ARTICLE 19 and The Hong Kong Journalists Association
Predictably, these proposed reforms provoked a barrage of invective from China. Following their announcement, Mr Patten was snubbed during a visit to Beijing and the Xinhua News Agency accused him of "an extremely irresponsible act". Subsequent publication of correspondence dating from early 1990 between Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, and his Chinese counterpart indicated that there had been a previous understanding, separate from the Basic V, accepting certain Chinese proposals about the 1995 electoral arrangements. The Chinese authorities cited this "agreement" as showing that Britain, under Mr Patten, was no longer following a mutually understood policy of convergence with the Basic Law, as China interprets it, and that there has been a unilateral change in policy in Britain's approach to the handover. While this certainly seems to be true, Britain itself continues to maintain publicly the continuity of policy and convergence with the Basic Law.
China for its part has escalated its campaign against the proposals and against the new Governor. To begin with, it has simply refused to discuss the proposals, and indeed any further transitional issues of importance, until they are unconditionally withdrawn. Lu Ping, the director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, has threatened further that if the proposals are somehow implemented, even if the Legislative Council approves them, this will lead to an unspecified "chaos" after 1997: at the very least China has said it will dismantle any constitutional developments it sees to be inconsistent with the Basic Law. Worse, Lu Ping threatened, in early January 1993, that a separate political system is being considered to replace the system existing before 1 July 1997 if the reform proposals are implemented.
China's reaction, which has plunged Hong Kong into political crisis, has in a sense revealed its true colours. Mr Patten's modest, even inadequate proposals, threaten to interfere with what Beijing perceives to be its sovereign role after 1997. More than the obvious conflict about the degree of democracy in the SAR, this critical row is perhaps better seen as a confrontation over the degree of autonomy Hong Kong will be allowed under Chinese rule. The outcome will clearly have tremendous implications for the preservation of Hong Kong's basic rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression.
The following sections examine, in a similar vein, the already extensive constitutional mechanisms in the Basic Law which allow China to exert its political control over the territory and which have serious implications for freedom of expression.
2.2
INTERPRETATION AND AMENDMENT
One of the Basic Law's most controversial provisions concerns the power of interpreting the constitution itself, and has grave implications for the rule of law and the protection of the fundamental rights of Hong Kong people, including that of freedom of expression.
Article 158 provides that the power of interpreting the SAR constitution "shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress". The SAR courts are authorized to interpret the Basic Law if required during legal proceedings only if the issue in question falls within "the limits of the autonomy of the Region". For interpretations "concerning affairs
8
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.