Hong Kong Intelligence Report #35 Fragrant Harbour: Hidden Meaning of Controversy on Trias Politica

Updated: Aug 1

#HongKong #Intelligence #Report #香港情報分析 #OSINT

FILE PHOTO: Hong Kong Meme on the Lack of Decolonization.   ©imgflip/Huaxia Film Distribution Company; Ryota Nakanishi
FILE PHOTO: Hong Kong Meme on ''Decolonization''. ©imgflip/Huaxia Film Distribution Company; Ryota Nakanishi

IMPORTANT


The Original Concept of Trias Politica


“If the legislative and executive authorities are one institution, there will be no freedom. There won’t be freedom anyway if the judiciary body is not separated from the legislative and executive authorities.”


- Charles de Montesquieu (1)


Trias Politica (Tripartite System; Separation of Powers):

Recent controversy on Trias Politica is just misleading and inaccurate, a bureaucratic disinformation operation that it's politically meant to distract public attention from the imminent necessity of decolonisation of UK-dominated jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts, the last bastion of UK colonialist interests in post 1997 Hong Kong.


Apparently the present social status of Hong Kong is semi-autonomy within China but it still is partially semi-British colony, too. Hong Kong has no adequate conditions for normalised Trias Politica due to the fatal lack of decolonisation within the framework of One Country & Two Systems implemented astonishingly without decolonisation of the ex-British colony in 1997 yet it does not mean that the present SAR Hong Kong does not have certain extent of Trias Politica.


Under the circumstances, the controversy on ''No Existence of Trias Politica in HK'' not only politically serves external forces like USA who recently labelled Hong Kong as ''mainland China'', but also it serves distracting public attention from necessary decolonisation reform on its common law system. The major issue is that incumbent UK judges are in charge of Hong Kong jurisdiction while foreign judges are not allowed in both UK and USA. This judicial contradiction from colonial era must be solved in order to safeguard judicial independence of SAR Hong Kong from foreign forces.


The SAR bureaucrats ''systematically'' initiated the unfruitful controversy from above and its resulted malign cycle which inevitably involved calculated cliched reactions from opposition, mainstream media, pro-establishment camp, law figures and bots. The aim is to manipulate general public opinion by dominating it with false propositions and pseudo-themes. Because it's purely rooted in brains of bureaucrats and their business friends in employers' trade unions, it won't infiltrate grassroots level for a long time. As this time, it started from bureaucrats and ended in bureaucrats yet they actually achieved the aim to close doors for decolonisation. This ''sanitising'' operation on the general public opinion forms a systematic cycle when there is a certain reformist tendency in political sphere then SAR bureaucrats instigate a controversy with a false proposition to push aside the actual reform meanwhile it is also deliberately done as a PR stunt to comfort the central government.


Furthermore, the denial of Trias Politica is harmonious with the long term political agenda of ruling class of Hong Kong to fuel so called ''pro-democracy'' movement against China while posing as pro-Beijing. They can now say that Hong Kong's difficult condition is due to the lack of both universal suffrage and separation of powers. In fact, self-contempt of its own establishment by SAR bureaucrats is an insult to the central government that it implies the totalitarian nature of being part of China in terms of Western democracy.


In fact, lack or denial of Trias Politica in Hong Kong has not been driving force for any public unrest or discontent ever occurred in Hong Kong until present. On the contrary, the majorities of SAR government, opposition and pro-establishment camp had unanimously insisted that the political system of Hong Kong is based on Trias Politica since the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997 until the recent controversy. Thus the denial of Trias Politica is not only self-disdain for the central government itself, justification of US interpretation of the present Hong Kong status for sanctions but also it is a totally ''empty'' controversy to distract attention of public from decolonisation reform.


The judicial hegemony or judicial dictatorship of Hong Kong is originated in direct continuation of the British Hong Kong judicial system and systematic recruitment of UK judges. It is an aftermath of the lack of decolonisation in the judicial filed not an essential result of Trias Politica or One Country Two System itself. At least Trias Politica has nothing to do with the political turmoil at all.


FACTS


The controversy instigated by the secretary for education, Kevin Yeung on August 31, 2020 when he required deletion of Trias Politica phrase from the liberal studies text books during a voluntary screening by the Education Bureau.


高中通識教科書經教育局「專業諮詢服務」審閱後,新版書介紹香港法治時,刪去或修改「三權分立」內容。教育局長楊潤雄昨日回應,指「在香港是沒有三權分立」,不論九七前的制度,至九七後根據《基本法》的制度,都不是一個三權分立的制度,強調「這些事實必須清楚在教科書中說出」,這是本屆官員首次公開否定「三權分立」之說。有民主派質疑楊改寫事實,建制派則贊同教育局糾正。(2)


Kevin Yeung thinks there was and is no Trias Politica while Hong Kong has maintained executive dominance since the British Hong Kong colonial era. Key figures of opposition and pro-establishment camps responded to his remark immediately.


Chairperson of ''opposition'' Civic Party Alan Leong criticised:


梁家傑:基本法多項條文為監察政府 洗腦下一代信「一權獨大」

基本法條文上沒有列明「三權分立」,但也沒說到「行政主導」或「超然」。公民黨主席梁家傑批評楊潤雄說法錯誤、帶「政治目的」,「將三權分立抹掉,變成一權獨大」。他說,基本法雖無寫明三權分立,但多項條文的精神及用意均是為了監察政府。梁舉例說,終院首席法官的任命必須通過立法會,而非由特首直接委任,足以顯示立法、司法、行政三權之間「分庭抗禮」,互相制衡。(3)


Indeed, Alan Leong told the facts that the basic law did not literally mention both Trias Politica and executive dominance. Regina Ip who is a member of Executive Council of Hong Kong, legislative council of Hong Kong and a chairman of New People's Party agreed with Kevin Yeung:


葉劉:港司法獨立 三權分立另概念 教科書寫得不好 贊同糾正

行政會議成員、新民黨主席葉劉淑儀表示,本港從沒有「三權分立」的觀點,她早已撰文提出,認同楊局長所言正確,「回歸前是港督主持立法局,回歸後則奉行行政主導,哪裏有三權分立?」她說,香港有司法獨立,三權分立是另一概念,全球只有美國將此寫入憲法,「連英國都無」。(4)


Moreover Mingpao cited the chief judge of the controversial Court of Final Appeal's claim on this theme which published in January 2014: