On Jan 26 in Beijing, Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Work Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, delivered a keynote speech at the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies on “Insisting and Improving Executive-led Governance, Enhancing the Performance of the Special Administrative Regions”. The speech — streamed to Hong Kong and attended by Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu, other senior officials and newly elected eighth-term legislative councilors — clarified central expectations for the governance of the Hong Kong SAR.
Xia’s address builds directly on President Xi Jinping’s discussions with the chief executives of the Hong Kong and Macao SARs last December. It elaborates on the president’s expectations and applies them across the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and to Hong Kong society as a whole. Read in that light, Xia’s remarks are at once explanatory and prescriptive: They aim to define the constitutional basis of “executive-led governance”, to rebut persistent doubts about its legitimacy, and to set clear standards for performance.
A central theme of Xia’s speech is that executive-led governance is firmly grounded in the nation’s Constitution and the Basic Law — the highest legal authorities for the nation and the SAR. By emphasizing that foundation, Xia sought to underscore that the model is constitutionally and legally unassailable.
Effective implementation, he argued, hinges on the chief executive. As the linchpin between the central authorities and the SAR, the chief executive must uphold the constitutional order while safeguarding Hong Kong’s autonomy, preserving the advantages of its market-based systems and international linkages, and delivering tangible benefits to Hong Kong residents and the nation. Xia set out an aspirational profile for the office: strategic vision, resilience, innovation, and the capacity to lead government, business and society in pursuit of the common good.
On separation of powers, Xia forcefully rejected the notion that a strict “separation of powers” has ever been the operative constitutional reality in Hong Kong. He reminded his audience of the massive damage to effective governance the fallacious advocacy of “separation of powers” brought to Hong Kong. The truth is, for much of British rule, the governor chaired the Legislative Council and the legislature included a majority of official and appointed members under executive influence. It was only in the final years of the British administration that attempts were made to impose a parliamentary-style separation.
In Hong Kong, misunderstandings about separation of powers have at times distorted governance and influenced judicial and political outcomes. Xia’s critique calls for a realistic appreciation of constitutional design as it actually functions — one that serves effective administration and the public interest
Historical and comparative scholarship supports Xia’s corrective. The 19th-century British essayist Walter Bagehot long noted that the British constitution operates through a fusion of executive and legislative responsibilities in the cabinet. Even in the United States — often invoked as the exemplar of separation — practical interdependence among branches has long been evident, a point underscored by philosophers such as the late Bertrand Russell and by modern political developments like congressional gridlock, episodic governance crises, and more recently, the apparent inability of Congress and the judicial branch to check presidential power.
In short, the ideal of wholly separate branches rarely exists in practice. In Hong Kong, misunderstandings about separation of powers have at times distorted governance and influenced judicial and political outcomes. Xia’s critique calls for a realistic appreciation of constitutional design as it actually functions — one that serves effective administration and the public interest.
Xia’s speech also clarified expectations for the Legislative Council. Councilors — representing diverse functions and constituencies — are expected to be patriots who assume responsibility, work diligently for the public, and proactively offer constructive, evidence-based proposals to improve governance. The legislature’s role is to cooperate with the executive, support performance improvement, and provide oversight in a spirit of mutual respect.
Legal scholars echo this balanced approach. Former chairman of the Legal Committee of the National People’s Congress Qiao Xiaoyang has stressed that the executive and legislature should cooperate while checking one another; Professor Wang Zhenmin of Tsinghua University has emphasized that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government should accept checks on its performance from the legislature and society. A healthy, constructive relationship between executive and legislature is both attainable and desirable now that executive-led governance has been reaffirmed.
Regarding the Judiciary, Xia signaled an end to obstructive and costly judicial practices that impede governance. The Judiciary is expected to interpret law according to established legal principles and constitutional canons, upholding Hong Kong’s reputation for judicial competence while supporting the SAR’s overall stability, national security and unity.
Xia’s central message is that the three branches should work in unison to advance the public good. While different political systems balance powers in varied ways, an executive-led model — rooted in constitutional authority and adapted to Hong Kong’s unique circumstances — offers the most suitable framework for the SAR. Properly implemented, it can preserve Hong Kong’s strengths, ensure effective governance, and deliver benefits to the people and the nation.
As Hong Kong continues to move forward under this clarified framework, the challenge for officials, legislators, jurists and society is to translate constitutional principles into accountable, results-oriented governance that sustains the city’s prosperity and upholds its constitutional order.
The author is convenor of the Executive Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
