LSESU HKPASS: PASS-On Monthly - October 2016

No. 6 - October 2016

MONTHLY

The online edition.

What’s on the Blog? “I’m not Listening.”

Elections and Polls

LegCo Drama

Four months, four articles; Catch up on what’s happened.

Should we trust opinion polls when casting our votes?

Oathtaking, Basic Law, and separation of powers

The polarization of politics and end of communication

contents 03 04 06 08 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18

2

Editor’s Note What’s On Our Blog?

We’re Out, What’s Next?

The Fall of the Gods Verdict Before Trial Day One Theme: Elections “Sorry, I’m not listening.” 民調•預測 Chaos at LegCo Beijing’s Self-fulfilling Prophecies Separation of Powers?

EDITORIAL Hi Readers!

It is my pleasure to bring you the first issue of PASS-On for the 2016-17 academic year. This is the second year PASS-On has been running, and we are still looking to improve. If you have any comments or suggestions, or even a submission, please do not hesitate to contact us at lsesusochkpass@gmail.com.

This issue’s theme is “Elections”. With the LegCo elections and surrounding controversies, the race for the next Chief Executive, and the US Presidential election, November is shaping up to be quite the roller coaster ride.

Janice Leung

(Publications Officer 2016-17)

3

4

What’s On the Blog? four months, four articles In June we had Brexit. In July we had the Olympics. In August we had Edward Leung. In September we had the LegCo Elections. Needless to say, it was a busy summer.

Read on for a roundup of all the blog posts that were published in the summer months!

5

We’re Out, What’s Next?

June 30, 2016

By Janice Leung

A week has gone by since the UK voted to leave the European Union, and the future is just as unsure as it was then. The UK leadership now finds with a mountain of work to get through if the UK is to maintain its importance in the world, but internal discord will make that a very tough journey.

Economic Backlash The greatest challenge to the UK is arguably the referendum result’s economic backlash.

Almost immediately after the results of the vote became obvious, the pound dropped dramatically to its lowest level in more than 30 years against the dollar, bringing forth waves of economic instability. This shock to financial markets poses a potential threat to the City’s place as an international financial 6

hub, as banks and investors may concentrate their efforts in Europe from now. In terms of trade deals, although everyone knew from the beginning that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market, few realized the true consequences of such a major move. The time needed for the UK to re-establish completely its trade deals with the rest of Europe and establish trade deals with countries it traded with as part of the EU (e.g. China, India, US) is projected to be at least five years after the UK properly leaves the EU. The US and other major trading partners have repeatedly stated that the UK, as an isolated entity, would be pushed to the back of the queue in terms of trade negotiations. It is up to the new leadership to sooth global anxieties about the UK economy, and pursue favourable trading terms with other states.

It’s been a week, but the government’s trials have only just begun.

Political Turmoil However, the referendum also deeply shook both Conservatives and Labour. Cameron’s resignation effectively means that the next Tory leader and Prime Minister will have to shoulder the full responsibility of leaving the EU. Unfortunately, as many of the Leave campaign’s major claims, such as £350m to be invested in the NHS and curbing immigration following Brexit, have now been refuted by Leave politicians, Boris Johnson will not have an easy job convincing the people of his administration’s convictions should he become the next PM. Nigel Farage of UKIP is also not helping matters considering his uncomfortable “Independence Day” speech and his latest behavior in European Parliament, which threatens to alienate even further those who voted Remain and the rest of Europe. Labour’s leadership is disintegrating following the sacking of Hilary Benn, and now 23 of the 31 Shadow Cabinet members are gone. Many of the party’s MPs have been critical of Corbyn’s leadership since his election in September, and a no confidence motion against Corbyn is on the table. Coupled with Labour’s failure to keep its electorate heartlands on the Remain side, signaling Labour’s disconnection with its voters, the party’s position as loyal opposition seems to be more precarious than ever.

Social Rifts Setting aside the consequences of the referendum, the vote has also brought starkly to light deep social rifts in the UK along the lines of education, wealth, geography etc. Scotland and Ireland voted to stay compared to England and Wales which voted to leave; younger voters overwhelmingly voted to stay compared to older voters who voted to leave; major cities, corresponding to higher levels of education and wealth, voted to stay compared to townships which voted to leave. In addition, xenophobia and racism reached new highs, with Eastern European communities vandalized and hate crimes perpetrated against non-white persons across England.

Now that these social rifts have been blown wide open, implementing policy (if the country’s leadership manages to set a policy) will be very difficult.

Separatism The UK may also be the UK no more as Scotland appears to be moving towards independence. Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister of Scotland, said that Holyrood may withhold consent from Westminster given that Scotland voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU, and a second independence referendum may take place. Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has also called for a border poll on a united Ireland, and the post-Brexit relationship between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is so far uncertain.

The new government will have to combat this mountain of problems should Parliament agree for the UK to leave the European Union. How they will actually do that is yet to be seen. The UK has been fundamentally shaken, and the government’s trials have only just begun.

7

Once upon a time, the Olympic Movement represented everything good the world should strive for – sportsmanship, fairness, and peace. The Games were a time when the world stepped away from its divisions and humanity united in awe of its capabilities.

Every time the world’s top athletes gather for the Games, people everywhere have the opportunity not just to root for their countries, but also to become engrossed by stories of sacrifice and success, of broken bones and broken records, of triumphs of body and spirit.

But to enjoy the Olympic Games nowadays, one needs a set of blinkers, a shot of idealism, and a heavy dose of anaesthetic to the ugliness behind its operation. Not even the brilliance of Usain Bolt, Simone Biles, Katie Ledecky, Michael Phelps, the Fijian rugby team and the many incredible athletes could have obscured the dirty underside of the Olympic Movement – the International Olympic Committee.

The Olympic Games embodies some of the worst problems the world is facing today Thanks to the IOC, the Olympic Games now embodies some of the worst problems the world is facing today in terms of governance, from inequality to exploitation to sheer hypocrisy. Its complete inability to uphold its own ideals and lack of enthusiasm in facing its problems has cast a dark shadow over the Games.

8

One of the biggest issues surrounding the IOC is financial exploitation. Many, if not most, athletes compete for little or no money.

Training is expensive, and sponsorships are scarce. Even if they do get sponsored, the funds athletes receive also include conditions that limit their ability to raise more money for their training. Once the glare of the gymnasium lights and flash of cameras are gone, some athletes will fade into obscurity and wallow in financial difficulties without anyone ever noticing. And yet, the IOC will be getting 10% of the over US$13 billion revenue made in Rio (marketing, sponsors and broadcast rights), of which most will line the pockets of IOC executives and administrators. Considering that the athletes are the reason why the Olympic Games exists and enjoys such a high rate of exposure, making it such a lucrative opportunity for businesses, the sheer disparity between the financial conditions of IOC executives and athletes is deeply jarring.

The athletes are not the only ones the IOC disregards; the Committee is also indifferent to what happens to host countries in the lead-up and aftermath to the Games. What it takes to win an Olympic bid is unclear, though expensive gifts, wining and dining (otherwise known as almost-bribery) clearly play a big role in it. But even though the process is murky, the results are clear.

The benefits of hosting the Olympic Games rarely outweigh the costs. The Olympic Village, touted as a solution to London's affordable housing shortage four years ago, ended up being too expensive for the average London resident to rent, let alone own.

The Bird's Nest sits empty in Beijing like a jarring reminders of the extravagant costs that went into two weeks of glitz and glamour, only to bring more pains than gains (its upkeep costs US$11 million a year). Rio will most likely walk the same path as its predecessors. Tens of thousands of Brazilians were displaced to make room for Olympic facilities, some of which has been criticized for posing safety hazards, and nearly all of which will probably be abandoned after the Games.

There is something deeply disturbing about the glittering new projects that sit right next to the poverty of the slums, and the juxtaposition of extravagant ceremony and the political and economic crises facing Brazil.

The IOC is not the only non-profit sports organization that has been dragged through the mud in recent times; FIFA’s experiences may provide the IOC’s way to redemption. In the two years since the truth about FIFA’s corruption came to light, its system has begun to crumble under the combined pressure of activists, football associations, and most importantly, sponsors.

Sponsors, or money in general, underpin the entire system of inequality and exploitation that the IOC currently operates. FIFA’s experience showed that once sponsors become concerned about their reputations, their interests shift. The enrichment schemes and financial support that once benefited them, executives and a couple of superstar athletes are now hurting profits. Think of it as a blown-up version of the Lochte scandal – four of his sponsors, including Speedo USA, dropped their support because of the damage the issue dealt to their images by association. Once sponsors feel the negative

effects of supporting the system’s inequality, they must show themselves to be responsive and responsible, saving face and profits by recalling the Olympic spirit. The IOC, in order to keep its business partners, will have to follow.

The Olympic Games reflect we hope to be. The system that underpins them shows us how far we are from that ideal.

The IOC has become a monument to some of our worst tendencies – the greed, hypocrisy and exploitation that have led so many to distrust institutions and establishments. Hopefully, the IOC will embark on a path to redemption, and the Olympic Games can once again be viewed with simple joy and awe at what humanity is capable of.

THE FALL OF THE GODS August 25, 2016

By Janice Leung Designed by Janice Leung 9

VERDICT BEFORE TRIAL 10

These are dark days indeed for Hong Kong politics.

Six candidates contesting the upcoming Legislative Council elections have been officially ruled out so far. What sets Edward Leung’s case apart from the rest, is that the decision to ban him from the election has a more overtly political tone with huge implications for Hong Kong’s future.

I understand the necessity for Legislative Council candidates to adhere to the Basic Law – the Legislative Council is part of the establishment, so its members must also follow the rules that it upholds and gives it power. As Article 1 states that the Hong Kong SAR is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China, obviously candidates who explicitly support Hong Kong independence cannot run for office.

The confirmation form was a politically clumsy move, to put it lightly, but the need for a written guarantee somewhat makes sense given this reasoning. However, even after Mr. Leung signed the confirmation form and explicitly stated that he would respect the territorial integrity of the PRC and accept that Hong Kong is part of that entity, he was still banned from participating in the upcoming election.

In other words, the rule-makers have pre-emptively banned a player from taking part in the game, because they think that the player will likely break the rules in the future. This is like declaring the defendant guilty before even presenting the evidence, which is something I (and many others) cannot understand nor accept.

What this decision suggests to the Hong Kong public is extremely worrying. It suggests that while we still have freedom of speech, we will face political consequences should our voices clash with the government’s. It suggests that China appears to now be willing to openly disregard and twist Hong Kong’s rule of law for political objectives, and will become more and more heavy-handed about it in the near future. It suggests that One Country Two Systems, the very policy that allows Hong Kong to exist as it is, is slowly breaking apart well before its expiry date.

The perception of such a dark political future is, in my opinion, more troubling than the actual act of banning candidates from the upcoming election. If the ban was conducted in a transparent way, with a proper legal explanation to the public as to why Mr. Leung could not stand for election, the controversy would be like adding a couple of logs to a fire rather than like pouring gasoline on an already raging inferno.

The reason?

I do not trust Mr. Leung genuinely changed his previous stance for independence.

The more unstable China sees Hong Kong to be, the more interference it deems necessary; the more China interferes, the more unstable Hong Kong politics becomes. The political atmosphere and discourse in Hong Kong today is a symptom of such self-perpetuating antagonistic relationships. I would like to say that the rift can be bridged some day, but much depends on our next Chief Executive so there is little we can do but watch carefully.

“Verdict Before Trial” August 3, 2016

By Janice Leung “Day One” October 13, 2016

By Janice Leung

Let's be real, we all saw this coming.

Yesterday was the first session of the new Legislative Council, and surprise, surprise – it’s chaos. Three legislators had their oaths deemed invalid, more squabbling over Leung Kwan-yuen’s nationality, the fiasco over voting for the new President…

I have no idea whether I should laugh or cry at the prospect of four straight years of this.

As with everything in Hong Kong politics now, all these episodes are just symptoms of an underlying problem plaguing our society. Since 2014, Hong Kong’s political scene has fractured beyond any prospect of recovery. If politics is the art of negotiation and compromise, then it no longer exists. What we have is battlefield with two, possibly three, legions pitted against each other, their territory clearly delineated along opinions about Hong Kong’s relations with China.

Something will have to give eventually.

Either the system revises its inherent bias towards the government by abolishing functional constituencies and Hong Kong politics takes a step towards normalising, or the government turns up the heat on the anti-government parties and dooms LegCo to becoming a rubber-stamp legislature. We could also stay in this purgatory and muddle our way through the next few decades in this manner. Out of the three, the first option is quite unlikely, considering that the functional constituencies work in the government’s favour, which leaves the latter two, neither of which are particularly desirable.

Next year’s Chief Executive election is crucial. Depending on who becomes the next Chief Executive, the parties’ and general public will hold very different opinions and approaches towards Hong Kong’s future. With the right Chief Executive, we just might be able to thaw the relations between pro- and anti-government camps a little, and start mending those bridges. With the wrong one…well, do you really want another four years?

DAY ONE

If politics is the art of negotiation and compromise, then it no longer exists.

I resent how our political map is drawn this way. Politics should be based on policies and issues, on what will benefit the people and how to benefit them. But right now, Hong Kong’s politicians do not have the maneuvering room to do so, not when the electorate sees those battle lines as immutable and the system itself creates such a clear break between pro-government and anti-government camps.

11

12

Elections and the aftermath Politics is never pretty no matter where in the world. In the current age of increasing polarization across the political spectrum, the middle ground for negotiation and compromise is shrinking by the day.

The United States’ Presidential election is looming just over the horizon. The result of this election will have immense impact not only on the United States domestically, but on the rest of the world as it waits with bated breath on how to deal with a new leader. Both presidential campaigns have been wrought with scandal and controversy, - it will be very interesting to see what the American people decide on Tuesday.

Closer to home, the Legislative Council elections have been nothing but a rollercoaster of political ups and downs. For the first time, localist and independence advocates were elected to the Legislative Council. But that was not the end of the ride; the new legislators were not quite ready to quiet down just yet.

Be it the controversy over the botched oaths, or separation of power, or the imminent interpretation of the Basic Law, the aftermath of the election has produced even more tensions. Considering the breakdown of trust and communication across the political board, resolution is nowhere in sight. It will take something truly extraordinary to pull the fragments of Hong Kong politics together - the question is what.

13

“Sorry, I’m not listening.”

November 4, 2016

By Adrian To

2016 has been a year of contentious elections.

From the infamous US presidential to our Legislative Council elections, politics in many places have been more divisive than ever.

Scandals have besieged almost every election across the globe, from the Donald Trump sex scandal to the oath taking in HK. However, that's only part of the problem. What's really troubling is the fundamental breakdown in communications.

Take the US elections for example. Republicans and Democrats have a proud tradition of being on the opposite sides of every single political issue, from guns to taxes. In the past, most controversies have been on policy, such as in the abortion debate (Roe v Wade). This has since changed. Increasingly, both sides of the aisle have been refusing to engage in constructive debate, opting to undermine their opponents credibility instead. The greatest culprit here is the Trump campaign.

14

Calls that the campaign and media are being rigged have floated around since the very start of this election. Clinton is not above water either, calling half of Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables”. This type of rhetoric does nothing to further policy debates.

Instead, it furthers the mistrust of supporters in both parties, making communication between both sides more difficult. When there is an electorate that does not believe in the democratic process or refuses to engage in dialogue due to perceived intelligence of their opponents, political discourse grinds to a standstill.

Engaging in communication is key to political compromise. Some might ask: “What is there to gain from debating with someone that thinks banning Muslims is a good idea?”

Indeed, such a plan is not politically or practically feasible. But it is only by communication that we can understand the concerns of our opponents.

由6月份就出咗結果嘅英國脫歐公投，到 冇耐之前先結束嘅香港立法會選舉，以至 即將出爐嘅美國總統選舉；大家喺選舉前 夕，最關心嘅, 除咗各個候選人嘅內幕黑 料，就係民調同埋選舉結果嘅預測。雖然 而家有越嚟越強大嘅超級電腦同埋大數據 嘅掌握，但似乎結果都仲係難以掌握，例 如脫歐派勝出，Donald Trump成為共和 黨候選人，同埋香港超級區議會原本邊緣 勝率嘅鄺議員同埋周議員最後成為該界別 得票極高嘅贏家。我地究竟應唔應該再信 民調？ 其實，唔同嘅民調有唔同嘅偏差，一般由 於受到Sample Size同埋其他原因限制而 有一定誤差。民調嘅原意亦都唔係作為預 測嘅單一工具。以今屆立會為例，雷動計 劃選擇咗以滾動民調為參考，但就睇低咗 嗰計劃雷動震天，搞到超級區議會嘅結果 出人意表。呢個計劃最後因為“太成功”， 搞到連戴教授都要出嚟道歉。香港選民如 果想睇住啲更可靠嘅預測去估計結果，而 唔係去倍大某啲候選人嘅得票率，又有咩 辦法呢？ 翻翻去開頭美國嘅例子：美帝作為世界當 代一哥，總統寶座固然受到重視，預測者 多不勝數，基本可以分為兩類： 1) 整合唔同新聞網，媒體民調，配以不同 加權+而得出一個用百分比表達嘅預測。 例如：A君有47%當選，B君有43%當選

2) 依賴幾至十幾項指標，例如失業率，經 濟增長而下結論嘅絕對預測。例如：基於 今屆政府滿意度低於30%，在野黨參選人 會當選。 兩種預測各有支持者同埋勝負，但普遍統 計學家會認為第一種較為科學化。筆者作 為一個Bayesian派，我會特意推介一位以 Bayesian Inference 聞名嘅統計學家 Nate Silver。佢自2008年起預測美國大選50個 州結果中49個，2012年更以50個州嘅結果 全中而聲明大噪。佢準確預測嘅背後除咗 對唔同民調作出適當加權，最重要當然係 對不同新出現嘅數據作出Bayesian調整。 佢相信單一或者個別“指標”係難以貼近不 停轉變嘅現實，祇有用統計學嘅公式對事 件更新機率先能夠準確預測。 所以，民調唔係可唔可信，但係由於佢本 來嘅目的只係參考吓當下民意，香港人想 要一個對於結果嘅真正預測，應該期待一 個正正式式嘅預測模型好過啦。 P.S. 如果有讀者對除咗對總統選舉結果， 其他比賽結果都，例如籃球(例如：NBA) ，欖球(例如：NFA) 有興趣，可以去Nate Silver 個blog參考吓。另外個blog都有對 科學，經濟大事嘅分析。

民 調 • 預 測 15

The oath-taking fiasco is not yet over. Since the first oath-taking ceremony on the twelve of October, two localists Yau Wai Ching and Baggio Leung are still yet to be sworn in.

Today (2nd November), the pair barged into a council meeting and tried to take their oaths but without success.

I do believe that it is about time for the legislative council to be injected with new blood. I am not against the idea of an increasing presence of young people and people of different views in the council.

However, I think that in order for the council to make progress and actually discuss prospective legislation, soon-to-be council members should take the oath properly.

There are certain lines that should not be crossed. Since the first unsuccessful oath taking in October, Yau Wai Ching and Baggio Leung have backtracked with an unconvincing apology, claiming to have an “Ap Lei Chau accent�. They have also tried storming council meetings, of which they were barred from attending as they had not taken their oaths yet.

Such childish and immature acts have no place in the legislative council. These acts will only further deepen the distrust of the older generation to youngsters seeking to contribute in the political field. Many young people, myself included, have dissatisfactions towards the government. The two young localists can do better by taking the oath properly so that they can actually participate in the law-making process. Being barred from attending council meetings can only do no good to both themselves and the public. There are many points of law waiting to be discussed and prospective legislation waiting to be passed. Only by being sworn in can they act as members of the council, and help make our voices heard.

November 2, 2016

By Jennifer Lau

CHAOS AT LEGCO

16

BEIJING’S SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY Once again, the rule of law, the last vestige of Hong Kong’s autonomy faces another possible encroachment from Beijing – the Interpretation of Basic Law of the National People’s Congress (NPC), following the strife over the oath-taking case of the two localist lawmakers, Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching.

Understandably, the recent surge of localist and pro-independence ideology among the youth has profaned Beijing’s obsession on national sovereignty in which pro-Beijing scholars are advocating another NPC’s interpretation of Basic Law to ban the duo from retaking Legco oaths. Such move, though straightforward and deemed to be the most effective, is destined to add fuel to the flame of the general mistrust of Hong Kongers to the Central Government. In fact, such pattern of trigger-direct response is actually not new.

Instead, this “Chinese-style governance model” is often proved to be counter-productive and self-fulfilling throughout the post-handover administration in Hong Kong.

Looking back in history, Hong Kongers has shown massive patriotism towards China even before the transfer of sovereignty, as manifested in the annual memorials of the Tiananmen Massacre and generous donations to the natural catastrophes in the mainland. Though clamour for democracy has always been the cornerstone of civil movements, separatism is almost

November 3, 2016

By Daniel Wong

non-existent throughout our political debate.

Such status-quo, has been gradually shifting with almost half HK citizens rejected their Chinese identity in recent years according to the HKU POP (University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Programme).

So how did it happen? Admittedly, the self-fulfilling mentality of the Central Government has somewhat be the culprit in exacerbating different political crises in Hong Kong that runs counter to its original motives: from securing the loyalty of Hong Kong adolescents through the implementation of national education that actually deviated more trust, to encouraging further economic integration that in turn facilitated the indigenous consciousness of the HK society.

While identity recognition is one thing, call for de jure independence is, on the other. Admittedly, pro-independence or localist parties are still a negligible camp in Hong Kong’s political spectrum. Unlike the British administration which rarely clashed directly with the emerging nationalism while consolidated the colonial legitimacy through social reforms in the 1970s, the populist support for independence is conceived to grow, thanks to the continuing “self-fulfilling strategies” upheld by Beijing and its omnipresent interference to the domestic affairs in Hong Kong – and this time, our judicial independence.

17

SEPARATION ARA

Recently, the government filed a judicial review and an injunction to the court in hope of barring LegCo members from re-taking their oaths. This unprecedented move has stirred up heated debates on the legal issue of whether there is a separation of power in Hong Kong.

But before we decide on this matter, we must first give a meaning to the notion of ‘Separation of Powers’. There is no dispute that the ‘Powers’ consists of three institutions or branches, namely the legislature, judiciary and executive. I believe that as long as each of the three branches checks and balances the other, then there is separation of powers.

Hence, if one advocates that there is no separation of powers, he or she must prove that the branches are capable of intervening and influencing the operation of one another without limitations or checks and balances to their powers. This is however, fortunately, not the case in Hong Kong, and this is also the reason why I adhere to the beliefs that separation of powers exists, and is a fundamental concept of the constitution of Hong Kong.

Such conviction is echoed by former and present Chief Justice Andrew Li and Geoffrey Ma. 18

I would like to support such a belief with two reasons. First, Chapter IV of the Hong Kong Basic Law separately details the powers of each of the three branches. To this, pro-Beijing heavyweight Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai proclaims that ‘the separation of powers is neither implemented in Hong Kong nor stipulated by the Basic Law as it is not written in the territory’s mini-constitution’. I do not adhere to her wordplay as the principles of separation of Powers are underpinned in the Basic Law. There is a clear check-and-balance mechanism as exemplified by the facts that lawmakers can impeach the chief executive, the chief executive has a say over judges’ appointments, and the courts can quash decisions made by the executive or legislative branches. Second, separation of powers is an underlying principle to the Common law system, and is affirmed by various court cases in Hong Kong over the years. The 2014 Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council case, and the 2007 judicial review all point to a crystal-clear concept that separation of powers is enshrined by the Basic Law, such that the three branches can ‘perform their constitutionally designated roles in a co-ordinated and co-operative manner for the good governance of Hong Kong.’

OF POWERS? WE A lot of people may hold dissenting views to the above, and their arguments are subsequently listed below. First of all, some argue that the overlaps of three branches is a clear indication that there is no separation of powers. Examples include permitting legislators to sit on the Executive Council (Article 55) and granting the Chief Executive sweeping powers over the introduction (Article 74) and promulgation of legislation (Article 49). In 1987, Deng Xiaoping also suggested that ‘Complete separation of powers would contradict the central government's jurisdiction over Hong Kong’. I would like to respond with Gitting’s idea that separation of powers has never been a complete separation of the executive, legislature and judiciary. The whole concept of check-and-balance indeed entails and demands some degree of overlap between the executive, legislature and judiciary. We should discern ‘separation of powers’ as a ‘continuum’ that ‘embraces separation of powers to varying extents, and can be placed at different places along this continuum based on the degree to which they do so.’

Secondly, some suggest that Basic Law only safeguards judicial independence but not separation of powers. To this I would like to counter-argue with the statement made by Mr. Alan Wong of the Progressive Lawyers Group, ‘But if there is no separation of powers, how can there be judicial independence?’

The third dissenting argument to which a number of public figures adhere is that despite having checks and balance between executive and legislative branches, what is being implemented in Hong Kong is a executive-led political system. This is different from true separation of powers although it has a ‘separation of powers shadow.’ (Zhang Xiaoming echoed to this by proclaiming that Hong Kong is an ‘executive-led government with the Chief Executive enjoying a special legal status that transcends the executive, legislature and judiciary”.) However, even if the political system of Hong Kong is described to be ‘executive-led’, it does not mean that separation of powers does not prevail. Separation of powers in essence differs from an equalisation of powers of each of the three branches. Giving the example of United Kingdom, some may say that parliamentary supremacy gives rise to a more legislative/Parliament-led system, but none will advocate that there is no separation of powers in the UK. Compared to UK’s parliamentary supremacy which allows government to sit in the Parliament, the near-presidential system or the so-called ‘executive-led system’ in Hong Kong, in fact tends to bring the city more firmly into the orbit of separation of powers.

In light of all the above, I would like to reiterate my conviction that there is separation of powers in Hong Kong, and such a constitutional principle underscored in the Basic Law is the crux to effective governance, stability and liberty in our city.

November 5, 2016

By Joyce Wong

19

The ďŹ rst step towards change is awareness.

- Nathaniel Branden

LSESU HKPASS is a politically neutral society and any views expressed belong entirely to the author themselves.