278 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
the continuation of the practice in the colonial era by allowing foreign naval vessels, notably those from the United States, to visit Hong Kong. As the American consul general in Hong Kong suggested in late 2007, “The Central Government has generally respected its commitment to Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy,” although he favored the earlier introduction of universal suffrage in Hong Kong.45
Under OCTS, Hong Kong is also granted the power to issue the Hong Kong SAR passport as an international travel document. The growing acceptance of this passport worldwide is a good indication of Hong Kong’s privileged international status. In 1997, holders of the Hong Kong SAR passport could only obtain visa-free entry in 38 countries, but by July 2009, they can obtain visafree entry to 139 countries in the world, which is higher than the number accorded to holders of the British National (Overseas) passport, which can only get visa-free treatment in 119 countries.46 In sum, Hong Kong’s international links continue to be extensive and have not weakened after 1997. Such international connections cannot be taken for granted, however. With China’s growing prominence on the world stage and the increasing internationalization of its economy and society, how Hong Kong can maintain and further its international presence under OCTS remains a big challenge for the SAR.
13.5Challenges and Prospects in the Relations between the Central Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Beijing-Hong Kong relations since 1997 have shown that there are many contentions between the central government and the Hong Kong SAR regarding the boundaries and substance of the promised “high degree of autonomy.” On the eve of the 10th anniversary of the SAR, Wu Bangguo, chairman of the NPCSC, reminded Hong Kong that its “high degree of autonomy” is delegated by the central government and no residual power rests with the SAR (Wen Wei Po, June 7, 2007, p. A25). This is an apt reminder of the most important context of central-local relations in a unitary political system. The last 10 years offer important thoughts for further reflection.
First and foremost, Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy” should be considered as a form of contingent autonomy whereby its exercise depends ultimately on the restraint of the central authorities in Beijing (Holliday et al., 2002). According to Albert H. Y. Chen’s analysis of Beijing’s perspective, while the OCTS falls shorts of western conceptions of autonomy or democracy, the framework already constitutes a “significant breakthrough for China’s political and legal system” (Chen, 2003: 368). Most importantly, he suggests that:
Paradoxically, there is a connection between the limited democracy within the SAR’s political system and the huge scope of its autonomy. Precisely because the SAR’s degree of autonomy is so high, the central government cannot afford the SAR to be governed by someone who may be ideologically opposed to or otherwise unable or unwilling to adopt a cooperative attitude toward the central government. (Chen, 2003: 368)
45See http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/cg_jc2007111201.html.
46Information from the Immigration Department of the Hong Kong SAR website at http://www.gov.hk/en/resi- dents/immigration/traveldoc/hksarpassport/visafreeaccess.htm and Hong Kong Economic Times, June 5, 2007. Also see http://ukinhongkong.fco.gov.uk/en/passports/bno-visa-free-access.0
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Intergovernmental Relations Between Mainland China and the Hong Kong SAR 279
Given such internal tensions of the OCTS framework, it is likely that many more contradictions between the central authorities and the Hong Kong SAR are bound to emerge in defining the substance and boundaries of OCTS in the run up to 2047. In fact, the more Beijing is concerned about western powers using Hong Kong as a base to destabilize the Mainland and the more it is worried about political stability in Hong Kong caused by democratization, the more likely it will use the control mechanisms to reduce the autonomy that could have been enjoyed by the SAR.
Second, Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy is more evident in the socio-economic and external, rather than the political and constitutional, domains. There are few overt interventions by Beijing into Hong Kong’s economic or social affairs. Rather, it is the Hong Kong SAR government and business community that seeks more economic policy support from the central government. On the contrary, Beijing has been very active in asserting its constitutional and political authority. In particular, the series of central government actions since 2003, such as the interpretations of the Basic Law, the edging out of C. H. Tung, and the denial of a faster pace of democratization, all testify to Beijing’s preemptive, interventionist strategy. The Hong Kong SAR government and the governing elites are increasingly subject to influence from the central government over political and constitutional matters. Various segments of the civil society, political parties, professions, and the mass media, on the other hand, are vigilant in guarding against the erosion of autonomy and in criticizing the SAR government for failing to represent fully Hong Kong’s different voices before Beijing. Nonetheless, the central government has not interfered with the daily governance and administration of justice in Hong Kong. Nor are the social and economic freedoms of the Hong Kong people and the external autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong vanishing yet. The scope of judicial autonomy and the protection of individual rights and freedoms under OCTS, however, remain contingent and the legislation of Article 23 remains to be resolved. The development of the constitutional and political order in Hong Kong still has to find a delicate balance between the imperatives of “One Country” on the one hand and “Two Systems” on the other.
Third, the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, its growing influence in the global community and Hong Kong’s own economic well-being will also directly impact on the future trajectories of OCTS. With China’s sustained growth, Hong Kong’s economy will become more dependent on the Mainland economy. Its economic significance to the Mainland may also decline in the long run, which means that the incentives for Beijing to give special consideration to keep its autonomy may dwindle over time. Hong Kong’s role as a gateway between China and the world economy will be affected by the phenomenal growth of China’s coastal cities. More importantly, as China is embracing the market and the world economy, the differences between Hong Kong and the Mainland economic system will further reduce, hence weakening one of the key bases for OCTS. Apart from capitalizing on its ability to attract and develop high-value business services, Hong Kong would have to leverage on the advantages of its freedoms, rule of law, cultural diversity, and international linkages to attract talents from the Mainland and other countries in order to maintain its economic prosperity and consolidate the economic foundation for sustaining OCTS (Sung, 2007: 215–33).
Fourth, the growing social and economic interactions between Hong Kong and the Mainland have compelled the governments on both sides to cooperate with each other in order to tackle a variety of cross-boundary problems. This may create new challenges for OCTS, however. For instance, Hong Kong has to seek support from the central government or its provincial counterparts over coordination of cross-boundary problems such as public health and infrastructural development. With the rapid emergence of cross-boundary issues that demand governmental actions and the deepening of social and economic integration, the Hong Kong SAR government will become increasingly drawn into the intergovernmental political dynamics inside the Mainland. Together
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
280 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
with the growing interlocking of the Hong Kong and Mainland political systems through overlapping membership in various political bodies, it is likely that despite the differences in the legal and political structures, the separateness of the two polities may further reduce in the future.
To sum up, this chapter has argued that there have been many twists and turns in the relations between the central government and the Hong Kong SAR since 1997. In contrast to its initial restraint, Beijing has taken a far more interventionist approach in influencing Hong Kong affairs since 2003. Such a preemptive strategy will continue to be in place until the central leadership is confident that the internal political dynamics in Hong Kong will no longer threaten its stability and prosperity and the political stability inside the Mainland. Through the OCTS framework, Hong Kong is endowed with different economic, social, political, and legal systems within a unitary Chinese state and has indeed been granted a very high level of autonomy in many policy domains. Nonetheless, how to balance the political aspirations of the Hong Kong community and the concerns of the central government remains a critical challenge for both Beijing and Hong Kong before some form of universal suffrage is introduced in 2017.
References
Burns, P.J., “The Structure of Communist Party Control in Hong Kong,” Asian Survey, Vol. 30, No. 8 (Aug. 1990), pp. 748–65.
Chan, E. and Chan, J. (2007). The First Ten Years of the HKSAR: Civil Society Comes of Age. The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 29, no. 1 (June): 77–99.
Chan, J.M.M., Fu, H.L. and Ghai, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Hong Kong’s Constitutional Debate: Conflict over Interpretation. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Chen, A.H.Y. (2003). The Concept of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ and its Application to Hong Kong. In Stephen Hsu, C. (Ed.), Understanding China’s Legal System: Essays in Honour of Jerome A Cohen (pp. 353–73). New York: New York University Press.
———(2006). Constitutional Adjudication in Post-1997 Hong Kong. Pacific Rim Law & Policy Review, 15, no. 3: 627–682.
———(2007a). “One Country, Two Systems” from a Legal Perspective. In Yeung, Y.-M. (Ed.), The First Decade: The Hong Kong SAR in Retrospective and Introspective Perspectives (pp. 161–88). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
———(2007b). The Basic Law and the Development of the Political System in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Law Review 15, no. 1:19–40.
Cheung, A.B.L. and Wong, P.C.W. (2004). Who Advised the Hong Kong Government? The Politics of Absorption Before and After 1997. Asian Survey, 44, no. 6: 879–94.
Cheung, A.B.L. (2005). Hong Kong’s Post-1997 Institutional Crisis: Problems of Governance and Institutional Incompatibility. Journal of East Asian Studies, 5, no. 1: 135–67.
——— (2007). Executive-led Governance or Executive Power “Hollowed Out”—The Political Quagmire of Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Political Science, 15, no. 1: 17–38.
Cheung, P.T.Y. (2006). Cross-boundary Cooperation in South China: Perspectives, Mechanisms and Challenges. In Yeh, A. et al. (Eds.), Developing a Competitive Pearl River Delta in South China under One Country Two Systems (pp. 449–479). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
——— (2007). Towards Federalism in China? The Experience of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In Baogang, H., Galligan, B. and Inoguchi, T. (Eds.), Federalism in Asia (pp. 242–65). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Fu, H. and Choy, D.W. (2007). Of Iron or Rubber? People’s Deputies of Hong Kong to the National People’s Congress. In Fu, H., Harris, L. and Young, S.N.M. (Eds.), Interpreting Hong Kong’s Basic Law: The Struggle for Coherence (pp. 201–27). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ghai, Y. (1998). Autonomy with Chinese Characteristics: The Case of Hong Kong. Pacifica Review, 10, no. 1: 7–22.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Intergovernmental Relations Between Mainland China and the Hong Kong SAR 281
———(2005). The Imperatives of Autonomy: Contradictions of the Basic Law. In Chan, J.M.M. and Harris, L. (Eds.), Hong Kong’s Constitutional Debate (pp. 29–43). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Law Journal Limited.
———(2007). The Legal Foundations of Hong Kong’s Autonomy: Building on Sand. The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 29, no. 1: 3–28.
Goodstadt, L. (2004). Uneasy Partners: The Conflict between Public Interest and Private Profit in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Holliday, I., Ma, N. and Yep, R. (2002). A High Degree of Autonomy? Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 1997-2002. The Political Quarterly, 73, no. 4: 455–65.
——— (2004). After 1997: The Dialectics of Hong Kong Dependence. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 34, no. 2: 254–71.
Lau, S.-K. (2000). The Hong Kong Policy of the People’s Republic of China 1949–1997. Journal of Contemporary China, 9, no. 23: 77–93.
Li, Y. (1999). The Central-HKSAR Legislative Relationship: A Constitutional Assessment. In Wacks, R. (Ed.), The New Legal Order in Hong Kong (pp. 163–81). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Lo, S.-H. (2008). The Dynamics of Beijing-Hong Kong Relations. Hong Kong.: Hong Kong University Press. Poon, K. (2008). The Political Future of Hong Kong: Democracy within Communist China. London: Routledge. Pepper, S. (1999). Hong Kong Joins the National People’s Congress: A First Test for One Country with Two
Political Systems. Journal of Contemporary China, 8, no.21: 319–43.
——— (2008). Keeping Democracy at Bay: Hong Kong and the Challenge of Chinese Political Reform. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ren, Y. (2007). Hong Kong in the Eyes of the International Community. In Cheng, J.Y.S. (Ed.), The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Its First Decade (pp. 305–326). Hong Kong: The City University of Hong Kong Press.
Sung, Y.-W. (1991). The China–Hong Kong Connection: The Key to China’s Open-Door Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———(2005). The Emergence of Greater China: The Economic Integration of Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
———(2007). Hong Kong’s Economy and Financial Sector. In Yeung Y.-M. (Ed.), The First Decade: The Hong Kong SAR in Retrospective and Introspective Perspectives (pp. 215–233). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Tai, B.Y.-T. (2007). The judiciary. In Lam W.-M. et al. (Eds.), Contemporary Hong Kong Politics: Governance in the Post-1997 Era (pp. 59–74). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Ting, W. (2007). Hong Kong in between China and the Great Powers: The External Relations and International Status of Hong Kong after the Chinese Resumption of Sovereignty. In Cheng, J.Y.S. (Ed.), The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Its First Decade (pp. 261–304). Hong Kong: The City University of Hong Kong Press.
Tung, C.H., Political Science in Asia, Vol. 3, No. 1 & 2 (Winter, 2007/Summer 2008), pp. 61–80.
Wong, Y.-C. (2004). “One Country” and “Two Systems” Where is the Line? In Wong, Y.-C. (Ed.), One Country, Two Systems” in Crisis: Hong Kong’s Transformation Since the Handover (pp. 9–34). Lanham: Lexington Books.
Yep, R. (2007). Links with the Mainland. In Lam, W.-M. et al. (Eds.), Contemporary Hong Kong Politics: Governance in the Post-1997 Era (pp. 245–63). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Yeung, C. (2002). Separation and Integration: Hong Kong-Mainland Relations in a Flux. In Lau, S.-K. (Ed.),
The First Tung Chee-hwa Administration: The First Five Years of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (pp. 237–65). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC