by Li Ping

Suddenly, there is the heated debate around the issue of the separation of powers in Hong Kong, and lucking behind which is the vague shadow of the issue of Hong Kong independence. The issue was provoked by the authorities targeting academic publications, in which the notion of the separation of powers was deleted by the Education Bureau upon review. Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung detonated the bomb, and Chief Executive Carrie Lam gave the verdict; but the issue of Hong Kong independence first got attention thanks to then-Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who lambasted an article in Undergrad, a Hong Kong University publication, in his Policy Address. For the pro-CCP camps, groups, and politicians, despite the difference in the choice of words, the conclusions are that the powers in Hong Kong are granted by the authority of the CCP and cannot be challenged, and will inevitably be applicable to the coverage of the Hong Kong national security law eventually.

The controversy around the existence of Hong Kong’s separation of powers has long been brewing. The so-called theory of the Basic Law’s “executive dominance”, Xi’s theory on the cooperation of powers, Zhang Xiaoming’s theory on “the overriding Chief Executive”, when has any of those not caused public uproar? What is different this time is first, Xi is now the core of the party-state; and second, the national security law has now been implemented in Hong Kong. Just like how “talking independence” is no longer listed under the freedom of speech, the separation of the three powers are no longer listed under the freedom of thought and academic freedom, but an off-limit political practice.

According to the official statement from the CCP, China’s government is the People’s Congress system. In March 2011, Wu Bangguo, Chairman of the National People’s Congress publicly declared that, “Based on China’s national conditions, we solemnly state that we will not engage in multi-party government, not diversify our guiding ideology, not explore in the coexistence of the three powers and a bicameral system or a federal system, and not adopt privatization.” This is not his personal opinion, but the consensus of the leadership of the CCP. From the “Five Nots” to the Xi Jinping era, it has returned to the “east, west, south, north; the party leads everything” model, or even simplified to one almighty authority.

The irony is that while the CCP refuses to accept the Western-style separation of the three powers, it has no choice but to accept the necessity and importance of the separation of powers and of checks and balances, therefore came up with its own CCP version of “the division of powers”. In September 2014, Xi Jinping said at the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the National People’s Congress that, “the state organs exercise decision-making powers, executive powers, and supervisory powers with reasonable division of labor and mutual coordination.” CCP’s so-called state organs include legislation, administration, trial, and procuratorial organs which cover the three powers of the political system. When Carrie Lam said that there’s no so-called separation of the three powers, and that there is only the division of the three powers, it obviously aligned quite well with the emperor’s mandate. It is not so much that “the right words have to be spoken with courage”, but rather “bootlicking has to be done with courage.”

CCP, under the one-party dictatorship, is particularly allergic and even phobic towards independence and separation, even in the comparatively open-minded era of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, as much that even in Wu Bangguo’s official report, the phrase “separation of powers” were avoided and “coexistence of powers” were used instead. In November 2004, an article was published in Hubei’s New Weekly criticizing the issue of corruption in office, and suggested the “separation of powers” to be implemented within the party to allocate the powers of decision-making, execution, and supervision to different departments. Although the suggestion did not exceed the provisions of the Communist Party’s Constitution, it was the wording of “separation” within the “separation of powers” that was taboo, and after seven issues of publication, New Weekly was ordered to be closed down by the Central Propaganda Department.

Another typical example of the mention of “independence” to the dismay of the CCP was in 2011 during the election of deputies to the National People’s Congress at the county and township levels. At the time, a group of human rights activists, lawyers, and intellectuals announced their independent participation in the election. Not only were the independent candidates, but also the voters who nominated them, were continuously harassed by authorities. The National People’s Congress’ Law Commission had to interpret the law and emphasized that “China only has ‘formal representative candidates’ officially nominated and recommended by political parties, people’s organizations, and voters in accordance with the law, and determined through consultation or pre-election, but no such thing as an “independent candidate”.

There is nothing new under the sun. With the disqualification of the District Council, Legislative Council candidates, overthrowing the principle of separation of powers, the CCP and Hong Kong Communists are simply re-enacting the show once performed in China in Hong Kong. Since the CCP refuses to accept the universal prescriptions of democracy and the rule of law, and its serious allergy and phobia for independence and separation are incurable, the only way is to anesthetize oneself with the four confidence: road self-confidence, theoretical self-confidence, institutional self-confidence, and cultural self-confidence). What resulted is that even the separation of powers within the party is forbidden, where only the division of labor is allowed, not powers, so how will the separation of powers within the political system be tolerated?

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