Over the past week, another farce about “separation of powers has never existed in Hong Kong” has been put on, which has again clearly suggested to Hong Kongers and the world the administrative objective of Beijing authorities and the SAR government is to batter down “one country, two systems”.

Although the three words, “Separation of powers”, cannot be found in the written text of the Basic Law, the intent to establish separation of powers can be seen in quite a number of parts in context. From the perspective of the change in the systems of Hong Kong and the agenda of the Sino-British negotiations before 1997, it is inarguable that the arrangement for the transfer of sovereignty is crystal clear: virtually establishing a check-and-balance system in which the executive, legislative and judicial bodies perform their duties respectively, with no overlapping of powers, in an attempt to ensure “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong” and “one country, two systems”. Act 2 of the Basic Law makes clear the purpose from the very beginning by listing in parallel the “executive power”, “legislative power " and “judicial power and the power of final adjudication”. In terms of words arrangement, separation of powers is already there.

Since the Handover, Beijing authorities and its officials stationed in Hong Kong have attempted more than once to alter the saying over the 23 years. Obviously, the motive in doing so is to change Hong Kong people’s perceived knowledge of it one step at a time, then transplanting to Hong Kong the executive hegemony prevailing on the mainland that dismisses the statute law and constitutional articles, so as to build up an autocracy in which executive and judicial powers are grasped in one go. At one time, it was said the three words “separation of powers” do not exist in the Basic Law; at the other, it was said the Chief Executive is in “the supreme position overriding the three powers”. Nevertheless, those preposterous arguments have been overruled by the former and incumbent Chief Justices of the Court of Final Appeal.

Over the past 23 years, the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) and the SAR government have been misrepresenting the Basic Law with “legislative intent” at every turn, even giving the Articles new meanings that have never been said and written out through National People’s Congress’s interpretation of the Law, which is actually “innovative interpretation of the Law”. Are such maneuvring and the saying of today that things not literally spelt out in the Basic Law do not exist not too blatantly contradictory and hypocritical? How do the authorities try to explain the so-called “interpretations of the Law” conducted in the past that conjured up something unwritten?

In fact, the executive body has been empowered by the notion of “executive-led” to take the initiative in doing a lot of things it wants at its own discretion. With the imbalanced relationship between the executive and legislative establishments, the legislature still has a scintilla of supervisory power upon the principle of separation of powers. Act 64 of the Basic Law also says clearly, “The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must abide by the law and be accountable to the Legislative Council of the Region.” In the past few years, with the help from the pro-establishment councillors in the Legislative Council, the government has substantially modified the standing orders of the Council, and worn down the independence of the LegCo by overlaying the law-making institution with vetting power to disqualify candidates from running in elections.

The motive in misrepresenting “separation of powers” this time is palpably levelled at the judicial institution , in which the government is incapable of directly interfering. Despite its inability to meddle in, the government can indeed decide on which cases to be sent to courts for adjudication by manipulating the prosecution policy. In the past three quarters of the year, the biased law enforcement and prosecution policy have already ruined the judicial independence. The regime has now intended to take a further step. Hong Kongers must dig their toes in against it.

Before 1997, Hong Kong has already had a relatively independent courthouse. The only part of it not tallying with judicial independence was the power of final adjudication, which lay in the Privy Council of the UK. As such, one of the focuses of the Sino-British negotiation was to set up the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong. When the Court of Final Appeal was finally established, in fact Hong Kong has already finished the institutionalization of judicial independence.

For this reason, separation of powers and judicial independence is not only a promise given to Hong Kong people by Beijing, but an international agreement. Paragraph three of Chapter one of Annex 1, named “Elaboration by the Government of the People’s Republic of China of its basic policies regarding Hong Kong”, of the Sino-British Joint Declaration says, “The legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections. The executive authorities shall abide by the law and shall be accountable to the legislature.” Separation of powers is spelt out clearly in this section, which is why Article 64 of the Basic Law is an international agreement!

Going on with putting on farces to contort facts simply lays bare the CCP regime wanting to break its promise and renege on the international agreement it signed on, as well as tearing asunder the contract it put up with the civilians. How can such a regime gain people’s confidence and international community’s trust?

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