CY Leung wrote a letter to 8 Oct. New York Times Opinion Pages To the Editor: Martin Lee frames the protests in Hong Kong as a “last stand in defense of Hong Kong’s core values” of the rule of law, press freedom, good governance, judicial independence and protection of basic human rights (“Who Will Stand With Hong Kong?,” Op-Ed, Oct. 4). For 17 years since Hong Kong’s return to China, we have, as promised, maintained our common law legal system, a clean and efficient government, and an independent judiciary. We have been subject to the rigorous scrutiny of the Hong Kong and international media (the current protests being a case in point), encouraged and developed the infrastructure to ensure quick, unfettered access to the Internet, and worked hard to promote social inclusion and harmony in this highly free, open and cosmopolitan city. Mr. Lee claims that China has violated its promises in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The Joint Declaration, signed in 1984, never mentions the election of the chief executive by universal suffrage. Only the Basic Law — a national law of China and Hong Kong promulgated in 1990 — states the ultimate aim of electing the chief executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee. The protests have their root in Hong Kong’s current constitutional reform process, which proposes a chief executive elected by universal suffrage in 2017 in accordance with the Basic Law and an Aug. 31 decision of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. Many protesters are unhappy with this decision, which followed a five-month public consultation. They feel that the decision is too restrictive. Both the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law state that the winner of a chief executive election will be appointed by the Central People’s Government. Nobody in Hong Kong, or abroad for that matter, can ignore Beijing’s legal authority, whether we talk about the current system of an electoral college or via universal suffrage in 2017. There is a good reason for this. Hong Kong is not an ordinary local democracy. The chief executive enjoys a far higher level of institutional power than the mayors of Western democracies, and is accountable to Beijing and the people of Hong Kong. Any suggestion that the Chinese government is “interfering” in the current electoral reform debate is unfounded. Hong Kong’s future electoral, economic and social development is a natural and legitimate concern of our sovereign, and is in keeping with the principle of the high degree of autonomy that Hong Kong enjoys. C. Y. LEUNG Chief Executive, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Hong Kong, Oct. 6, 2014 nytimes/2014/10/09/opinion/hong-kongs-leader-on-the-protests.html?_r=0
Posted on: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 05:30:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015