More on Martin Lee and the Basic Law, particularly recent interpretations of its Article 22

Not the brightest outlook at Admiralty even back in July

Can Hong Kong brave the Communist Chinese onslaught?

The odds are against us but we're still going to try

I wasn't planning to blog again today but after an article I linked to over on Facebook about Martin Lee became my most shared post ever over on that community, I figure it's worth drawing to people's attention here too.  In an exclusive interview conducted before his arrest (along with 14 other prominent pro-democracy figures) yesterday, the 81-year-old senior lawyer talked about such as his time spent co-drafting Hong Kong's Basic Law -- a document which he described as "a solution where there was no solution".

"We put all our hopes in the Basic Law and hoped it would safeguard everything over the next 50 years", Lee is quoted in the article as saying.  Sadly, the hopes have been dashed; with Lee further stating that, “It’s not the fault of the Basic Law that [China] doesn’t keep its promises and the UK turns a blind eye".   

If one were to look at the closest thing Hong Kong has to a Constitution, one would find that Articles 45 and 68 of it state that the Chief Executive and members of the Legislative Council should be elected through universal suffrage, and Article 22 says the Mainland Chinese government cannot interfere in affairs in Hong Kong.  In August 2014, Beijing's threatened to make a farce out of the idea of universal suffrage for Hong Kong when its National People’s Congress Standing Committee ruled that Hong Kong voters could only elect its top leader by “universal suffrage” from two or three candidates endorsed by the majority of a 1,200-strong largely pro-Beijing nominating committee.  

Now in April 2020, the Communist Chinese regime is attempting to make a farce out of Article 22, with the help of the Hong Kong government.  On the same day as Martin Lee was arrested for the first time (and possibly not the last time) in his life, the Hong Kong government issued three different statements on one night in response to the claim made one day earlier by the China Liason Office in Hong Kong that it is not subject to Article 22 of the Basic Law.  In the process, it flip-flopped on its own stance, completely reversing its original statement that the Liaison Office and its staff are required to abide by the laws of Hong Kong, as set out in Article 22 of the Basic Law to toe the line set by the Liason Office itself.     

Compounding this absurdity is that past Hong Kong government documents clearly state that the Liason Office in Hong Kong was set up under, and thus is subject to, Article 22 of the Basic Law.  So, basically, that the already incredibly unpopular Carrie Lam's government is effectively dubbing past Hong Kong governments liars with its current proclamations as well as further hollowing out the "One country, two systems" ruling that's supposed to prevail for 50 years.

Small wonder then that she stands accused of betraying Hong Kong by pan-democratic legislators.  But more than anything else, I think it shows how much of a puppet of Beijing the Hong Kong government under Carrie Lam has become. :(