Albert Chen Comments on the Recent Controversy Arising from Statements of the HKMAO and Liaison Office

Comments for the Press on the Recent Controversy arising from Statements of the HKMAO and Liaison Office

Albert H.Y. Chen

First comment (18 April 2020)

“I think the statements made by the HKMAO and Liaison Office are legitimate and lawful comments on important aspects of the implementation of the Basic Law that are the concerns of the Central Authorities. As pointed out in the statements, the Central Authorities have the responsibility to exercise supervision over the implementation of the Basic Law. The Basic Law was intended to establish a legislature in the HKSAR that is effective in its operation. The effective operation of the LegCo is in the public interest of Hong Kong people, as well as in the interest of the Central Authorities who have legitimate concerns regarding any 'malfunctioning' of LegCo. 

     The filibuster during the meetings to elect the chairman and deputy chairman of LegCo's House Committee has resulted in LegCo being paralysed. Without a chairman the House Committee cannot meet to discuss and do any normal legislative business. According to LegCo rules and practice, the House Committee occupies a central role in the operation of LegCo as a whole. It scrutinises bills and subsidiary legislation. It decides on the establishment of bills committees to study bills, and on the appointment of subcommittees to study subsidiary legislation. It decides on the establishment of select committees or committees of inquiry. It decides whether to refer particular matters to the LegCo panels on various policy domains. It prepares for the plenary meetings of the LegCo. 

     The failure of the House Committee to elect a chairman and deputy chairman (and then to start its normal operation) after 15 meetings in the last six months is scandalous and a matter of grave public concern in Hong Kong. The paralysis of LegCo's normal legislative function is clearly detrimental to the public interest of Hong Kong, and a significant malfunctioning of the constitutional role which the Basic Law assigns to LegCo.

     In these circumstances, I consider it legitimate for the Central Authorities, acting through the HKMAO and Liaison Office, to issue an admonition and to draw the public's attention to this matter.

     The courts of HK have pointed out that the Basic Law should not be iinterpreted merely literally and narrowly. Provisions should be interpreted purposively and in their context. Adopting the proper approach to the interpretation of Article 22 of the Basic Law, I do not think it is a breach of the article for the HKMAO and Liaison Office to make the recent statements or comments. ”

Second comment (19 April 2020)

“The crux of the matter (which may not have been reported in a balanced manner by the media) is that 'opposition' politicians have paralysed the legislative function of LegCo (since the beginning of the current LegCo session in October 2019) by paralysing its House Committee (by filibuster so that it has failed to elect a chairman after 15 meetings in the last 6 months). Many people don't understand the function of the House Committee, which actually is the heart of LegCo's legislative activities -- this Committee decides on whether a bill should be further considered by setting up a Bills Committee, and decides on the setting up of subcommittees to scrutinize subsidiary legislation. LegCo has not been able to perform these basic and vital legislative functions in the last 6 months because the House Committee cannot handle its normal legislative business (because there is no chairman to chair its meetings for normal business (other than the election of a chairman)). To put it simply, almost all legislative activities in Hong Kong have come to a halt. LegCo is still able to perform its financial (as distinguished from its legislative) function (such as approving the allocation of money yesterday to assist those affected by the economic downturn caused by COVID) because the LegCo Finance Committee (as distinguished from the House Committee) is still able to function. As regards legislative business, 14 bills and 89 pieces of subsidiary legislation (in the form of regulations) are in a state of limbo because of LegCo's paralysis, including a bill on paternity leave for fathers, and a bill to provide tax relief to those adversely affected by the pandemic, and many pieces of regulations to introduce social distancing measures. 

     In my opinion, the paralysis (in the last 6 months) of the legislative function of LegCo is unprecedented in the history of HK (including its colonial history and the history of the HKSAR). This is a constitutional crisis of major magnitude. I cannot imagine any HK court interpreting Artice 22 of the Basic Law in such a way as to hold that public statements (which have no legal effect whatsoever and can be simply ignored by LegCo members concerned) made by the Hong Kong and Macau Office and the Liaison Office alerting Hong Kong people to this constitutional crisis in HK constitute an unlawful or unconstitutional 'interference in the affairs' of the HKSAR.” 

Third comment (in Chinese) (21 April 2020)

（1）中聯辦及港澳辦日前公開譴責郭榮鏗等立法會議員的「拉布」行為，被「反對派」指是干預港人治港有違基本法，請問兩辦是否有作出干預？在法律上如何定義「干預」？

關於最近這個事件，不少市民並不了解詳情，只知道港澳辦和中聯辦（‘兩辦’）發表一些批評立法會議員郭榮鏗和若干其他‘反對派’議員的言論，被批評者則指責兩辦干預特區自治事務，違反《基本法》第22條。我認為我們必須嘗試全面了解，究竟過去半年在立法會發生了什麼事情：就是立法會的立法工作被全面癱瘓了（雖然它的財政撥款功能和辯論一些社會議題的功能還在運作）-- 因爲在立法會的立法工作中佔有核心角色的立法會內務委員會，完全不能運作（所謂‘停擺’），原因是經過過去六個月内的十五次會議（由郭榮鏗議員負責主持的會議），議員仍未能選出本立法年度立法會內務委員會（‘内會’）的主席，因此内務委員會便不能正式開始運作。

  為什麼會這樣？就是因為有不少議員在這十五次會議中不斷‘拉布’，而作為會議主持人或臨時主席的郭議員容許他們無限地進行拉布，所以經過15次會議之後，仍未進入選舉内會主席的正式程序。大家都可以理解，一個委員會需要一個負責會議的主席，選舉主席的程序並不太複雜，主要是確定候選人，然後讓各候選人發言，然後就大家投票選出主席人選。但很多市民可能都不知道的真相是， 經過這15次會議，各候選人仍未開始就他們的競選‘政綱’發言。有20多位議員被提名為主席候選人，所以理論上他們每人都可以發言，去說服大家投他（她）一票，去選他（她）做主席。

  但是，事實是經過十五次會議，作為會議主持人（即臨時主席）的郭議員仍未讓這些候選人發言，進行競選活動；原因就是郭議員在每次會議中讓議員們無限度地進行拉布（而他又不履行立法會大會或其他委員會的主席在類似的情況下剪布‘的職權）。這樣，立法會的立法功能便被癱瘓了半年，立法會無法成立法委員會去審議條例草案（有十多部法例草案（包括例如關於男士侍產假的法例、關於疫情下稅務寬免的法例）的立法程序因此被無限期擱置、無法決定是否成立小組委員會去審議附屬法例（有八十多部附屬立法（包括所有關於疫情下的管制措施的附屬法例）的審議也因此無法進行），也無法處理有議員建議成立專責委員會去處理某些事項的建議。

   正是在香港這個史無前例的憲制危機出現的情況下，’兩辦‘才就這嚴峻的局面發表意見。 他們發表意見，是以其發言人接受傳媒查詢時回答記者的發問的形式發表的。 正如中聯辦發言人在4月17日的發言中指出，這樣的情況實在’已經令人忍無可忍‘（這點我是有共鳴的，我也深感這情況的忍無可忍），就是在這種極端的情況之下，兩辦對有關議員提出批評和譴責，並呼籲 ‘香港特區立法會必須盡快恢復正常運作’（引述自港澳辦4月13日的發言）。我認為兩辦的發言是從香港市民的整體利益出發的，關注的是儘快恢復立法會的正常運作，是善意的勸誡，絕不構成所謂‘干預’特區自治事務。必須了解，有關發言只是‘兩辦’發言人在接受記者查詢時的回覆，沒有任何法律效力，不是任何公權力的行使，沒有改變任何權利或義務關係，也不是中央向特區政府的指令或指示。郭議員和其他在進行拉布的議員若果不接受兩辦的忠告，不痛改前非，而把它們的話當成耳邊風，它們也無可奈何。所以我看不到為什麽兩辦的發言發聲可構成所謂‘干預’特區的自治事務。

（2）中聯辦及港澳辦在香港有何角色？

由於根據《基本法》，香港特別行政區作爲直轄于中央人民政府的特別行政區，被授予高度自治權，所以香港內部事務的管理，其本上完全由香港的行政、立法和司法機關負責。《基本法》對中央可以行使的權力已經有清晰的規定，這些權力可以通過全國人大、全國人大常委會、中央人民政府（即國務院）等機構行使。

    根據國務院的組織規範，國務院的組成部門，包括26個部委，另外，有一個國務院直屬特設機構、十個國務院直屬機構、兩個國務院辦事機構（國務院港澳事務辦公室是其中之一），還有九個國務院直屬事業單位（新華通訊社是其中之一）。中聯辦的前身是港英時代中國政府設在香港的新華社香港分社，這個機構從2000年起改名為‘中央人民政府駐香港特別行政區聯絡辦公室’：見《國務院關於更改新華通訊社香港分社、澳門分社名稱問題的通知》（2000年1月15日，國函[2000]5號）。中聯辦是中央駐港的機構之一，其職能包括例如聯繫並協助內地有關部門管理在港的中資機構、促進香港和內地之間的交流和合作、聯繫香港社會各界人士、反映香港居民對內地的意見，並承辦中央交辦的其他事項。例如中聯辦就《基本法》的實施的重大問題作發言，便是中央交辦的事項之一。 

（3）兩辦在香港是否有監督權？

‘監督權’是一個與自治制度有關的法理概念。世界上很多國家都有立法賦予國家内某地區或某些地區一定程度的自治權，當一個主權國家通過其憲法或其他自治法規， 規定該國內某地區或某些地區享有自治權的時候，一般來說，都會設立一種監督機制，保障憲法或法律所設立的關於自治的憲制安排能順利和合法實施，從而保證，如果在自治區出現違反或偏離關於該自治憲制安排的情況，主權國家可採取適當的行動，予以糾正。

《基本法》沒有明文用到 ‘監督權’的字眼，但《基本法》的多項條文都有體現監督權的概念。舉例來說，根據《基本法》第17條，如果香港特別行政區的立法機關制定了違反《基本法》中若干條款的法律，全國人大常委會可否決有關法律，這便是中央對於香港的立法活動的監督權的體現。又例如根據《基本法》第158條，全國人大常委會享有《基本法》的最終解釋權，所以如果香港當局對《基本法》有錯誤的理解，中央可運用對《基本法》的解釋權去糾正有關錯誤。

  至於港澳辦、中聯辦等機構就《基本法》的實施的重大問題發言，例如在香港出現了立法會的立法功能被癱瘓的情況（《基本法》設計的香港政制架構基本上由行政、立法和司法三大機關構成，三機關的其中之一是特別行政區立法會，它的被癱瘓是一種憲制危機），在這種情況下兩辦的發言也可理解為監督權或監督功能的表現，但必須指出，這類發言與上述根據《基本法》由人大常委會或中央人民政府行使的權力不同，這類發言沒有法律效力，不是公權力的正式行使，不會改變任何法律上的權利和義務關係，所以嚴格來說，並不算是監督權的正式行使，只能說這樣的發言對特區的有關人士及其行為可能發揮一定程度的監督作用，正如輿論監督一樣。