The SAR regime’s high-profile denial of the existence of “separation of powers” in Hong Kong has once again aroused controversies. Some people think that it is pointless to debate the issue because no matter how the Chief Executive defines the nature of Hong Kong’s constitutional system, there can be no real immediate changes to it. However, if we reckon that the SAR regime’s public discourse on redefining the nature of Hong Kong’s constitutional system is a planned political move, and interpret that in the light of the Hong Kong version of National Security Law, we will understand what the government wants and plans to do.

Article 9 of the National Security Law stipulates that the HKSAR shall strengthen its work on safeguarding national security and prevention of terrorist activities. The Government of the HKSAR shall take necessary measures to strengthen public communication, guidance, supervision and regulation over matters concerning national security, including those relating to schools, universities, social organisations, the media, and the internet. Article 10 stipulates that the HKSAR shall promote national security education in schools and universities and through social organisations, the media, the internet and other means to raise the awareness of Hong Kong residents of national security and of the obligation to abide by the law. Both provisions emphasize the importance of school in the work on safeguarding national security.

Indeed, it is the Education Bureau’s suggestion to remove “separation of powers” from liberal studies textbooks that triggers off the debate on it. Carrie Lam said that she attaches great importance to restoring order out of chaos and get the fundamentals right, and the government must have the courage to tell the truth. Kelvin Yeung explained that since there is no consensus on what is meant by “separation of powers”, the notion is not suitable for inclusion in textbooks. In explaining Hong Kong’s constitutional system in her official blog, Teresa Cheng deliberately emphasized that the executive, legislature and judiciary perform their functions in a complementary way, totally dismissing the exercise of checks and balances among the three branches of government.

There is no lack of consensus on whether “separation of powers” exists in Hong Kong. The row has broken out because the SAR regime insists on describing Hong Kong’s constitutional system as “executive-led” and denying “separation of powers” in order to meet the political needs of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). A review of the history of Basic Law and the relationship between various provisions will reveal that Hong Kong’s constitutional system combines the doctrine of “separation of powers” and the executive-led government of the colonial era.

The assertion that there is no “separation of powers” is to pave the way and set the tone for national security education. What students may learn must fulfil the objective of safeguarding national security. Any discourse that weakens national security will be excluded from the official curriculum. The SAR regime, with the Chief Executive at its core, is responsible for maintaining national security in Hong Kong and all obstacles to it must be removed. The denial of “separation of powers” is to create a theoretical basis for lobbying popular support.

Now that publishers have deleted “separation of powers” from textbooks under pressure from the Education Bureau, it is conceivable that teachers will face pressure from school sponsoring bodies and management committees, principals or even other teachers in designing teaching materials for liberal studies and other subjects when Hong Kong’s constitutional system is the topic of discussion, and they will likely refrain from mentioning “separation of powers”.

The Education Bureau’s high-profile assertion that there is no “separation of powers” in Hong Kong’s executive-led political system has drawn a red line for the education sector. In the new era under National Security Law, schools and teachers will think that if they cross the line, there will likely be unpredictable consequences. Chilling effects have occurred. Intimidated by the National Security Law, teachers may even take the official line and inculcate the concepts of executive-led government and cooperation among the three powers into their students.

In universities, when discussing the nature of Hong Kong’s constitutional system, faculties and researchers may still mention “separation of powers”, but they must also mention the SAR regime’s discourse on the matter. This is enough for weakening the fundamental concept of power having to be restricted. If the belief and value that power is subject to constraints is abandoned or cannot be established even in universities, gradually, it will become much easier for the SAR regime to implement authoritarian rule in the name of safeguarding national security.

In the new era under the National Security Law, the SAR regime is carrying out the indisputable task assigned by the CCP to impose authoritarian rule in Hong Kong on all fronts. Schools, courts, district/legislative councils, and media are all targeted as they are important arenas for the formation of public values. Over the years and reinforced by the many social movements in recent years, the public values formed in Hong Kong are anti-authoritarian and supportive of democracy. The CCP and the SAR have been battling against Hong Kong’s public values for a long time without success. Equipped with the National Security Law, they are launching a new attack. Therefore, defending Hong Kong’s public values is the most important task of the current struggle.

(Benny Tai Yiu-Ting is a Hong Kong legal scholar and democracy activist.)

Click here for Chinese version

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play