Some rather influential figures, including members of the judiciary, recently joined a chorus of claims that Hong Kong’s political system is or should be characterized by a “separation of powers”. This is not the first time the subject has become a hot topic in debates, because it serves the need to confuse the public in regard to the political system and can be used to justify attempts to erode the central government’s overall jurisdiction over the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Such claims are not only completely devoid of constitutional or statutory basis, they also contradict historical facts and reality. 

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, when asked to comment on the reemergence of the afore-mentioned assumption on Tuesday, reiterated that a “separation of powers” was not mentioned in the Basic Law. What Lam did not mention was that the Basic Law, in effect, prescribes a political system featuring an executive-led governance model.

As a matter of fact, neither is a “separation of powers” established in the Hong Kong Letters Patent and Hong Kong Royal Instructions, which constituted the constitutional foundation of governance in Hong Kong under British rule.

In other words, a “separation of powers” has never been a feature of the political system in Hong Kong in history or reality. Rather, both political systems before and after Hong Kong’s return to the motherland have been executive-led systems.

The governing power of Hong Kong under British rule was overwhelmingly in the hands of the governors. There was no genuine local legislature as we know it during 155 years of British rule.

According to the design of the Basic Law, the chief executive is the head of both the HKSAR and the HKSAR government and is accountable to both the HKSAR and the central government, as stipulated in the Basic Law. This design of dual function and dual accountability for the post of the chief executive highlights the authority of the chief executive and the dominance of the executive in the executive-led system. That the executive branch has the right of legislative initiative and that government bills take priority on the agenda of the Legislative Council also reflects the priority the executive branch enjoys over members of LegCo. The executive branch can also impose checks and supervision on the judiciary: The chief executive has the authority to appoint and remove court judges in accordance with legal procedures.

There are two reasons why the executive-led system was retained after the reunification. Firstly, it retains what worked well in the old system: The executive-led system was among the major elements that contributed to Hong Kong’s past success, therefore it was retained after some modifications. Secondly, an executive-led system with the chief executive as the core provides the central government with a mechanism to maintain its sovereign power over the HKSAR, or the proposed high degree of autonomy would become full autonomy.

Those who keep saying Hong Kong’s political structure is or should be one of “separation of powers” should read the constitutional documents listed above carefully and ask themselves exactly what the constitutional basis of their claim is.