TVB:
I have a question for you all. Recently, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) offered a few views on the situation, including that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has the right, according to the HKSAR Basic Law, to declare a state of emergency in Hong Kong and introduce national laws in Hong Kong. At this point in time, has the Standing Committee made the decision to do so? If the decision has been made, some Hong Kong residents will be worried that once the PLA conducts operations in Hong Kong, the "one country, two systems" principle will be severely violated, and the situation in Hong Kong may become irremediable. There is another question. One of you just said that we should insist on solving the Hong Kong question by the rule of law, and the public has expressed similar demands. For example, some of them require the chief executive to set up an independent commission of inquiry to get to the bottom of the conflict. However, the chief executive doesn't seem to approve of the idea. Do you think it is the responsibility of the chief executive to do so? Thank you.
Han Dayuan:
Today, experts here have talked a lot about how to return to the rule of law. First, we all know that "one country" is the premise of the "one country, two systems" principle. The unity, dignity and security of the country is the fundamental goal of the principle. Any country would make national security and social unity its top priority. We need to "govern Hong Kong in accordance with the law." That means we should, based on the rule of law, safeguard national unity and sovereignty, always maintain prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, and always safeguard the rights and freedoms conferred on Hong Kong residents by the Basic Law. This is one of basic requirements of the rule of law.
Second, the country has made institutional provisions and legal regulations as precautions to deal with certain situations, according to the international practice and the general principles of the rule of law. As for the question you raised, first, Hong Kong has a complete legal system, including more than 700 laws enacted by the Legislative Council of the HKSAR, the Basic Law, laws previously in force and the national laws listed in Annex III by the National People's Congress through legal procedures. We believe this provides a complete legal system. Second, Article 14 of the Garrison Law makes clear institutional arrangements that when considered necessary, the HKSAR government can send a request to the central government to invite the PLA Garrison to help maintain local public order and engage in disaster relief efforts. The HKSAR government may exert its right to make this request. The Garrison will be deployed to help maintain public order after the central government approves the request. At the same time, the fourth paragraph of Article 18 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Standing Committee of the National People"s Congress has the right to decide that the HKSAR is in a state of emergency, which is clarified in both the Constitution and the Basic Law. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has the right to make such a judgment, make the decision and make an announcement. The fourth paragraph of Article 18 of the Basic Law explains that the exertion of this right, in theory, has to meet certain legal standards. When turmoil in Hong Kong endangers national unity or security and is beyond the control of the HKSAR government, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress may declare a state of emergency. According to the Garrison Law, the PLA Garrison should fulfill its duty following the decision of the central government. This is stipulated by law.
As for the question you just asked, will the implementation of this provision cause the failure of the "one country, two systems" principle? I personally believe that the proper meaning of "governing Hong Kong in accordance with the law" is to safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests through the rule of law, as well as the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, and the rights and freedoms of its citizens. There will be strict legal procedures in the event of a legally prescribed situation. Therefore, we emphasize the rule of law, return to the principles enshrined in the rule of law, and solving the problems facing Hong Kong through the rule of law. This is the only way for us.
If you are interested, you can check this yourselves: 35 years ago, Deng Xiaoping said in a conversation with a delegation of Hong Kong and Macao compatriots attending the National Day celebration ceremony that the central government had the right to station a garrison of the PLA in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Garrison would have another role: to prevent violence and turmoil. Knowing that there are Chinese troops stationed in Hong Kong, people with an intention to instigate violence and turmoil would have to think twice about it. And even if there were turmoil, it could be stopped immediately. When the Basic Law was enacted 35 years ago, many provisions had preventive connotations. We must understand this article in that way. It is one of the legislative intents theoretically speaking.
With regard to an independent commission of inquiry, the rule of law is the core value. Before we respond to any appeal or resolve any social dispute, we must check first whether there are corresponding mechanisms and procedures within the existing system of law. In accordance with the concept of the rule of law, we must give full play to existing legal norms, resources and systems. When one of our systems or a certain norm fails to function properly, we can seek potentially better institutional arrangements. As far as I know, the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) is already operational, and has already received some relevant complaints. You should pay attention to the IPCC. This is a distinctive system in Hong Kong, and we should look at its effects and keep the faith in the operating system, and make sure it functions well. This is my understanding.
