Advertisement
Opinion | Why Western hype about Hong Kong losing its high degree of autonomy rings hollow
- A report on Hong Kong by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies does not appreciate fundamental pillars set out in the Basic Law
- The city is still governed by Hongkongers, maintains judicial independence and has an international identity under the umbrella of China
Reading Time:3 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
36
A reputable Washington-based think tank, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), recently issued a report titled, “The Erosion of Hong Kong’s Autonomy since 2020: Implications for the United States”. The report says its findings are based on interviews conducted in Hong Kong with a “wide range of stakeholders”, including both former and current government officials, lawmakers and community leaders.
Advertisement
It reaches the same conclusion as other such studies and reports issued by US and UK think tanks in recent years: the Chinese government has “significantly eroded Hong Kong’s ‘high degree of autonomy’”. While it contains less over-the-top political rhetoric than the others, it nevertheless exhibits the same lack of appreciation of the issues at heart, which makes it a truly disappointing read.
To start with, one is barking up the wrong tree if one seeks to examine Hong Kong’s level of autonomy by looking at what happened in 2019 and the subsequent enactments of the national security law and Article 23 legislation.
Advertisement
One only needs to read the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law to understand that under “one country, two systems”, a “high degree of autonomy” does not mean absolute or complete autonomy, nor does it relate to matters of national security, defence or international relations.
Measuring Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy without understanding its limits is tantamount to commenting on the US constitution, without reference to the amendments, particularly the first amendment.
Advertisement