April 06, 2004

You are on the invidual archive page of Verdict. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
Verdict

The decision has been made; the nobbling has been done. China's NPC (Parliament) has made it's decision on the Basic Law. From Reuters (no link yet):

China's parliament ruled on Tuesday that it has the power to decide if Hong Kong needs electoral reforms, dashing hopes that the former British colony will get full democracy soon, a parliament delegate said.

While Hong Kong can change its election laws from 2007, Beijing said its approval must be obtained first, giving China full control over the city's political reforms, parliament Standing Committee member Tsang Hin-chi told reporters.

China's parliament interpreted two clauses in Hong Kong's constitution as meaning that Beijing has the authority to decide if political changes are needed and can veto anything it does not want.

This blog would give some insightful analysis but I need to get it cleared by Beijing first. I wouldn't want any mis-interpretations.

UPDATE: there's an expanded article with predictable reaction from the usual suspects. The best bit is this from Martin Lee:no freedom is safe because every clause in the Basic Law is subject to interpretation by the Standing Committee without notice. Where was he during the right-of-abode debacle?

MORE: It seems Time magazine has an article to explain who's in charge and HK's political situation. Seems like a good overview, although that photo looks suspiciously like it was taken at the Leslie Cheung vigil the other night.

China's parliament ruled on Tuesday that it has the power to decide if Hong Kong needs electoral reforms, dealing a sharp blow to aspirations for democracy in the former British colony. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress passed an interpretation of Hong Kong's "Basic Law" giving Beijing full control over the territory's political reform, a parliament member told reporters. The move has drawn fire for setting a precedent that some say undermines the rule of law, but Hong Kong parliament member Tsang Hin-chi said the ruling should not cause alarm. "It is very mild and very clear," he said. "People should not blindly oppose it but put the best interests of Hong Kong people first." Hong Kong returned to China in 1997 with the promise of wide-ranging autonomy. While it can change its election laws from 2007, Beijing said its approval must be obtained first. Tsang is the only Hong Kong delegate on the leading Standing Committee of the National People's Congress who had the right to vote on the interpretation. The leaders of China's parliament interpreted two clauses in Hong Kong's constitution as meaning that Beijing has the authority to decide if political changes are needed and can veto anything it does not want. "Beijing is assuming total control over political change in Hong Kong," said Hong Kong political commentator Andy Ho. "It is trying to cool aspirations for democracy here, telling Hong Kong that it has control, but instead of doing that it is heating things up." Hong Kong's leading pro-democracy lawmaker, Martin Lee, said the interpretation set a precedent that undermined the rule of law in the territory. "If they can do it now, they are saying 'we will do it as we please in the future'," he told the Standard newspaper in Hong Kong. "If that is so, then no freedom is safe because every clause in the Basic Law is subject to interpretation by the Standing Committee without notice." China, alarmed by growing demands for democracy in Hong Kong after massive protests last year, says the interpretation is needed to end disputes and confusion in the territory and ensure its long-term stability and prosperity.
posted by Simon on 04.06.04 at 12:01 PM in the




Trackbacks:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/21959


Send a manual trackback ping to this post.


Comments:

heh. my suspicions had proven correct years ago during the years leading to the handover - ie: china's empty promises to the brits via the Basic Law. the commies simply couldn't wait to lay their grubby mitts on HK, erasing whatever traces left of english influence. they are not as compromising as they'd like others to think.

posted by: breanagh on 04.06.04 at 01:57 PM [permalink]




Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?










Disclaimer