Shanmugam

By Andy Wong
K Shanmugam is one of Singapore’s most successful lawyers, enjoying a dual and very well paid role as law and foreign affairs minister, but yet appears unable to grasp the very real legal facts driving tens of thousands of protesters onto the streets of Hong Kong.
Rather than painting a picture of “anti-China bias” in the “Western media”, he would do well to review the Basic Law of Hong Kong, which guarantees a democratic future for the Special Administrative Region and serves as the constitutional document for the former British territory. The people of Hong Kong have been promised democracy, but the Chinese Communist Party is denying them that right.
In Harmony with Beijing
K Shanmugam is a man well-known for choosing his words carefully. This time, carefully chosen or not, his words appear to be in perfect harmony with the line Beijing would like the world to believe on Hong Kong, democracy and Hong Kong’s Basic Law. The main point of contention is over claims that China is “denying democracy” to Hong Kong, a position which Shanmugam ascribes to the bogey man of “Western media” who he claims have displayed “lots of anti-China bias”.
This is very disingenuous. In fact the Basic Law of Hong Kong describes very clearly that the people of Hong Kong are entitled to full universal suffrage in accordance with democratic principles. Furthermore, the Sino-British Declaration guarantees Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy on all matters except foreign and defence affairs – that means including autonomy on choosing their Chief Executive.

“The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”
Article 45. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China
“The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be directly under the authority of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People’s Government.”
Section 3(2). Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong

Clearly Beijing is in breach on both points. The mechanism imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing is one where an undemocratic pro-Beijing committee will vet candidates for loyalty to Beijing before selecting a small number of those that pass to stand for election. A committee which only allows pro-Beijing candidates to stand is not “broadly representative” of Hong Kong. And a system where all candidates are screened for loyalty to Beijing is not “in accordance with democratic procedures”.
Probably the best analogy for Singapore would be if candidates in the Presidential elections were vetted for loyalty to the PAP first – a system no one would see as democratic. So when people talk of China “denying democracy” in Hong Kong, they are right, and there is no “bias” from “Western media” or otherwise.
Furthermore, in imposing this undemocratic model of governance on Hong Kong, Beijing is also violating the Sino-British joint declaration. No one can see the promised “high degree of autonomy” on the question of local governance when the answer is being imposed by dictators two thousand miles away.
And while Shanmugam may be right to say that what has been imposed on Hong Kong is more than they had under the British, this is either a smoke-screen, or a historical curiosity at best. The people of Hong Kong are angry because promises of future democracy have been broken by the Chinese government.
K Shanmugam as a member of the PAP would do well to understand what drives tens of thousands of citizens of an undemocratic nation out onto the streets in protest. And as Foreign Minister he would be well advised not to undermine Singapore’s standing in the world, not to mention in the minds of the residents of Hong Kong, by supporting the untenable position that Beijing is acting in accordance with Basic Law.
Finally, as a lawyer, he should refresh on the meaning of Basic Law and the joint declaration and understand that Beijing is in breach of both. He must be smart enough to do so. The only question is why, in spite of that, he prefers to speak in harmony with Beijing.
This article was first published at andyxianwong.wordpress.com.

Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Singapore policies force some onto streets

Al Jazeera reports on the homelessness issue in Singapore. Singapore is a…

Netizens express concerns after four new COVID-19 community cases test ‘preliminary positive’ for double mutant from India

On Sunday (9 May), Singapore recorded 10 new community cases of COVID-19,…

香港占中九子被控妨扰罪成 朱耀明牧师《敲钟者言》盼唤醒人们良知

转载自:雅虎香港新闻 “如果我仍有气力,必继续在教会敲钟,在世上敲钟,在人心敲钟。” 2014年,香港爆发超过70添的占领行动,被指是“占领中环”运动发起人的戴耀廷、陈健民及朱耀明,以及另外6名参与人士,被控串谋作出公众妨扰、煽惑他人作出公众妨扰及煽惑他人煽惑公众妨扰等罪。 在上周二(4月9日),“占中九子”就9人就不同控罪被裁定罪名成立。 据香港独立媒体报导,案中第三被告、75岁的朱耀明牧师,在判决后的法庭求情时,表示对于行动“不后悔、没有遗憾、愤怒和不会放弃”,令旁听席多为民众流泪。 朱耀明:问题来自屈膝强权下的“公民从命” 他指出,也许许多人以为,香港的问题源于“公民抗命”,但其实是来自“公民从命”,这种从命,屈膝于强权和独裁者的政体下,结果卷入死伤无数的战争、或是无数人对贫穷、愚昧、战祸和残暴无动于衷;监牢里只是小奸小恶的罪犯,大奸大恶者反倒成了国家的领袖。 在被告栏上,他回顾一生走过的香港民主运动历程,但他谦卑地说,在雨伞运动中,自己只是一个敲钟者,希望发出警号,让人们直到不幸和灾难正在发生,期盼能唤醒人们良知,共挽狂澜。 以下为朱耀明《敲钟者言– 被告栏的陈辞》全文: 作为一个终生为上主所用,矢志与弱势者和穷苦人同行,祈求彰显上主公义,实践天国在人间,传颂爱与和平福音的牧师,垂老之年,满头白发,站在法庭被告栏,以待罪之身作最后的陈辞,看似极其荒谬和讽刺,甚至被视为神职人员的羞辱! 然而,此时此刻,在我心中,在法庭的被告栏,是一生牧职最崇高的讲坛,死荫的幽谷成就了灵性的高峰。…