Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Public-Administration-in-Southeast-Asia.pdf
Скачиваний:
188
Добавлен:
21.03.2016
Размер:
4.4 Mб
Скачать

Intergovernmental Relations Between Mainland China and the Hong Kong SAR 267

(Chen, 2003: 366). Since 1997, no national laws except those relating to exclusive economic zones, continental shelves, and immunity from compulsory measures concerning the property of foreign central banks have been added to the list of national laws that would be applied to Hong Kong.20 However, there are no clear rules or legal principles with which the NPCSC has followed in rendering the three interpretations. Yash Ghai has argued that the procedures for the interpretation of the Basic Law should be “judicialised” (Ghai, 2005: 42–43). For instance, if the NPCSC wants to “interpret” the mini-constitution, it should invite submissions and carry out public hearings and the Committee for the Basic Law should be able to make its own recommendations. Hence, the cultivation, formalization, and adoption of constitutional norms might be one alternative in building constitutional relations between the central authorities and the Hong Kong SAR in future.

13.4.2 Political Dimension

The political dynamics between Beijing and Hong Kong are multi-faceted.21 The central government adopted a relatively “hands-of f ” approach in managing Hong Kong af airsf in the early period after reunification. However, with the outburst of popular discontent against the Article 23 legislation in early summer 2003, the central leadership has become seriously concerned with Hong Kong’s political situation and has taken a very active role in shaping its economic and political development. The following section examines the precarious nature of Hong Kong’s political autonomy, the growing intervention by Beijing in Hong Kong’s governance since 2003, and the contention over political reform since 2004.

13.4.2.1 Hong Kong’s Precarious Political Autonomy

Most studies on the political relations between Beijing and the Hong Kong SAR highlight the precarious nature of Hong Kong’s autonomy. Some analysts emphasize the “Mainlandization” of Hong Kong, suggesting that Hong Kong’s political, economic, and legal systems have become much more influenced by Beijing and have been converging with the Mainland since 1997. According to Sonny Lo, Mainlandization refers to the Hong Kong SAR government’s policy of “making Hong Kong politically more dependent on or similar to Beijing, economically more reliant on the mainland’s support, socially more patriotic toward the motherland, and legally more reliant on the interpretation of the Basic Law” by the NPCSC (Lo, 2008: 42–43). Tung’s administration followed Mainland-style practices in reversing democratic politics such as the introduction of a proportional representation system in legislative elections in order to favor the pro-government and pro-Beijing political forces, the abolition of the two elected Municipal Councils and the reintroduction of appointed members into the District Councils, and the adoption of a pro-China and patriotic ideology (Lo, 2008: 55–57). However, Lo argues that such a policy backfired because the gap between the government and society exacerbated political alienation and the political exclusion of the pro-democracy camp only intensified the confrontation between the government and its critics (Lo, 2008: 44–49).

20For a list of the national laws that are applied to Hong Kong, see http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/fulltext/.

21Given the focus on public administration in this volume and the limitation of space, this section cannot provide a comprehensive analysis of the political dynamics between Beijing and Hong Kong. Please refer to recent studies by Suzanne Pepper, Sonny Siu-hing Lo, and Kitty Poon for more systematic treatment of this important issue.

©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

268 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

In a similar vein, there are other scholars who also argue that Hong Kong’s political autonomy is precarious (Holliday et al., 2002). The political autonomy in Hong Kong has been “unusual” because it lacks the two common elements in other autonomous areas, namely, cultural and ethnic distinction and democratic procedures (Holliday et al., 2002: 462). Moreover, they believe that a “dependent mentality” in Hong Kong has emerged as a result of Hong Kong’s post-1997 economic crisis, and the pragmatism of certain segments of the elite and masses to look for short-term economic gains by seeking closer economic relations with the Mainland might accelerate the erosion of its autonomy (Holliday et al., 2002: 455–64). They believe that the protection of local autonomy in Hong Kong came from the actions of local civil society groups and support from foreign governments and the international media, such as the defense of press freedom by Hong Kong journalists and the champion of judicial autonomy by the legal profession, which “raised the stakes” for the Hong Kong SAR government in sacrificing local autonomy (Chan and Chan, 2007; Holliday et al., 2002).

On the other hand, some scholars hold a different view. Albert H. Y. Chen, a Hong Kong legal scholar who is a member of the Committee for the Basic Law, has offered a good summary of the perspectives of the central authorities. As he puts it,

China’s understanding of Hong Kong’s autonomy is that of “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong,” provided that the majority of Hong Kong people exercising the power to rule Hong Kong are considered to be patriots—people whom the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party consider to be patriots and thus political allies. (Chen, 2007b: 34)

In other words, Beijing’s perspective is that the Hong Kong SAR “already enjoys full autonomy in the sense of ‘Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong’ and not Communist cadres ruling Hong Kong, and the central government not interfering with the administration, policy-making and law-making of Hong Kong” and it “already enjoyed a significant degree of democracy (including the Rule of Law, civil liberties, judicial independence, multi-party competition, direct elections, functional constituency elections, etc.)” (Chen, 2007b: 39).

The centerpiece of the Basic Law political system, from Beijing’s perspective, is the executivedominated government. The chief executive is the key interface through which the central government interacts with the Hong Kong SAR. Despite the strong constitutional power given to the executive, Mr. C. H. Tung, the first chief executive, experienced great difficulties in delivering effective governance. Theoretically speaking, the formal institutional arrangements of the Basic Law framework allow the Hong Kong SAR government to continue the previous colonial “executive-led” and “bureaucracy-based” governance, which was characterized, for instance, by co-optation of elites into the administrative machinery (often called “administrative absorption of politics”), the continuation of the government’s capacity to “make sound policy in exchange for political legitimacy,” the government’s ability to stay above private interests, and the existence of a weak legislature and a weak civil society (Cheung, 2005, 2007). But these conditions no longer existed in the post-1997 period. For instance, the public demanded greater accountability and better government performance. Tung had committed serious policy blunders and set out many ambitious policy goals, but lacked the capacity to deliver them, especially when the economy had suffered from a serious downturn after the Asian financial crisis. However, despite his unpopularity, Tung was still able to secure a second 5-year term without any challenger competing with him, which can largely be explained by the strong support rendered by the former Chinese leader, Jiang Zemin. From Beijing’s perspective, the critics of Tung and his administration were not just

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Intergovernmental Relations Between Mainland China and the Hong Kong SAR 269

criticizing his ineffective governance, but they were also seeking every opportunity to challenge the foundation of the political system designed in the Basic Law and hence indirectly the authority of the central government.

13.4.2.2Beijing’ Growing Intervention in Hong Kong’s Governance since 2003

Nothing is more critical than the political crisis in 2003 in defining the relations between the central authorities and the Hong Kong SAR. The deadly severe acute respiratory syndrome was transmitted to Hong Kong in February 2003 from neighboring Guangdong. Owing to the tight control over information by Mainland authorities, the Hong Kong SAR government was not informed of the dire situation and had encountered great difficulties in coping with this unknown disease, at least until Beijing decided to become more transparent due to international pressure and allowed better coordination between Hong Kong and Mainland health authorities. The epidemic had a chilling effect on Hong Kong’s economy and further aggravated Tung’s governance crisis, which was already marred by his poor handling of the car purchase scandal of his financial secretary and the aggressive championing of the national security legislation by his secretary for security. Even the conclusion of a free trade agreement with the Mainland and the relaxation of the inflow of Mainland visitors announced during Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Hong Kong on the eve of the sixth anniversary of its reunification with China could not reverse the anti-Tung sentiments. Not only had the massive demonstrations against the Article 23 legislation and Tung’s administration, on July 1, 2003, shocked the Chinese leadership, but it had also produced an indelible impact on relations between the central government and the SAR.

The July 1 protest could perhaps be compared to Hong Kong’s massive demonstrations in 1989 supporting the pro-democracy movement in the Mainland, which similarly produced a reorientation in China’s policy on Hong Kong by expediting the opening up and development of Shanghai and other coastal cities because Hong Kong was regarded as politically unreliable. The thrust of central policy toward Hong Kong in the 2003–2004 period aimed at achieving political stability and shoring up the falling popularity of the Tung administration, which could no longer be entrusted with full responsibility to ensure political order in Hong Kong. In contrast to its previous non-interventionist posture, Beijing has changed to a far more activist strategy to shape Hong Kong politics. Among the many initiatives the central government has taken include, revamping its agencies and policy coordination group responsible for Hong Kong affairs, stepping up the monitoring of Hong Kong political developments, intensifying unified front work with political, business, and community leaders, and offering economic policy support measures to boost the Hong Kong economy, including most importantly supporting the conclusion of the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland. In other words, Beijing’s growing interventions in Hong Kong affairs since mid 2003 can also be considered as a response to the governance crisis partly induced by the problematic political system designed in the Basic Law and partly aggravated by the ineffective governance delivered by its hand-picked appointee, C. H. Tung (Cheung, 2005, 2007; Lo, 2008: 48–59).

Aside from the constitutional powers to appoint the chief executive and his top officials and to interpret the Basic Law, there are various ways through which Beijing could directly influence Hong Kong’s governance. The following discussion only highlights some prominent examples in the past decade. First, the central government can render (or withdraw) support to the chief executive and his administration. Getting central support is a prerequisite for the chief executive to govern effectively, hence the incumbent must also take whatever directives (or even indirect

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

270 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

clues) from the central government seriously. For instance, with the strong backing of the central government and especially President Jiang Zemin, C. H. Tung was able to secure a second term as chief executive, despite his low popularity, in 2002. When Tung was considered more a liability than an asset in Beijing’s eyes in the aftermath of the political crisis in 2003, President Hu Jintao reprimanded C. H. Tung in a widely publicized meeting in Macao in December 2004, and by March 2005, Tung had tendered his resignation on the grounds of health (Poon, 2008: 88–89). The central government also indicated their positive assessment of Donald Tsang’s work before the chief executive election was held in March 2007, although the central leadership no longer offered an open endorsement this time (Lo, 2008).

Second, the central government could influence governance in Hong Kong through political patronage and co-optation in order to influence political parties, interest groups, or other elites to toe Beijing’s line. Sonny Lo uses the perspective of patron-client relations in a pluralistic context to characterize the relations between the central government and the chief executive and other political actors in Hong Kong (Lo, 2008: 29–37). Beijing, being the most powerful patron, can use its constitutional power of appointment of the chief executive and principal officials as well as other political and economic resources to solicit political allegiance from different political actors in Hong Kong. In exchange for political and economic policy support from Beijing, the chief executive would have to deliver his political loyalty to the central government. Similarly, the chief executive could serve as a political patron and obtain compliance and support from other political actors through appointing them as members in government advisory and policy-making committees or as politically appointed policy secretaries since 2002 (Cheung and Wong, 2004). In fact, a growing number of political elites, such as executive councilors, legislators, and politicians of the pro-government parties, and retired senior officials, have been appointed as delegates of China’s NPC and CPPCC in recent years. Such a network is even larger if memberships in similar provincial and municipal level organs or other advisory bodies in the Mainland are counted. The overlapping membership in political institutions in Hong Kong and the Mainland is indicative of the growing interlocking of the two different political systems (Pepper, 1999, 2008).

Third, the central government also uses its symbolic power to steer the political discourse and shape public opinion in Hong Kong. Although central officials usually do not comment on local governance in Hong Kong, there are several controversial cases. For instance, in 2000, a senior central official maintained that the Hong Kong media should not advocate the “two states” theory after Taiwan’s de facto representative in Hong Kong defended this controversial notion in a radio program of the publicly funded Radio Television Hong Kong. Similarly, a deputy director of the Liaison Office warned that the media should not report news on the advocacy of Taiwan independence after a Hong Kong television station broadcasted an interview with the newly elected Taiwanese vice-president (Wong, 2004: 22–24; Yeung, 2002: 251). Another important case concerns the discussion on Hong Kong’s path of political reform from late 2003 to early 2004. In order to assert central authority over the discourse on political reform, Mainland officials and legal experts reminded the Hong Kong community of the primacy of the central government and the importance of “One Country” in the process of democratic political reform in Hong Kong and the need to emphasize patriotism as a criterion in assessing who would be qualified to govern Hong Kong. The “invisible hand” of Beijing can also be found in the policy rhetoric adopted by the Hong Kong SAR government, such as its emphasis on building a harmonious society and pursuing people-based governance since 2005, which ran parallel to the policy orientation of the central leadership in Beijing (South China Morning Post, April 27, 2008, p. A12).

Fourth, the central government has offered economic policy support to Hong Kong and hence has particularly privileged the business community. But the growing economic influence of the

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]