謝鋒特派員在《南華早報》發(fā)表署名文章 《國際社會應該全面準確理解基本法》
????? 4月20日和4月21日，《南華早報》網頁版和紙質版先后刊發(fā)外交部駐香港公署特派員謝鋒英文署名文章，呼吁國際社會全面準確理解、真心實意支持落實基本法。文章全文如下：
The international community needs a full and accurate understanding of the Basic Law
Xie Feng
“One country, two systems” is a pioneering initiative with no historical precedent and a major contribution China has made to the world. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has codified the policy into law with concrete provisions. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law, it is important to review the essence of the instrument, both to stay true to its original aspirations and to find the right way forward.
First, it is important to grasp the relationship between the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The constitution of China, as the fundamental law of the state, has the supreme legal status and authority. It represents the legal origin of the system of special administrative region, and of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong special administrative region. To be specific, the Hong Kong special administrative region was established according to Article 31 of the 1982 constitution, which states that, “The state may establish special administrative regions when necessary”.
The preamble of the Basic Law also makes it clear that, in accordance with China’s constitution, the National People’s Congress enacts Hong Kong’s Basic Law, “prescribing the systems to be practised” in Hong Kong “to ensure the implementation of the basic policies of the People’s Republic of China regarding Hong Kong”.
Therefore, the constitution is the parent law, to which the Basic Law is subordinate. Hong Kong has the obligation to respect and abide by China’s constitution.
Second, the Basic Law is essentially the legal embodiment of the “one country, two systems” policy.
“One country, two systems” is a basic state policy the Chinese government adopted and has stayed committed to. It was proposed, first of all, to realise and uphold national unity. The preamble of the Basic Law begins with the sentence that “Hong Kong has been part of the territory of China since ancient times”, and lists “upholding national unity and territorial integrity” as the first aim of the enactment of this law.
All these show that “one country” is the foundation of and prerequisite for “two systems”, while “two systems” is subordinate to and derived from “one country”. Should the foundation be undermined, “two systems” would be out of the question. It is wrong to consider “two systems” on a par with “one country”, and even more so to deny and oppose “one country” on the grounds of “two systems”.
A major reason for the chaos in Hong Kong lies exactly in that forces trying to sow trouble in Hong Kong and China at large have dismissed “one country” and hence challenged the foundation of “one country, two systems”.
“One country, two systems” has been adopted by the Chinese government and implemented in Hong Kong through enacting the Basic Law in accordance with the constitution. It is not something Hong Kong is intrinsically entitled to, still less “granted” by the United Kingdom.
Britain’s colonial rule in Hong Kong, through the governors appointed by its monarch, lasted till the very last second on June 30, 1997, during which Hong Kong people had little say over their own affairs, not to mention a high degree of autonomy.
Third, the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong is not an inherent power but is authorised by the central government. There is no division of power between the central government and the Hong Kong government. The central government supervises the implementation of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong.
China is a unitary state, where the central government has overall jurisdiction over all local administrative regions. China has resumed exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong in the full sense of the term, including overall jurisdiction.
According to the constitution and the Basic Law, such overall jurisdiction includes the rights to establish special administrative regions; organise the Hong Kong government; enact, amend and interpret the Basic Law; supervise the high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong; issue directives to the chief executive; decide on applying national laws locally and so on.
Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Basic Law stipulates that the NPC authorises Hong Kong to “exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this law”.
Obviously, it runs counter to the spirit of “one country, two systems” and provisions of the constitution and the Basic Law to assume Hong Kong enjoys “full autonomy” under “one country” that exists in name only, and that the central government should leave Hong Kong alone except for its foreign affairs and defence.
It is also wrong to emphasise solely Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy while denying the overall jurisdiction the central government has, or even smear the central government’s exercise of rights under the constitution and the Basic Law as an “interference in Hong Kong affairs”, an “attempt to tighten control of Hong Kong” or an “erosion of the rule of law and autonomy of Hong Kong”.
Fourth, the Basic Law has drawn a red line that is not to be crossed: any attempt to endanger national sovereignty, security or territorial integrity is strictly prohibited.
Safeguarding national security is crucial for fully and faithfully implementing “one country, two systems”, and is a constitutional obligation of Hong Kong under the Basic Law.
Article 23 requires that Hong Kong “shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the central people’s government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies”.
Nearly 23 years since Hong Kong’s return to China, the relevant laws are yet to materialise. Those trying to sow trouble in Hong Kong and China at large have not only demonised Article 23 and obstructed the legislative process, but also colluded in a bid to turn Hong Kong into an independent or semi-independent political entity, and a base for infiltration, sabotage, secession and subversion against China.
During the unrest following the proposed amendments to Hong Kong’s Fugitive Offenders Ordinance last year, these forces trampled the Basic Law and Hong Kong’s rule of law, challenged the central government’s authority, committed vandalism, and begged for foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs and sanctions upon the city.
Manipulated by certain foreign countries, some plotted to overthrow the legitimate Hong Kong government through filibustering in the Legislative Council, street violence and collaboration with external forces.
A handful of extremists even openly waved flags, shouted slogans and made statements calling for so-called “Hong Kong independence”. Such behaviour has?severely endangered national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, undermined the foundation of “one country, two systems”, and challenged the authority of the Basic Law.
?
The practice of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong, which is to remain unchanged for 50 years, has entered its medium term. Taking stock of the past 23 years, we can find that at the crux of the strife in Hong Kong is often a failure to fully and accurately understand the Basic Law. In particular, the troublemakers have deliberately skewed the principles and contents of the Basic Law, and obstructed its full and faithful implementation.
They have even played the victim, and accused instead the central government and the Hong Kong government of violating the Basic Law and the policy of “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong”, and eroding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. Therefore, it is imperative to get the fundamentals straight and set things right.
As supporters of the “one country, two systems” policy and stakeholders in Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, members of the international community need to grasp the Basic Law and earnestly support its implementation.
Only when the Basic Law is fully and faithfully implemented, and the systems and mechanisms related to the implementation of the constitution and the Basic Law in Hong Kong are improved to keep abreast of the times, can we ensure “one country, two systems” is applied without being bent or distorted, and will achieve greater success in the future.
國際社會應該全面準確理解基本法
謝鋒
“一國兩制”是一項前無古人的制度創(chuàng)新，是中華民族對人類社會的一大貢獻。基本法是“一國兩制”方針政策的具體化和法律化。在香港基本法頒布三十周年之際，重溫其核心要義，既是不忘初心，更是引領未來。
首先，要正確認識中國憲法與基本法的關系。
憲法是中國的根本大法，具有最高法律地位和效力，是特別行政區(qū)制度和香港基本法的法律淵源。1982年通過的中國憲法第31條規(guī)定“國家在必要時得設立特別行政區(qū)”，這是中國政府設立香港特區(qū)的法律依據。基本法序言中明確指出“根據中華人民共和國憲法，全國人大制定香港基本法,規(guī)定特區(qū)實行的制度，以保障國家對香港的基本方針政策的實施。”可見，憲法是母法，基本法是子法，基本法從屬于憲法，香港有尊重、遵守國家憲法的義務和責任。
第二，《基本法》本質上是“一國兩制”方針政策的法律體現。
“一國兩制”是由中國政府制定并堅定不移執(zhí)行的一項基本國策，它的提出首先是為了實現和維護國家統(tǒng)一。《基本法》序言第一句即開宗明義指出，“香港自古以來就是中國的領土”，并將“維護國家的統(tǒng)一和領土完整”列為基本法的立法目的之首。
這些都表明，“一國”是實行“兩制”的前提和基礎，“兩制”從屬和派生于“一國”并統(tǒng)一于“一國”之內。“一國”是根、是本。如果“一國”原則出現動搖，“兩制”就無從談起。“一國”和“兩制”不是平行的，更不能用“兩制”否定和抵制“一國”。香港出現亂象，一個重要原因是反中亂港和外部勢力無視“一國”之本，挑戰(zhàn)“一國兩制”的原則底線。
“一國兩制”是中國政府根據憲法通過制定基本法賦予特區(qū)并實施的。“一國兩制”不是香港與生俱來的，更不是由英國“賜予”。一直到1997年6月30日23時59分59秒，英國女王任命的總督還在香港進行殖民統(tǒng)治，既沒有“港人治港”，更沒有高度自治。
第三，香港的高度自治權不是固有的，而是來源于中央授權，香港與中央不是分權關系，中央對“一國兩制”在香港的實施有監(jiān)督權。
中國實行單一制國家結構形式，中央對所有地方行政區(qū)域擁有全面管治權。中國恢復對香港行使主權是包括全面管治權在內的完整主權。根據憲法和基本法，中央政府對特區(qū)擁有的全面管治權包括特別行政區(qū)的創(chuàng)制權，特區(qū)政府的組織權，基本法的制定、修改和解釋權，對特別行政區(qū)高度自治的監(jiān)督權，向行政長官發(fā)出指令權，決定在特區(qū)實施全國性法律等等。
同時，基本法第2條規(guī)定，“全國人民代表大會授權香港特別行政區(qū)依照本法的規(guī)定實行高度自治，享有行政管理權、立法權、獨立的司法權和終審權”。
顯然，那種認為香港在一個中國的名義下享有完全自治，中央政府只有外交權和防務權，因此應該對香港特區(qū)事務不管不問，本身就背離了“一國兩制”原則精神，也不符合中國憲法和基本法的相關規(guī)定。只談特區(qū)享有的高度自治權，否定中央政府的全面管治權，甚至把中央政府依法行使憲法和基本法賦予的權力詆毀為干預香港事務、收緊對港管治、破壞香港法治、侵蝕香港自治，是完全錯誤的。
第四，基本法劃出了一條紅線，即不能危害國家主權、安全和領土完整。
維護國家安全是全面準確貫徹“一國兩制”的核心要求，也是特區(qū)根據基本法必須履行的憲制責任。
基本法第23條規(guī)定，“香港特別行政區(qū)應自行立法禁止任何叛國、分裂國家、煽動叛亂、顛覆中央人民政府及竊取國家機密的行為，禁止外國的政治性組織或團體在香港特別行政區(qū)進行政治活動，禁止香港特別行政區(qū)的政治性組織或團體與外國的政治性組織或團體建立聯(lián)系”。
香港回歸已近23年，相關立法仍未完成。反中亂港勢力不僅千方百計反對阻撓23條立法，將其妖魔化，而且勾結外部勢力，挖空心思想把香港變成一個獨立或半獨立的政治實體，并變成滲透、破壞、分裂、顛覆中國的橋頭堡。去年修例風波中，反中亂港勢力踐踏基本法和特區(qū)法治，挑戰(zhàn)中央權力，肆無忌憚地打砸搶燒，“邀請”和乞求外國勢力插手香港事務和制裁特區(qū)。還有人企圖通過議會拉布、街頭暴力等推翻特區(qū)合法政權。一些極端分子甚至公然打出“港獨”旗幟，呼喊“港獨”口號，發(fā)表“港獨”宣言，嚴重危害國家的主權、安全和領土完整，踩踏“一國兩制”原則底線，挑戰(zhàn)基本法權威。
“一國兩制”在香港實踐已進入了“五十年不變”的中期。23年來香港社會出現各種紛爭，往往與沒有全面準確理解基本法相關。特別是內外反中亂港勢力揣著明白裝糊涂，刻意歪曲基本法宗旨和內容，阻撓基本法全面準確實施，甚至惡人先告狀，倒打一耙，將違反基本法、破壞“港人治港”、侵蝕高度自治的臟水潑向中央和特區(qū)政府。我們必須正本清源、撥亂反正。
作為“一國兩制”方針政策的擁護者，香港繁榮穩(wěn)定的持份者，國際社會應該全面準確理解、真心實意支持落實基本法。只有全面準確落實基本法，與時俱進完善特別行政區(qū)同憲法和基本法實施相關的制度和機制，防止“一國兩制”變形走樣，才能確保“一國兩制”事業(yè)行穩(wěn)致遠。
打印本文
關閉窗口