當年今日
關於我們

‘One Country, Two Systems’ has become an absurdist play | Chung Kim-wah

蘋果日報 2021/03/05 09:29


Back in the 1980s, when China and Britain began negotiating on the future of Hong Kong, the biggest question was whether “One Country, Two Systems” would be successfully implemented. The question mattered not just to Hong Kong’s future and development. Some people thought that if “One Country, Two Systems” succeeded, it could be a model for Taiwan as well, and that would make the unification of the Greater China possible. Some people also believed that, concerning the question of whether a Chinese society could progress into civilized politics, the development of Hong Kong after 1997 would also be an important touchstone.
Hong Kong began to have elections in the early 1980s. They included not only District Council elections (which were open to all citizens), but also Legislative Council ones including Functional Constituency elections (indirect elections that were gradually being opened up) and direct Geographical Constituency elections. Back then Taiwan was still under martial law, and China was slowly emerging from the trauma of the Cultural Revolution. At that stage, the political development of Hong Kong society seemed to provide another possibility outside of those of China and Taiwan. With the lifting of Taiwan’s martial law and China’s economic reform and opening up, could Hong Kong’s “One Country, Two Systems” after 1997 really become the link between China, Hong Kong and Taiwan?
Today, not even halfway into the promised shelf life of the “One Country, Two Systems” experiment, it seems that the dream is shattered. But who turned the supposedly sweet dream into such a nightmare? It is now a joke, which is bound to become another absurdist play in Chinese history. In mid-2020, Beijing enacted the “National Security Law in Hong Kong”, saying that It was determined to “resolve the problems of Hong Kong completely”. While there are no “ifs” in history, the so-called problems facing Hong Kong today might not have happened at all if the Beijing authorities had strictly adhered to the promise it made to Hong Kong people in the 1980s and 1990s, and allowed Hong Kong to become a democracy with universal suffrage in 2007 (ten years after Hong Kong’s handover) in strict accordance with the time table and procedure stipulated in the Basic Law.

National security is a false proposition

Even after the Tung Chee-hwa administration tried in 2003 to enact “national security law” legislation that harmed the values of Hong Kong, which resulted in a mass demonstration attended by 500,000 people (because of which the Hong Kong government ultimately backed down), Hong Kong people’s confidence in one country, two systems was not dashed. According to surveys conducted by the Public Opinion Program of the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong people’s trust in Beijing continued to rise between 2003 and 2008. In 2008, there were even more Hong Kong people who identified themselves as “Chinese” than those as “Hong Kong people”.
Then Beijing, in disregard of the Basic Law, changed the 3-step procedure for constitutional reform (which gave Hong Kong people a say in the issue after 2007) into a 5-step procedure that gives Beijing the initiative. The Umbrella Movement broke out in 2014 as a result, followed by the Anti-extradition Movement in 2019. Now Beijing claims that Hong Kong people’s democratic protests and demands endanger national security. Beijing’s total control is emphasized, and a law has been introduced in the name of “national security”. To call a spade a spade, Beijing simply wants to completely get rid of “One Country, Two Systems”. “National security” is just a false pretext to conceal its unwillingness to fulfill its promises. From the very beginning, national security has been a false proposition. The crux of the matter is Beijing’s denial of the freedom and human rights that Hong Kong people have always enjoyed, which makes it necessary for Beijing to negate “One Country, Two Systems” and its own promises.
How Hong Kong people see the Anti-extradition Movement that began in 2019 and the responses of the Hong Kong government and even Beijing was clearly manifest in the District Council elections held on 24th November 2019. The pan-democrats and some young people with a strong sense of resistance scored a major victory. As some democrats were eager to gain a bigger say and reverse the situation in which the Legislative Council has long been dominated by pro-Beijing politicians and thus unable to reflect public opinion, coordination between the pro-democracy parties and the primary elections came into existence, as the democrats geared up for the Legislative Council elections originally scheduled for September 2020.
Such primary elections were only a mechanism for internal coordination within the pro-democracy camp. They had no legal consequences, nor were they legally binding. It was impossible to force all primary candidates to agree to and sign in confirmation of the proposition put forward by some other primary candidates. The primaries were only aimed at coordinating a divided pro-democracy camp and reducing internal strife. Seen from any perspective, it is difficult to say that the primaries posed a threat to the regime, and it is a serious exaggeration to say that they endangered national security. The pro-Beijing camp, in particular, has conducted such coordination for elections all along, and the Liaison Office has even been playing a leading role in such exercises. This is an open secret, and it has been so in the past few elections.
On 6th January this year, the Hong Kong government carried out a large-scale search for and arrest of more than 50 people who participated in and coordinated the primary elections. 47 of them have been prosecuted, all for national security crimes. This is completely unconvincing. But Beijing is clearly bent on going to the extremes to tame Hong Kong as quickly as possible. But will this work?
As shown by various surveys conducted by the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute, since the enactment of the “National Security Law for Hong Kong”, Hong Kong people’s perception of the Beijing authorities, the Hong Kong government, the Chief Executive and Hong Kong officials have not improved, but have remained in the range that categorizes them as failures. The public sentiment index, which encompasses various indicators in Hong Kong, also fell to a 23-year low late last year. At the same time, Hong Kong people’s identification with “Chinese” and “People’s Republic of China” continued to decline. What is more, those who identified themselves as “Hong Kong people” unprecedentedly dropped by 6%, meaning that more people have forsaken Hong Kong altogether. In 2020, the number of people migrating overseas also hit a 16-year high.
By employing such a brutal method to prosecute politicians who participated in the primary elections, the Hong Kong government seems to be bent on leveling baseless charges against everyone with a dissenting or critical voice. This, together with the government’s previous suppression of Radio Television Hong Kong, its prosecution of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai, and a so-called important speech that was heavily laden with rigid CCP rhetoric made by Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office in February, shows that Beijing is determined to tame Hong Kong people at all costs. As for “One Country, Two Systems”, “Hong Kong people running Hong Kong” and “a high degree of autonomy”, they do not count anymore.

Hong Kong society as a pressure cooker

Hong Kong people are obviously disgruntled. Although large-scale political mobilization and resistance are currently impossible, it is even more difficult to dispel the pent-up dissatisfaction and animosity. All opinion shows that it is difficult for the Hong Kong government to lead effectively if public sentiments are not addressed, and it will be difficult to solve the problems that have accumulated. It is uncertain when Hong Kong, a political pressure cooker, will implode.
The 1980s dream that Hong Kong would surpass China and Taiwan is drifting away. The imagined possibility of “One Country, Two Systems” is on the verge of collapse. Is it true that the Chinese society is not deserving of civilized politics? Fortunately, in the past 20 years or so, what has happened in Taiwan shines as a beacon of hope and possibility.
(Chung Kim-wah, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute)
Click here for Chinese version
We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]
Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.
The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.
---------------------------------
Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE
To download the latest version,
Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play