Legal experts have slammed Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng for penning an article arguing that a separation of powers “has no place” in Hong Kong.

Cheng wrote on Wednesday that it was an “oversimplification” to apply the separation of powers to Hong Kong, saying that the theory’s supporters were engaged in a “pathetic” and “desperate” attempt to latch onto the phrase without properly understanding it.

“When the term ‘separation of powers’ is loosely used in Hong Kong, it is prone to contribute to misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the constitutional order of the Hong Kong SAR,” Cheng wrote in an op-ed published in the South China Morning Post. She also penned a similar article for Chinese-language newspaper Sing Tao Daily.

“The doctrine of separation of powers is commonly used in the context of the political structures of sovereign states. This doctrine has no place in the political structure of Hong Kong,” she wrote in the SCMP.

The Basic Law states that Hong Kong has an executive-led system, Cheng argued, adding that the administrative, legislative and judicial branches of government are “interrelated with delegated powers and functions” that come from China’s central government and are meant to “complement” each other.

Cheng’s article also cited past court judgments, including one written by incoming Chief Justice Andrew Cheung in 2008 stating that a separation of powers must be “treated with great care” in its application in Hong Kong.

“A proper reading of the judgments would reveal that the courts used the term to describe the division of labor or the different responsibilities of various institutions under the Basic Law without condescending to any detailed discussion of the concept,” Cheng wrote.

Constitutional scholar Danny Gittings, however, challenged Cheng’s interpretation of Cheung’s 2008 judgment.

In a tweet on Wednesday, Gittings pointed out that Cheung had actually said that the separation of powers was “enshrined in the Basic Law.”

Gittings added that there were “many other distortions” in Cheng’s article, including its failure to mention that over 70 court cases since 1997 have referenced the separation of powers, compared to only two court cases mentioning an executive-led government.

Barrister Alan Leong, former chairperson of the Hong Kong Bar Association, also criticized Cheng for “making things up” in her interpretation of past court judgments.

“I think Cheng’s stance is not an honest mistake but a deliberate attempt to mislead the public,” Leong told Apple Daily.

Leong also accused the Hong Kong and Chinese governments of going back on their promise to Hongkongers of vowing to maintain the city’s constitutional order with the separation of powers.

“There is no question about the [separation of powers] in Hong Kong,” he said. “If you look at the Basic Law and its provisions on the functions of the executive and legislative branch, you will see that they are meant to act as checks and balances to one another. Neither is subservient to the other.”

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