VZCZCXRO6069
PP RUEHCN RUEHGH RUEHVC
DE RUEHHK #0605/01 0910817
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 010817Z APR 09
FM AMCONSUL HONG KONG
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7299
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE

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