Zhang Dejiang, a member of the Communist Party of China's (CPC) Politburo Standing Committee and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC), talked about "one country two systems" yesterday at the joint meeting of Hong Kong and Macao members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), and made a clear and penetrating explanation of "a high degree of autonomy". This has since been widely discussed among Hong Kong deputies to the CPPCC and NPC with a consensus that Zhang's explanation provides an utmost important guidance in the current controversy over universal suffrage.
Zhang pointed out in his speech: the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by the SAR is legally authorised by the Central Government. A high degree of autonomy is not a complete autonomy, nor is it meant the Central Government will not and cannot supervise on affairs of the SAR after granting a high degree of autonomy. The Central Government owns complete sovereign power over the SAR including the power to supervise on its high degree of autonomy.
As a matter of fact, since the day when the principles of "one country two systems", "Hong Kong people running Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" were established, it has been fully understood that the three sentences constitute an integrated whole, i.e. "Hong Kong people running Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy are under "one country two systems", and the aim is to show the Central Government's full understanding and trust of Hong Kong people. It is more gratifying to see that citizens who pin their hopes on a high degree of autonomy have not been disappointed over the past 16 years since the handover of Hong Kong. The Central Government has kept its hands off SAR affairs deemed unnecessary for its supervision and even those which fall on the borderline of its supervision. No need to list examples here. A high degree of autonomy has really been practised as promised, and even to a greater extent than promised.
Regrettably, however, such a "shining point" of "one country two systems" as a high degree of autonomy has recently been distorted and misled by opposition politicians and trouble-making media outlets to become a "weapon" against the Central Government over the issue of universal suffrage. This is really outrageous and shocking. They have twisted a high degree of autonomy into full autonomy, and asserted that the election of the Chief Executive in 2017 is an internal affair of the SAR which must be handled by Hong Kong people themselves and the Central Government should not and cannot have a say, and that the sole criterion for universal suffrage is "one person one vote" and what is stipulated by the Basic Law and decisions by the NPC Standing Committee is "fake universal suffrage" and thus is unacceptable. They have made proposals that deviate from the Basic Law such as "nomination by petition" and "nomination by political parties", and threatened to launch Occupy Central and veto any other schemes for the 2017 CE election to make all efforts for universal suffrage end in naught, framing the Central Government into unrighteousness and sinking Hong Kong society into extreme disappointment and misery.
A high degree of autonomy is equal to full autonomy? A high degree of autonomy is meant the Central Government must completely keep its hands off? A high degree of autonomy is meant even the Basic Law and NPC Standing Committee's decisions could be discarded as rubbish? The answer obviously is No.
As a matter of fact, it is exactly because a high degree of autonomy is different from full autonomy that it is called a high degree of autonomy. Otherwise, it could just be simply called autonomy, no need to highlight and stress on the term of "a high degree". Evidence could at least be found as follows:
In the Basic Law's Chapter II : Relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Article 12 stipulates in black and white: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government";
Articles 13 and 14 respectively stipulate: "The Central People's Government shall be responsible for the foreign affairs relating to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region," and "The Central People's Government shall be responsible for the defence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region";
With regard to political reform, Article 45 of the Basic Law stipulates: "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government." Article 48 stipulates that the Chief Executive shall nominate principal officials and report to the Central People's Government for appointment. Article 158 further specifies that "The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress."
As such, Hong Kong SAR as a local administrative region directly under the Central Government, its foreign affairs, defence, the appointment of the Chief Executive and interpretation of the Basic Law are within the power of the Central Government. In this way, how could a high degree of autonomy be equal to full autonomy in which Central Government has no role to play? The crux of the matter is to make it clear that the Central Government must play its due role and the Basic Law must be followed.
