Beijing has stopped democratic reform in Hong Kong dead in its tracks.
In a heavy-handed move, China’s highest lawmaking body decided on April 26 to leave alone Hong Kong’s flawed voting laws, and insisted that any proposed electoral changes first go through Beijing. But the process by which the decision was made could, in the end, be more damaging to human rights in Hong Kong. While Beijing’s interpretation limited voting rights, its future decisions may strike at the basic rights of free expression, association and assembly that are key to Hong Kong’s viability as an information-age city.
The Chinese authorities were not resolving a textual ambiguity or simply “interpreting” the law. Instead, by adding additional procedural requirements, they changed the rules of the game, essentially amending the Basic Law. The outside world got the clear message that the rule of law was secondary to Beijing’s interests.
Because Beijing’s authority to issue interpretations is not checked by the Legislative Council, its own view of what constitutes an interpretation under this Basic Law provision is key. If Beijing does not recognise reasonable limits to its powers under Article 158, including its promise to respect Hong Kong’s autonomy under the “one country, two systems” framework and its responsibility, under Article Eight, to preserve the common law, the provision could become a vehicle for infringing civil and political rights safeguards in Hong Kong. Inside China, Beijing clamps down on its list of undesirables who have challenged authority in various areas and who have demanded that the central government respect their basic freedoms. Beijing has, in too many cases, answered with threats, harassment and arrests.
But Hong Kong is different. When the city’s bilingual media publish stories critical of mainland policy and practice, they depend on the right to free expression, protected under the Basic Law. And when local human rights groups hold meetings to discuss local politics, they too are relying on the Basic Law’s guarantees of the right to free association.
Events in Hong Kong have taken a serious turn for the worse. In February, mainland newspapers, clearly acting at the central government’s behest, began publishing attacks on pro-democratic legislators in Hong Kong, calling them “unpatriotic”. After the April 26 move, a senior academic referred to protests over the decision as a sign of a lack of “respect” for Beijing. And on May 5, in an unmistakable show of saber-rattling, a People’s Liberation Army naval taskforce sailed through Victoria Harbour.
These threats against free speech and free assembly are, for now, just that: threats intended principally to silence Hong Kong’s political opposition. But what happens when such tactics fail? Might not Beijing then turn again to legal means to limit basic rights in Hong Kong?
The world took notice when, in September 2002, the Hong Kong government introduced proposed changes to its national security laws which in many ways needlessly infringed upon basic rights. Only after more than 500,000 people took to the streets in protest last July were the proposals withdrawn.
This leaves Beijing with another worrying card to play: Article 158. If it were to approach the Basic Law’s safeguards of civil and political rights in the same way it undercut the prospect of electoral reforms, the consequences for basic freedoms in Hong Kong could be severe.
The international community should remind Beijing that it needs to tread softly when it comes to human rights and democracy in Hong Kong. Otherwise, the central government may gain an appetite for more Basic Law “interpretations” at the expense of basic rights in Hong Kong.
Tom Kellogg is the Orville Schell fellow at Human Rights Watch’s Asia division
