CCP: world needs to relearn what ‘one country, two systems’ is all about

From CCP Media:

Tomorrow is the 23rd anniversary of the inauguration of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. According to Mr. Shih Wing-ching, Hong Kong should consider 2020 as the year of the second return of Hong Kong to China. In an RTHK interview that aired earlier, he said that the first return of Hong Kong to the motherland cannot be said to be successful. Hong Kong needs a second return to China. He is right. But why was the first return of Hong Kong to China not successful?


The European Parliament on June 19 condemned China’s new national security law for Hong Kong as a “comprehensive assault” on the territory’s freedom and demanded that the EU prepare sanctions. This shows that many members of the European Parliament do not know what the “one country, two systems” principle is all about. Most observers would understand why the US criticized the National People’s Congress Standing Committee proposal to introduce the national security law in Hong Kong. In an interview, Steven Mosher, a founding member of the Committee on the Present Danger: China, said that this relaunch of the former Committee on the Present Danger was to replicate what it had achieved with the former Soviet Union. Thus, the US is intent on breaking up China. Moreover, there is concrete evidence that the US government has been funding the protests that have been going on in Hong Kong. So it is not surprising at all that the US Senate quickly passed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act last week in order to bolster the spirit of the secessionists in Hong Kong.


It is unfortunate that many critics of China do not do their homework. If they would do their homework, they would know that many demands of Hong Kong’s protesters since 2013 directly challenge the rule of law, the foundation of the Basic Law, and the foundation of “one country, two systems”.


The secessionists today want Hong Kong to be a separate state. This contravenes the preamble of the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which recognizes China’s resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. Does the European Parliament know this?
The secessionists claim that Beijing violated its promise of universal suffrage to elect the Hong Kong chief executive. This is simply untrue. In 2014, the SAR government offered a political reform package that allowed “one man, one vote” for election of the chief executive. It was rejected.


The secessionists claim the political reform package was not genuine democracy because the candidates had to be nominated by the Nominating Committee. But they should know that this requirement is clearly stated in the Basic Law, which became law after years of public consultation. The Basic Law spells out Hong Kong’s rights and obligations and is the foundation of “one country, two systems”.


The protesters want the government to drop all charges against those arrested for various offenses. Would any of the European countries drop charges if protesters were arrested for arson, vandalism, aggravated assault, attempted murder, etc.?


In December, Fitch Ratings said Hong Kong’s economic outlook continued to deteriorate following six months of street protests, and that persistent unrest put the city’s business reputation and environment at risk. Although the outbreak of COVID-19 led to a reprieve, the protesters returned as soon as there were signs the epidemic was under control.


It is sad that so many youngsters were arrested for various crimes related to the protests. As the secretary of education said, this is heartbreaking. But it is no use lamenting the damage that has been done. It is imperative that all stakeholders work together to contain the damage.


If the US can be so anxious about national security and will do so much to protect national security, it should understand China’s need for national security.


While the national security law addresses Hong Kong’s immediate needs, it is time for Hong Kong’s youngsters to learn more about the real China and about “one country, two systems”.


Actually, China’s rule of law is not as bad as it is often portrayed. Let us look at three indicators from the 2020 World Justice Project report: China’s ranking in civil justice, China’s ranking in criminal justice, and China’s ranking in absence of corruption are all at least in the median among 128 countries or territories.
The overall ranking of China’s rule of law index has been bogged down by poor rankings on “Constraints on Government Powers”, “Open Government”, and “Fundamental Rights.”


To Beijing, personal safety and freedom from hunger and poverty are more important than the right to vote. The interpretation of what constitutes fundamental rights is culture-bound.


Many critics don’t realize that constraints on government powers on the mainland exist, and they are working fine. The constraints are self-imposed through a culture of service to people and internal control.


The first return of Hong Kong to China failed because our youngsters had been fed too much disinformation. The second return requires much relearning: not with indoctrination and dogma, but with facts about the Basic Law and about the challenges that China faces. Only with an accurate understanding of China and the Basic Law can there be a successful second return of Hong Kong to the motherland.

Lam: HK will help central govt on counterattacks

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor on Tuesday said the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will not flinch from any sanctions by the US and will actively cooperate with the central government on any counterattacks if necessary.

Lam was responding to US sanctions to revoke Hong Kong’s special trade status, announced by the US Department of Commerce.

From now on, Hong Kong would be required to apply for an export license should it wish to buy certain types of civilian-military dual use technologies.

Lam said the impact of the sanctions, though still under evaluation, would be little, as alternatives could be found for these technologies.

Lam said the special administrative region government has been evaluating the impact of sanctions for some time, as some people in Hong Kong have constantly begged for sanctions.

And it doesn’t mean that Hong Kong can’t buy them; the sanctions only make the purchasing more inconvenient, she added.

In fact, Hong Kong has little manufacturing, with most facilities already relocated to the Chinese mainland, where such restrictions are already in place, she added.

She stressed that the US has enjoyed a trade surplus as high as an average of $30 billion every year with Hong Kong, the highest among its trade partners.

Source: China Daily

1+
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments