring the fact that most of the “pan-democrat” lawmakers had joined forces with radical localists in undermining the exercise of “one country, two systems” and obstructing the normal operations of both LegCo and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government for years. In doing so, they went back on the oath they took upon assuming office, which is unacceptable in any democratic society. It also means that the view that LegCo has only one voice without “pan-democrats” is based on the wrong logic.

Some people have demanded that LegCo include representatives of all political standing and that they don’t have to be patriots, insisting that the presence of unpatriotic lawmakers in LegCo demonstrates inclusiveness and diversity and does no harm to Hong Kong’s constitutional development. They are wrong, too, because they overlooked the fact that LegCo is an integral part of the governance institution of the HKSAR. As public servants working in the governance institution, all LegCo members must uphold the Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” principle unconditionally. Since “one country” is the prerequisite and basis of “two systems”, any lawmaker who uses “two systems” against “one country” is automatically unqualified for public office, jurisprudentially speaking. Besides, neither inclusiveness nor diversity is absolute. And ultimately, they must serve the overall interest of Hong Kong society as well as the country. We must not include for the sake of inclusiveness, or sacrifice the public interest for the sake of diversity.

As far as room for political debate in LegCo is concerned, lawmakers can advocate anything except upsetting Hong Kong’s constitutional order

Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, delivered on Feb 22 a keynote speech at a symposium on improving “one country, two systems” and implementation of the “patriots administering Hong Kong” precept. He said implementing “patriots administering Hong Kong” does not mean LegCo must have only one voice. With that comes the question: How should we understand the meaning of “one voice”?

As far as the requirements for lawmakers are concerned, according to relevant Hong Kong laws, they must be firm patriots to begin with — call it “one voice”, if you will. Xia explained in his speech, “By emphasizing ‘patriots administering Hong Kong’, we do not mean only one voice is allowed.” He said that Hong Kong has long been a meeting point for Chinese and Western cultures, with considerable social diversity to boot. As such, many residents have been exposed to capitalist ideas and values for so long that they became deeply prejudiced against the Chinese mainland, where socialism with Chinese characteristics is practiced, without knowing that their prejudice is born of ignorance about the motherland. Xia said the central authorities understand those Hong Kong residents have been seriously misinformed and do not reject them simply because of their wrong or misinformed beliefs. But he pointed out that those who hold important offices and wield crucial power within the constitutional establishment of the HKSAR must be firm patriots, or they cannot be trusted with the responsibilities that come with their station and power. Given the 10 powers assigned to LegCo members by the Basic Law, it is safe to regard legislators as important public officeholders with considerable powers and responsibilities, who therefore must be staunch patriots, too.

As far as room for political debate in LegCo is concerned, lawmakers can advocate anything except upsetting Hong Kong’s constitutional order. Some “pan-democrat” legislators were disqualified in recent years just because they violated the legally binding oath of upholding the Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” principle. For example, former Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok Wing-hang was disqualified in November mainly because he, out of sheer hatred for the country, led an abusive filibustering campaign that paralyzed the legislature for seven months in an attempt to block the national anthem bill. Since he held his anti-China grudge above the public interest, there was no legal ground for keeping him in public office. In fact, lawmakers can oppose government practices as long as they do not aim to upset the constitutional order of the HKSAR. For instance, several pro-establishment LegCo members took the SAR government to task for granting Australian movie star Nicole Kidman a quarantine exemption in order to film a TV series. Their criticism was meant solely to safeguard the public interest and ensure the government does not undermine Hong Kong’s rule of law by setting wrong precedents. That is why they won public support immediately.

Let’s look at LegCo from a broader perspective and ask ourselves: Why must we put lawmakers into either the “pro-establishment” or “pan-democrat” camp? Does it mean there must be two or more political camps in order to define democracy? The fact is, under the improved electoral system, lawmakers must meet the overriding requirement of “patriots administering Hong Kong” and pursue what is the best for the public interest accordingly. According to the Basic Law, their loyalty is first to the HKSAR of the People’s Republic of China. Their political pursuits come later and only if they do not infringe upon the overall interest of Hong Kong society and the nation. The new electoral system requires a new perspective to examine LegCo.

The author is a Hong Kong member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Thinktank.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.