As the SAR government banned the appeal after the SAR government banned the National Party and the Chief Executive Council in accordance with the regulations of the community, the central government rarely issued a letter of letters to ask the Chief Executive to submit a report on the ban on the ban on the National Party, which caused a voice of one country and two systems.But is this the fact?What are the accused?

If you do not talk to the central government, you will not be able to weaken the SAR's autonomy

First let us look from the perspective of constitution.The constitutional status of the SAR is unambiguous under one country, two systems.Article 1 of the Basic Law explained that the SAR is an irrelevant part of the People's Republic of China; Article 12 further stipulates that the SAR is a local administrative area with a high degree of autonomy and is directly under the jurisdiction of the Central People's Government.It is responsible for the Central People's Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.Since the Chief Executive should be responsible for the SAR, everything should be explained in detail to the citizens in terms of governance, and it is believed that it is also true to the central government; therefore, since the return of the chief executive, each chief executive needs to go to Beijing to write a job each year.What is a job?Of course, it is the governance of the SAR.This is not the issue of whether the SAR has autonomy, but a problem that a local administrative district that is directly under the central government needs to explain the governance situation to the central government.Since the detailed report on the governance of the central government has nothing to do with the autonomous power of the SAR, let alone the report will weaken the autonomy of the SAR.This is common common sense.

In addition to regularly in Beijing to write a regular job, when encountering important and related issues related to constitutional or China -Hong Kong relations, the SAR has also had a precedent to submit a report to the central government in the past.The decision of the two inspections is also made by reports submitted by the SAR.These reports have never been made public, but no one has questioned that submitting these reports to damage one country, two systems.

It is difficult to say that Hong Kong independence is completely within the scope of the autonomy of the state sovereignty

From a political point of view, it is rare for the central government to submit a report on the form of a public letter.Of course, Hong Kong's uniqueness is undeniable that the central government is highly concerned. The meaning of issuing a letter of public letter obviously is to hope that the central government's attention is public;

After all, Hong Kong independence involves national sovereignty, and the occurrence of Hong Kong independence in Hong Kong will inevitably affect the relationship between the SAR and the central government. From this perspective, it is difficult to say that Hong Kong independence is a problem that is completely within the scope of autonomy.

Otherwise, any problem that threatens national security can also be said to be a problem within the scope of autonomy, and it will not be over.

From another perspective, if Beijing really has intervention how to deal with the National Party, and even instructed the SAR government to ban the operation of the ethnic party, then it is invisible why the Central Committee needs to be submitted at this moment.The meaning of submitting the report is to know more about the inside story; since I do n’t know the inside, how can it be said that it is an intervention in the SAR autonomy?

Why does the report of the facts of the facts be compressed?

Furthermore, after the central government completed the administrative ban in the SAR, and that no judicial procedure was required to submit a report before being started, it is difficult to say that it was under pressure to the SAR.Youdao's request will bring a kind of intangible political pressure to the court; this statement is quite far -fetched.First of all, the central government just requested the Chief Executive to submit a report; Beijing did not come up with any constitutional or legal principles to require the court to make any legal ruling; this is not the same day as the judicial procedure is launched, before or after the trial or after the trial.language.I believe that our judges have enough professionalism and will not move this requirement.Secondly, the report will be written by the chief executive rather than the central government, so it is difficult to say that it is difficult to say that the report is expressing any opinions on behalf of Beijing.Finally, as the Chief Executive said, the report will only list the facts. Why does the court feel the pressure?

As for the impact on the National Party, regardless of whether the special report is publicly disclosed, the National Party has the right to ask the SAR government to disclose the report to it after starting the judicial procedure.In this regard, the SAR Government can refuse the report in accordance with the principle of administrative privileges, but in the end, the judge still needs to report the report after the report, so it is difficult to say that it will be injustice to the National Party.

In the twenty years of return, China and Hong Kong not only failed to establish mutual trust in one country, two systems, but also laid the foundation for promoting democratic development. There is also no size. As long as it involves any movement of the central government, he does not ask for a reason to accuse the other party from harming one country, two systems.They seem to have forgotten that under the Basic Law, under the Basic Law, under the system of one country, two systems, one system in Hong Kong is not the only issue that needs to be considered; especially in addition to the scope of autonomy, respect for national sovereignty, responsibility for maintaining national security, and efforts to establish mutual trust in China and Hong Kong, it is also.Equivalent.If you can't do these, it is difficult to fully implement one country, two systems.A series of polls recently showed that nearly 80 % of Hong Kong people hope that one country and two systems can continue after 2047. Therefore, we have a strong belief that one country and two systems are only successful and cannot fail.At every turn, the central government has some constitutional and legal behaviors that will damage one country, two systems. Over time, it will only accumulate suspicion and establish contradictions, causing one country and two systems to collapse due to misunderstanding and opposition.We hope that the words and deeds of these politicians are only out of ignorance, otherwise they will be the greatest enemy of one country, two systems.

(The author is a senior barrister and a member of the executive meeting)