Independence or self-determination: whatever you call it, it’s still separatism
Ever
since the oath-taking fiasco, some localists who still aspire to enter
the legislature have changed their tune from advocating independence to
self-determination. While there is a difference, it’s one of degree, not
kind
Opposition
circles insist on distinguishing between independence and
self-determination. This was provoked by recent remarks made by Basic
Law Committee chairman Li Fei who said that both amounted to the same
thing and breached the Basic Law.
But
the real reason is that ever since the oath-taking fiasco, some
localists who still aspire to enter the legislature have changed their
tune from advocating independence to self-determination to try to avoid
being disqualified. They have accused mainstream pan-democrats of
switching positions to appeal to young voters. Now, which is more
cynical: placating young voters or the government’s returning officers.
They need to try harder. It’s not enough to preach to the converted in
the echo chambers of social media, but also to the general public for
whom they have yet to make a case of what the distinction entails in
practice.
While
there is a difference between independence and self-determination, it
is one of degree, not kind. Given self-determination, Hong Kong people
may well choose to remain under Chinese rule. Alternatively,
self-determination may be a prelude to independence, which seems to be
the intention of radical localists, if not now, then after 2047. But to
make such a determination, you would have to hold a citywide referendum,
and there is no such provision under the existing constitutional
arrangements. This is not by accident: Hong Kong doesn’t have a choice
to opt out of China, in whatever manner, any more than Shanghai,
Shenzhen or Hangzhou does.
The
first few articles of both the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the
Basic Law, unequivocally, recognise China’s unconditional sovereignty
over Hong Kong. Neither document provides a mechanism to exercise a
choice in deciding our political status.
Perhaps
you can argue self-determination is synonymous with autonomy. But Hong
Kong was never guaranteed full autonomy, only “a high degree” of it.
Then there is the red herring with the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, Article 1 of which recognises all peoples’ “right
of self-determination”. Under the Basic Law, the ICCPR has no direct
application, but only thorough local legislation, that is, the Bill of
Rights Ordinance. But the bill protects individuals, not a people as a
collective. All this is academic. Young localists want to use public
resources and hold public office, in the legislature, to advocate
separatism, or whatever you call it. It could have been a cushy job, but
they blew it for everyone with their disastrous oath-taking antics.
Source: https://www.scmp.com/comment/article/2137792/independence-or-self-determination-whatever-you-call-it-its-still-separatism
Comments