RUMORED TEN-POINT AGREEMENT GIVES VOICE TO CPPCC

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HONG KONG 000605 SIPDIS DEPT FOR EAP/CM E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/25/2019 TAGS: PGOV PHUM HK CH SUBJECT: RUMORED TEN-POINT AGREEMENT GIVES VOICE TO CPPCC DELEGATES, THREATENS AUTONOMY REF: 08 HONG KONG 2216 Classified By: Consul General Joe Donovan for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary: The Hong Kong government and Central Government Liaison Office (CGLO) both deny reports they struck a deal granting Hong Kong delegates to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) a greater role in Hong Kong affairs in exchange for the Hong Kong government having a say in who Beijing appoints to the CPPCC. According to the reports, carried initially in pro-Beijing media, CGLO Deputy Director Li Guikang told Hong Kong CPPCC delegates March 10 that a ten-point agreement had been reached, which the delegates reportedly asked be put in writing. The truth has proven elusive, with meeting participants quoted in the press differing on whether Li mentioned an explicit "agreement" or what it entailed. Our contacts among the CPPCC delegation report there were "points of agreement" between CGLO and the Hong Kong government, but have stressed nothing mentioned by Li was substantively different from what has occurred informally in the past. Hong Kong democrats have sounded the alarm, charging the government with undermining the Basic Law and Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy in local affairs. Whether any fire emerges from the smoke remains to be seen. End summary. ¶2. (C) Comment: On the surface, an agreement such as the one described would seem to change little: Hong Kong's CPPCC delegates are already well-represented in the Legislative Council, Executive Council and Hong Kong's many advisory "statutory bodies". From the other side, there are presumably many channels the Hong Kong government might employ to commend local worthies to Beijing for the largely ceremonial appointment to the CPPCC. For example, one of our contacts told us he entered the CPPCC as a nominee by former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa; Beijing accepted him somewhat reluctantly. However, granting delegates a role in Hong Kong explicitly in their CPPCC capacity creates the presumption they will speak for Beijing. This could pose a threat to "one country, two systems" by injecting Beijing's voice into internal policy debates, at the expense of Hong Kong's elected officials. It also creates a potential for abuse by delegates, who might seek to advance their own interests under Beijing's flag. Executive appointments do not require legislative approval, but the administration can expect tremendous scrutiny of any CPPCC delegate receiving appointment from here on. End comment. -------------- Background: No Respect -------------- ¶3. (C) As reported reftel, Hong Kong has long debated what role Hong Kong delegates to national bodies such as the National People's Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) should play in Hong Kong. Originally mainly a united front exercise, we believe Beijing increasingly relies on NPC and CPPCC members as sources of information on Hong Kong. Similarly, members themselves have looked for ways to provide constituent services to Hong Kong people in their dealings on the Mainland (a role many would agree is appropriate for these delegations),but have been hampered by the lack of formal office space or even a website. The rationale given previously for the central government's refusal to approve either facility has been the preservation of Hong Kong's local autonomy under "one country, two systems." Delegates have similarly complained the Hong Kong government has ignored comments or queries from them. ¶4. (C) Well-connected commentator Allen Lee, himself a former Liberal Party legislator and NPC deputy, told us protocol has been a perennial problem; specifically, that NPC and CPPCC delegates have no official standing in the Hong Kong protocol system. Since an NPC delegate is a national legislator, Lee notes there is a real problem as to how to rank him against a Legislative Councilor or other Hong Kong official. On a more mundane level, NPC and CPPCC delegates have not enjoyed guaranteed access to such perks as the VIP lounge at Hong Kong airport. Lee suggests this state of affairs has left some noses out of joint. With Chief Executive (CE) Donald Tsang currently so embattled by local politics, Lee contends the CGLO and the Hong Kong government made this reported agreement to silence complaints coming from delegates to Beijing bodies. One irony in this story is that media have charged that Hong Kong's CPPCC delegates have the highest rate of absenteeism from CPPCC events, leading the respected Ming Pao to admonish the delegation to greater diligence in a March 13 editorial. HONG KONG 00000605 002 OF 003 -------------- Rumors of Agreement Greatly Exaggerated? -------------- ¶5. (C) On March 11, the PRC-owned Wen Wei Po ran a story describing a March 10 "closed-door discussion with Hong Kong CPPCC delegates" in which Central Government Liaison Office (CGLO) Deputy Director Li Guikang announced a "ten-point agreement" had been reached with the Hong Kong government. According to Wen Wei Po, the agreement involved "CPPCC delegates issuing opinions regarding internal Hong Kong issues" and "establishing premises for the Hong Kong CPPCC delegates' activities", while in turn giving the Hong Kong government the right "to recommend name lists of CPPCC delegates to the Central Government." ¶6. (C) Wen Wei Po reports by name Legislative Council President Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, Yangtzekiang Garments Managing Director Chan Wing-kee, and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) legislator Chan Kam-lam as in attendance. Separately, former Liberal Party Chairman James Tien told media he had attended, and rumor suggests former Liberal Party Vice Chair Selina Chow was the unnamed participant in Wen Wei Po's report who urged that the agreement be put down "in black and white." CGLO's Li is reported to have agreed. Both Wen Wei Po and HKEJ quote DAB's Chan as saying the agreement would put "the Special Administrative Region (SAR) government into the national government administration system, raising the status of the SAR government." -------------- State of Denial -------------- ¶7. (C) The CGLO's Li, Hong Kong Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam, and even CE Tsang himself have denied that any formal agreement was reached. Li told centrist Sing Tao March 15 that no such agreement was needed. First, anyone can propose someone to serve as a CPPCC delegate, but the central government alone would make the decision as to whether to appoint him or her to the CPPCC. Second, Li argued that, as individuals whose prominence in Hong Kong was reflected in their selection for the CPPCC, delegates were bound as good Hong Kong citizens to play an active role in Hong Kong politics. (Fellow CGLO Deputy Director Li Gang echoed these themes in the South China Morning Post March 19.) Under questioning from LegCo pan-democrats March 16, Secretary Lam limited himself to denying a formal agreement had been reached, while CE Tsang declared publicly neither a formal "agreement" nor a "consensus" had been reached. ¶8. (C) Jasper Tsang told us that he was not at the March 10 meeting, although he had been at a meeting the day before which had announced Li would address the delegation on this issue (thus contradicting Wen Wei Po's account). He dismissed the notion of a "ten-point agreement," saying it was more accurate to say that the CGLO and Hong Kong government had discussed the issue and agreed on about ten points. None of these, he told us, were likely to be ground-breaking in terms of going beyond the interactions between the CPPCC delegation and the Hong Kong government which have existed in the past. Central Policy Unit Deputy Director Shiu Sin-por, who did attend the March 10 meeting, reports Li did read from a document, but Shiu believed it was actually the work report Li had submitted to his chiefs summarizing his accomplishments as his tour of duty comes to an end. Shiu recalls ten points but heard little that was substantively new. ¶9. (C) Former Liberal Party Chairman James Tien is both the only March 10 meeting participant backing up Wen Wei Po's story and the only CPPCC delegate who has objected to the reported deal. Tien was quoted in the South China Morning Post March 13 as saying "citizens and the Liberal Party won't accept a second power center in Hong Kong." Amidst the flurry of denials from Beijing and the SAR government, Tien told Allen Lee on the latter's radio program March 19 that CGLO's Li Guikang had specifically said "agreement" and not "consensus" at the March 10 meeting (Lee had told us the day before he was sure an agreement had been reached). Tien told HKEJ the same thing March 20. -------------- Local Response -------------- ¶10. (C) Hong Kong Economic Journal columnist Joseph Lian sounding the alarm over the agreement, warning of the risk to HONG KONG 00000605 003 OF 003 Hong Kong's autonomy. Democratic Party Chairman Albert Ho and Vice Chairman Emily Lau also raised concerns in an open letter to CE Tsang March 13. The letter reminded Tsang of Basic Law Article 22's explicit ban on central government organs interfering "in matters autonomously managed by the Hong Kong SAR in accordance with this law." "The Hong Kong CPPCC delegates are the product of appointment by the central government," Ho and Lau wrote. "They have no recognition or public credibility." In addition to being illegal, Ho and Lau argued CPPCC delegate involvement in Hong Kong affairs would undermine the authority of both the Hong Kong government and the elected representatives of the Hong Kong people. Former Civil Service Secretary Joseph Wong and Editor-at-Large Chris Yeung both used their South China Morning Post (SCMP) columns to call for clarification of any agreement or "consensus" reached. ¶11. (C) Civic Party Secretary-General Kenneth Chan Ka-lok believed that, should CPPCC delegates be permitted to express views as a bloc (as opposed to in their individual Hong Kong capacities, as many do now),it will create the perception that they are speaking the central government's words, with a concomitant impact on the debates they join. Their involvement in local matters as CPPCC delegates could thus create yet another vector into the governance of Hong Kong for the central government. SCMP columnist Frank Ching concurred, noting that, while informal interaction may be the norm, a formal mechanism is a violation of "one country, two systems." Like fellow SCMP columnist (and Executive Councilor) Anthony Cheung, he has urged CPPCC delegates to focus on their role of representing the interests of Hong Kong people in Beijing. DONOVAN