Photo

In an unusual theoretical leap for a state that is still at least nominally socialist, a top Chinese academic who works closely with the central government in Beijing said democracy in Hong Kong must be limited in order to protect the interests of its capitalist class.

The former British colony is set to allow its citizens to pick its top official, the chief executive, starting in 2017. Hong Kong’s current leader, and the national legislature, insist that candidates must be vetted by a nominating committee that democracy activists and pro-establishment figures alike say will screen out anyone seen as unacceptable by Beijing.

Wang Zhenmin, the dean of the law school at Tsinghua University in Beijing, who advises the central government on Hong Kong issues and was sent to the city to explain Beijing’s policies, spoke in Hong Kong on Thursday at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club. His trip was timed ahead of an expected decision on Sunday by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee on the broad outlines of policy changes envisioned for the 2017 election of the next chief executive of Hong Kong.



In his speech, he said giving people in Hong Kong an unfettered choice in who they could vote for would impinge on the interests of the city’s richest residents, who, he said, “control the destiny of the economy in Hong Kong.” Here is an excerpt from Mr. Wang’s prepared remarks, which he delivered in English:

Democracy is a political matter, it is also an economic matter. A political system by its nature reflects and embodies the economic structure of said particular place. Universal suffrage means the redistribution of economic interests among society’s members. We have to take care of every class. Every group of people. Every person. Rich or poor. No one should be ignored. No one should be left behind. Especially those whose slice of pie will be shared by others upon the implementation of universal suffrage. [He added that he was referring to the business community’s share of the economy.] Their slice of pie will be shared by others through universal suffrage. So we have to take full consideration of their concerns. That’s why we require balanced participation. We require nominating committees and functional constituencies.

Later, in a question and answer session, Mr. Wang explained how this fit in with Communist Party theory. He referred to the so-called Three Represents promoted during the term of President Jiang Zemin, which allowed capitalists to enter the Communist Party, which previously had been focused on peasants and workers:

As you know the Communist Party initially, originally, only represents the people, not representing the billionaires, the businesspeople, in history. However, in 2002, the Communist Party changed its charter and later on China changed its Constitution. The Communist Party on the one hand continued to represent the general public, the farmers and the workers, as its basis. On the other hand, the Communist Party began to represent the rich people — the new business community in mainland China. So on the one hand the Communist Party continued to represent the poor, the workers and the farmers, and on the other hand it represented the rich. So that’s a big change in Communist Party theory and also in Chinese constitutional law. I think in Hong Kong it’s the same. In your history the business community was the enemy of the Communist Party, always against the rich. But now the Communist Party is the ruling party, the Communist Party must take into account of all classes, the rich and the poor. So that’s why in implementing universal suffrage in Hong Kong, on the one hand we must consider the interests of the general public, the ordinary middle class in Hong Kong, the ordinary people in Hong Kong. That’s no problem. That’s why China permits Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage. But on the other hand, the business community is a reality. Even if it is a small group of people, a very small group of people. But they control the destiny of the economy in Hong Kong. If we just ignore their interests, the Hong Kong capitalism will stop. So that’s why on the one hand we realize universal suffrage in Hong Kong, on the other hand we must guarantee the continued development of capitalism in Hong Kong.

During an interview before his speech, Mr. Wang was asked about a controversial white paper on electoral issues released in June by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office in Beijing. Mr. Wang was one of the experts whose suggestions were solicited, although he was not one of the authors of the final document.

Democracy advocates in Hong Kong have heavily criticized the white paper, contending that many of its passages represent a significant erosion in the high degree of autonomy that Beijing promised Hong Kong prior to its return by Britain to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. Some of the heaviest criticism has been directed at suggestions that judges need to be “patriotic” and should help in the administration of Hong Kong. These passages raised concerns that the rule of law might be undermined, and that judges would rule for whichever side in a dispute had better ties to the Communist Party.

Mr. Wang was asked whether judges in Hong Kong should indeed be “patriotic,” keeping in mind that because judges in the United States did not see themselves as patriotic, but rather as upholding the Constitution, they helped stop the excesses of McCarthyism. He replied:

Yes, judges should be patriotic automatically. It’s a natural requirement. Even if it may not be written in the law, in many countries, I think it’s a common practice. But judicial patriotism does not mean the judiciary is always in favor of the government. Sometimes to show your patriotism, they may rule against the government. So I don’t see any conflict between judicial patriotism and judicial independence.

As to whether the white paper represented a change in Chinese policy toward Hong Kong, Mr. Wang said:

No. The white paper is a paper, not a law. Hong Kong practices the rule of law, not the rule of paper. Rule of law means the rule of the Basic Law. There’s absolutely no change in policies, because this [the white paper] isn’t a policy.

Mr. Wang was also asked whether it was a mistake for the central government to release its first-ever white paper on Hong Kong as public tensions were rising over the looming decision on electoral changes. He said there was no significance to the timing: