Luo Huining, director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, delivered a keynote speech at a forum on Saturday focused on the Communist Party of China and “one country, two systems”. He said, “Posing existential threats to the policy of ‘One Country, Two Systems’, and to the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong are those who clamor for ‘an end to one-party rule’, reject the leadership of the CPC over the cause of ‘One Country, Two Systems’, and attempt to use Hong Kong as a geopolitical pawn to contain China and infiltrate the mainland.”
His words stirred up heated debates immediately, with some people claiming Hong Kong residents would be arrested for publicly demanding an end to “one-party rule” and there would be no more freedom of speech in Hong Kong, only “red terror” instead. But those who overreacted like that are either ignorant about Hong Kong law or have ulterior motives. To correctly understand Luo’s take on the advocacy of “ending one-party rule”, in this case, we need to analyze it systematically to see his train of thought and logic clearly.
Most Hong Kong residents have been taught to equate China’s CPC-led political system with authoritarianism and believe that only “multiparty politics” embodies democracy. Therefore, they tend to assume it is God’s will to end China’s current political system, without realizing they have been fed with more than one myth.
First of all, according to the Basic Law of the HKSAR, Hong Kong residents do not have the right to interfere in the mainland’s political system. The late Deng Xiaoping once borrowed an old Chinese idiom to emphasize the mainland and Hong Kong should mind their own business according to the established constitutional order. The idiom on the relationship between a well and a river asserts the principle of non-interference. For example, the main body of the country (the mainland) practices socialism while Hong Kong practices capitalism, and they should not attempt to change each other’s social system. Since Hong Kong’s return to the motherland, the latter has not changed Hong Kong’s capitalist system or its governance model of an executive-led administration. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the HKSAR government maintain checks and balances on one another according to law, ensuring judicial independence, while the chief executive is accountable to the central government. Why do some people in Hong Kong believe they can interfere in the mainland’s political affairs however they want? How would they feel if mainland compatriots or central government officials constantly demand “dissolve the Legislative Council of the HKSAR”, “terminate Hong Kong’s judicial independence” or even “overturn Hong Kong’s capitalist system”?
Secondly, the CPC became the governing party of China through decades of hard work and innumerable sacrifices. When the CPC was born a century ago, there were already more than 200 political parties in the country and nobody cared what the CPC stood for. But that small, little-known party proved its worth to the great masses by dedicating itself to serving their immediate interests and stepping forward whenever the nation was in existential crisis, winning more and more followers, supporters and sympathizers to become the ruling party of China. Today, can anyone name a political party that could match the CPC in governance capabilities? Does anyone truly believe ending the CPC leadership in China makes sense or suits the nation’s real condition?
The ultimate criterion for any political system is the ability to maintain excellent governance and popular rule. Can anyone prove with concrete facts that the more political parties the better a country is, or the other way around? The United States, the United Kingdom and Japan have long been governed by one of two political parties, and a coalition occasionally, but never a third party. Can anyone guarantee that three or more parties taking turns running the government in any of those countries will enhance governance? The truth is governance quality is not automatically better with multiple political parties vying for control. The people decide if they like the governing party through life experience, not by counting how many parties are competing for the government.
Luo called out some people who demanded “ending one-party rule” out of their ulterior motives. But that does not mean those people have to be put behind bars indiscriminately.
In his speech, he described those who pose existential threats to the policy of “one country, two systems” and Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability as “clamor for ‘an end to one-party rule’, reject the leadership of the CPC over the cause of ‘One Country, Two Systems’, and attempt to use Hong Kong as a geopolitical pawn to contain China and infiltrate the mainland”. Evidently, he sees certain individuals as archenemies of “one country, two systems” because they attempted to overthrow the CPC as the governing party of China and colluded with hostile external forces to contain China, and because they sought to destroy the foundation of “one country, two systems”. He didn’t say anyone who chants the slogan of “ending one-party rule” is an archenemy automatically.
If someone shouts “I will kill you” in the street and is taken to court, the judge cannot find that person guilty of murder without establishing motive, action and result. That’s how the justice system works.
Also, the archenemies Luo referred to in his speech cannot be understood as “criminal suspects” in legal terms. Luo is a ranking official of the central government in charge of an important department on Hong Kong affairs, but his words cannot be taken as a judge’s ruling in court. The “red terror” claim is not only groundless but also ill-meant.
Those making an issue of Luo’s speech are trying to cause confusion over the constitutional authority of the central authorities and demonize the CPC, as well as vilifying the “one country, two systems” policy. They want to keep Hong Kong society divided with fearmongering, the same way they waged the “black revolution” in June 2019 through June 2020 by accusing the extradition law amendment bill of making anyone a criminal fugitive liable for extradition to the mainland.
Demanding an end to “one-party rule” in China is not simply a matter of free speech. Let no one forget that the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that the leadership of the CPC is the essential feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which means demanding an end to the CPC leadership is against the Constitution.
Before the National Security Law for Hong Kong took effect on June 30 last year, such an unconstitutional demand might fall in a gray area, but not any longer. One only needs to read the National Security Law carefully to find out why, especially Articles 22 and 23.
The author is a Hong Kong member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Think Tank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.