Why the G7 has no right to interfere

On March 12 the G7 group of nations published a statement saying Beijing's proposal to change the electoral arrangements for the Legislative Council was, among other things, a breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed 36 years ago to "settle" the question of Hong Kong's future, ending the era of colonial rule.

There is nothing in it that says specifically how Legco should be constituted, or that the region must move to "full democracy" by 2047.

Thus, when such an accusation is made, what needs examination is not simply the fine text, but its true intent and spirit.

One starts with the proposition each party was acting in good faith, for the betterment of Hong Kong and its people. This necessarily means Hong Kong should evolve comfortably and peacefully as an SAR, within the overarching principle of one country, two systems.

The declaration provided for Legco ultimately to be constituted through universal suffrage. The pace of development, the precise shape of Legco: these were matters to be determined uniquely by China, with Britain given no voice in that regard.

At the time it was signed, December 1984, democracy for Hong Kong was far beyond the horizon. It was an autocracy. The governor presided over Legco, whose members were all appointed by him.

There was in place a robust common law system, but no constitutional guarantee for personal freedoms and rights beyond the common law. Any discussion of universal suffrage being introduced for the composition of Legco must start with that stark reality in mind.

The Basic Law enacted in April 1990 faithfully implemented the declaration.

Article 68(2) provides: "The method for forming Legco shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the SAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of Legco by universal suffrage."

Attempts by the last governor, Chris Patten, in the remaining seven years of British rule, to "democratize" Hong Kong by creating "giant" functional constituencies was rejected by Beijing.

Further progress was made in subsequent years. Legco was expanded to 70 members and, in 2012, five seats were created for district councilors, making half of Legco directly elected. From about 2014 Legco became progressively dysfunctional as the "pan-democrats" became more radical. No legislation to deal with public order or national security could be passed. A separatist movement then began, proclaiming "Hong Kong is not China."

This was a direct challenge to the fundamental policy of national unity and an attack on national security, for which Hong Kong had no defense.

With a violent insurgency erupting in mid-2019 and a legislature that had become totally dysfunctional, Hong Kong was teetering on the edge of disaster. The situation was saved by Beijing's intervention, enacting national security laws.

The next logical step, then, was the reform of the electoral system, announced by the Beijing early this month.

The broad principles of those reforms have been set out; the details are yet to be finalized by the National People's Congress standing committee. One knows, for instance, that Election Committee member will rise from 1,200 to 1,500, with power to vet candidates for election to Legco.

It can legitimately be argued such a proposal is too restrictive, that the election committee is not sufficiently representative of society. But there can be no argument that broad reform was necessary, to enable Legco to resume functioning as an effective organ of government, under the rule of law.

What Western democracy can exist without a workable legislature?

How, then, can the G7 leaders assert that the proposed reforms constitute a breach of China's obligations under the declaration?

The answer is this: their accusation is driven, not by fact and logic, but by an underlying mindset fixed in the past; formed in the days of European imperialism that sees Hong Kong as a foreign concession within China, rather akin to the International Settlement in Shanghai; a region representing essentially Western interests, with no regard for the welfare of its native inhabitants.

This gives G7 nations the pseudo-right to interfere in what are essentially China's internal affairs. Just stating the proposition shows its absurdity.

What is the true intent and spirit of the Joint Declaration?

It is this. It encapsulated China's fundamental policy for Hong Kong in the long run, not necessarily limited by June 20, 2047.

The declaration entrenched Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy. It mapped out specific areas where that applied: customs, public finance, monetary affairs, trade industry and commerce, shipping arrangements, civil aviation, social services, education policy. All this under the fundamental policy of one country, two systems; a policy with no time limit.

It was not an arrangement frozen in time. It gave scope to a living community to evolve. As circumstances changed, the law had to change and adapt, to ensure that Hong Kong sits comfortably within the principle of one country, two systems in the long term.

The proposed electoral reforms are simply a step in Hong Kong's evolution under that principle.

The two vital initiatives taken by the Beijing since May - the security law and the proposals for electoral reform - demonstrate conclusively its understanding of Hong Kong's unique position within the PRC: a global trade and financial center with its cultural diversity, its ability to liaise easily with the West, its common law system which gives confidence to foreign business partners, its protection of fundamental human rights under the Basic Law.

It is now clear that Beijing sees Hong Kong fulfilling this role in the long run, to act as an essential hub in the Greater Bay Area in the years to come.

But, to fulfill this destiny, the basic government structure must be set on firm foundations: new national security laws must replace the unworkable colonial laws and the foundational institutions of the region - the chief executive and Legco - must work flawlessly within the principle of one country, two systems.

If a phrase must be coined to describe the central government's present proposals for electoral reform in Hong Kong, "democracy with Hong Kong characteristics" might be appropriate.

Henry Litton is a retired Court of Final Appeal judge