Hong Kong inevitably draws international attention as the implementation of “one country, two systems” is moving back on track, aided by some reforms. Recent commentaries reflecting divergent understanding of the principle are worth looking into. For instance, the Wall Street Journal recently ran an editorial about an article that Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po’s had published.
In his article entitled “Hong Kong Deserves to Be in Freedom Index,”Chan rebuts the decision by the Heritage Foundation to exclude Hong Kong, which was ranked No.1 internationally for 25 consecutive years, from its latest Index of Economic Freedom. He explains that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy over its economic, financial and trade policies under “one country, two systems” makes it evident that the city deserves to be on the list. The Journal’s Editorial Board responded to Chan’s article in its Opinion column, arguing that Chan was “flacking for the man who really runs Hong Kong: Chinese President Xi Jinping”. Eye-catching as this turn of phrase may be, it exposes the ignorance of some foreign journalists and opinion leaders, who still do not have a proper understanding of “one country, two systems” 23 years after its implementation in Hong Kong.
The Journal cited examples, such as the arrest of political demagogue Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, as evidence that Xi “really runs Hong Kong”. Deduction of this kind is regrettably inaccurate and prone to bias. One should refer to the Basic Law if one genuinely wishes to understand “one country, two systems”.
Article 1 stipulates that “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China”, followed by “The National People’s Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy…” (Article 2).
It is glaringly obvious that the high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR is authorized by the central government in Beijing. In addition, Article 43 states that “The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be accountable to the Central People’s Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the provisions of this Law”.
These provisions clearly stipulate that the governing power of the HKSAR comes from the central government under “one country, two systems”, so that the HKSAR government is accountable to the leaders in Beijing. Hence, the power structure between the central government and the HKSAR government is clearly set out in the Basic Law: The President of the People’s Republic of China is, de jure, the highest official in charge of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The sanctimonious comments by the WSJ editorial board suggest that they didn’t bother to read the Basic Law.
If the international community continues to be misled by commentaries of those biased opinion leaders, there will inevitably be misunderstanding or misjudgments in the process of international interaction with Beijing and the HKSAR government to the detriment of all parties, eventually
The NPC’s decision on improving the electoral system of Hong Kong also attracts foreign criticism of Beijing “violating” the Sino-British Joint declaration. However, such accusation is not supported by fact; they can never point out which part of the declaration has been violated. Reading the declaration carefully, and we will find that the only clause about elections is that “The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People’s Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.” Annex I also mentions that “The legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections.” As there are no specific clauses on how elections should be undertaken, how could the proposed electoral reforms constitute a breach of the declaration?
Recent reforms on improving Hong Kong’s governance are all based on the principle that “one country, two systems” is part of China’s national governance system and must be viewed or understood from a holistic perspective. Particularly when Hong Kong is plagued by social unrest, it has to institutionalize certain arrangements in order to quell the chaos and stop the mess.
It is disappointing that some foreign opinion leaders are, either intentionally or inadvertently, distorting the true meaning of “one country, two systems”, showing unwarranted prejudice toward China. If the international community continues to be misled by commentaries of those biased opinion leaders, there will inevitably be misunderstanding or misjudgments in the process of international interaction with Beijing and the HKSAR government to the detriment of all parties, eventually.
Instead of listening to biased comments such as the ones peddled by the likes of the Wall Street Journal, the international community should maintain cordial interactions with the SAR government so as to better understand what Hong Kong is going through.
The author is senior research officer of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.