On the 25th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to the motherland, national flags and regional flags of all sizes appeared on the streets, as well as celebratory slogans. I believe this is related to the fact that many people believe that the 25th anniversary is the halfway point b

[Text/Observer.com columnist Shao Shanbo]

On the 325th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to the motherland, national flags and regional flags of all sizes appeared in the streets and alleys, as well as celebratory slogans. The festive atmosphere of on the anniversary of Hong Kong's return to the motherland has never been so lively. I believe this is related to the fact that many people believe that the 25th anniversary is the halfway point between the central government's commitment to Hong Kong's ", one country, two systems, " and "unchanged for 50 years," so it deserves a special celebration.

Some people use this as the end of the "first half" and the beginning of the "second half" to highlight the special significance of this commemorative event. The vague reason behind this, of course, also means bidding farewell to Hong Kong's past ten or twenty years of instability and noisy, and welcoming a new chapter in the future. "New chapter" is also the "start of work" slogan of the new government. After the "black violence" incident in 2019, Hong Kong immediately fell into nearly three years of COVID-19 prevention and anti-epidemic work. It is understandable that everyone takes this day to be happy and relax.

The national flag and regional flag are flying on the streets of Hong Kong (Photo source: ICphoto)

Friends from the Mainland pay attention to completely different points and angles. From about the so-called "Occupy Central" incident in 2014 to the "Black Riot" incident in 2019, mainlanders' impressions and feelings about Hong Kong have undergone subversive changes. In the past, they generally had a good feeling towards Hong Kong. Just like the Cantonese songs and TV dramas they grew up with; but now not only is the cordial and beautiful impression of the past gone, but because of the emergence of some voices and behaviors that slander and exclude mainlanders in Hong Kong, the relationship between the two places has completely changed. upside down. For me, this is the biggest regret in 25 years. The "anti-extradition bill movement" in 2019 eventually evolved into street riots and various online and offline terrorist acts, revealing another side of Hong Kong that no one could foresee. On the occasion of the commemoration of the handover, everyone should also reflect on what problems happened in Hong Kong after the handover. In the 25 years since the handover, what have we done right and what have we done wrong?

Implementing the "one country, two systems" policy in Hong Kong is a complicated matter. But the coexistence of two systems in one country is not an unprecedented new thing. In the appendix of his "15 Years of Wanli" (Business Bookstore Edition), historian Huang Renyu lists four examples of one country, two systems that have appeared in China and abroad, including: The Netherlands Under one country, the differences between multiple cities system; the two legal systems that coexisted in the United Kingdom; the two different economic systems in the north and the south before the American Civil War; and the different tax systems that China adopted for nomadic areas and southern farming areas during the Liao Dynasty. Although these examples are not quite the same as those in Hong Kong, they are generally similar in nature.

25 years have passed, which should actually include the 15 years before the handover. It is not easy to summarize our gains and losses in handling Hong Kong issues over the past 40 years. Here I would like to select a few past events that I have personally experienced to discuss with you.

"Stay unchanged if it can be done", but it has still changed a lot

At the critical moment in dealing with Hong Kong issues, Director Ji Pengfei replaced Liao Chengzhi, who had long led Hong Kong affairs, and he presided over the work in this area until the handover in 1997. Director Ji Pengfei has a famous saying about Hong Kong's transitional arrangements: "If it can be maintained, it will remain unchanged." A major issue faced by the central government at that time was how to maintain the stability of Hong Kong society amidst such great changes.

I wrote some opinions on this general principle and handed it in. Later I learned that the Secretariat of the Basic Law Drafting Committee regarded it as an internal opinion and sent it to the drafting committee members for reference. But I never fully realized the importance and influence of this sentence, and the extent to which "unchangedness" can be reached. An example is the SAR government team on July 1, 1997. Except for Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and Secretary for Justice Leung Elsie, all officials from the previous British rule period, including those with obvious backgrounds from the British MI6, all remained in office. I believe this was also a great surprise to the British. If the British had not insisted on a British Secretary for Justice until the last day, the original Secretary for Justice might have remained in office.

After 1997, Hong Kong not only continued to run and dance, but the entire government structure and personnel basically remained unchanged. It "overfulfilled" Director Ji Pengfei's instruction of "unchanging it if it can be done". But we have forgotten that the cornerstone of these structures, that is, the method of selecting personnel, has completely changed. This is the introduction of electoral politics. Hong Kong's top leaders, the former British Governor, the Chief Executive after the handover, and members of the legislative body have all been elected instead of appointed. This is the single biggest reason why Hong Kong will be highly politicized and socially divided in the future. But to this day, many people still don't understand why Hong Kong, which was originally a society that focused on economics and talked little about politics, turned into a highly politicized and divided society after the handover.

Some business people in Hong Kong had reservations about the introduction of electoral politics. However, the British, following their usual pre-retreat approach, vigorously promoted electoral politics in Hong Kong in the early 1980s. Therefore, such different opinions were rarely expressed in public. At that time, Beijing was in the midst of reform and opening up and looking toward the West, and many people believed that elections were a matter of course. The lack of understanding of electoral politics is a major reason for Hong Kong's governance difficulties and social unrest before and after the handover, although the central government has adopted a cautious attitude in the introduction process. Last year, the central government took action to significantly revise Hong Kong's electoral methods and bring the situation under control. However, what role electoral politics should play in Hong Kong's political ecology and how to control its various negative impacts are still a question to be answered. Problems to be investigated and solved.

"To intervene or not to intervene?", or to intervene

Since the so-called "Hong Kong issue" emerged (we don't call it "Hong Kong's future issue", because Hong Kong's future - returning to China, has never been a problem.), "Intervention", that is, the central government's involvement in Hong Kong affairs, has become a very sensitive term. Considerations on this issue are closely linked to every aspect of the central government's formulation of Hong Kong policies.

In the special context of the late 1980s and early 1990s, in response to the worries and concerns of Hong Kong people, General Secretary Jiang Zemin put forward the saying that "well water does not offend the river, and river water does not offend the well" to calm people's minds. After the handover, the central government also had a detached view of "nothing but good management" regarding Hong Kong affairs. After the demonstrations against the "23 Legislation Articles" of the Basic Law in 2003, the central government's relevant statement was adjusted to "non-intervention, but making a difference." The central government has begun to realize that it still needs to take action on Hong Kong affairs. After the "black violence" incident in 2019, the central government made great efforts to formulate a national security law for Hong Kong, revised the election methods, and improved the electoral system. This can be said to be uncharacteristically intervening in Hong Kong affairs, and the reasons are obvious. Those who object will continue to oppose, but the vast majority of Hong Kong people accept these measures of the central government and understand that the situation that occurred in 2019 can only be solved by the central government and restore stability to Hong Kong.

In fact, this situation has long been foreseen by Comrade Deng Xiaoping. When he talked about this issue in 1983, he said: "...The other thing is that some people are worried about intervention. We cannot worry about intervention in general. Some interventions are necessary. It depends on whether these interventions are beneficial to the interests of Hong Kong people and beneficial to the interests of Hong Kong people. Hong Kong's prosperity and stability will still harm the interests of Hong Kong people and Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. I am confident that it will not have such destructive power. It may come from this aspect, or it may come from that aspect. If there is unrest, the central government will intervene. Should such intervention be welcomed or rejected? So everything must be analyzed in detail. He said: "One is afraid of change, and the other is afraid of intervention. What else are you afraid of? Some people say they are afraid of chaos. If there is chaos, intervention is necessary. Not only the central government needs to intervene, but also the people of Hong Kong. There will always be people who make trouble, but we must not let them It has become a climate."

Under "one country, two systems", the central government has always had considerable roles, powers and responsibilities in the governance of Hong Kong.Whether the central government intervenes or not depends solely on whether it is necessary and whether it is beneficial to Hong Kong. The actions taken by the central government in the past two years are not without precedent. When the dispute over Hong Kong's permanent resident status arose shortly after the handover, the central government took the initiative to interpret the relevant provisions of the Basic Law and corrected the erroneous judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, thus preventing Hong Kong from a disastrous outcome. At that time, society was also There was a lot of controversy, especially from the legal profession. After more than 20 years of entanglement and disputes over the issue of intervention or non-intervention, I sincerely hope that Hong Kong people can have a more rational and positive understanding of the central government's role in Hong Kong affairs.

50 years of no change, but 50 years is not a "period"

Hong Kong's celebration of the 25th anniversary of its return to the motherland is considered by many to be the midpoint of the promise of "50 years of no change", so it has special significance and should be celebrated. There are also people like Tian Feilong teacher of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, who proposed the concept of "first half" and "second half" to set an "end period" for the life of Hong Kong's "one country, two systems". It seems that based on this logic, In 2047, Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" will come to an end.

Shen Chunyao, director of the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and director of the Basic Law Committee, said at the recent seminar on "The Development and Future of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy": "The practice of 'One Country, Two Systems' has gone through 25 years in Hong Kong. To commemorate Hong Kong's special On the 25th anniversary of the founding of the administrative district, when people look back on history, they will naturally think about today, the future, and what will happen in the next 25 years. In fact, '50 years' is just a figurative way of saying it, and it will not change after 50 years. It cannot be changed, and there will be no need to change after 50 years.' As long as we always firmly believe in 'one country, two systems', the vitality and superiority of 'one country, two systems' will continue to be fully demonstrated, and 'one country, two systems' will have lasting vitality and unique Superiority." Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of

, also said in March: "No change for 50 years" is a philosophical concept, not a number.

These statements point out that the promise of "no change for 50 years" does not make 2047 the "end period" of "one country, two systems".

Comrade Deng Xiaoping also clearly responded to this issue many times back then. At that time, he said: "In order to achieve our development strategic goals, we must be more open. In this case, how can we change our policy towards Hong Kong? In fact, fifty years is just a figurative way of saying it, and it will not change after fifty years." You can’t change it in the first fifty years, but you don’t need to change it after fifty years.”

Director Xia and Director Shen repeated Deng Xiaoping’s words almost 40 years later. As long as "one country, two systems" proves to be successful, effective, and popular based on practical experience and practical effects, the vitality and superiority of "one country, two systems" will continue to be fully demonstrated, and the cause of "one country, two systems" will surely be stable. Zhiyuan. This is what the official has long said about the "50-year unchanged commitment", but it seems that this does not solve some people's confusion.

First of all, how did these "50 years" come about?

When the British raised the Hong Kong issue to us in 1979, we were not fully mentally prepared. As far as I know, the country had just recovered from the impact of the "Cultural Revolution" and was preparing to implement the major national policy of reform and opening up. The "Hong Kong issue" was not included as an urgent issue because China had long ago announced that it would not recognize all relations with China. The unequal treaties signed by foreign countries are naturally included in the three unequal treaties involving Hong Kong. Therefore, in our eyes, 1997 is not the "date of expiration of the treaty". But with the British side's constant explanations and lobbying, we have to face this problem.

In 1985, China and Britain exchanged the Letter of Approval of the Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong in Beijing; then China’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Zhou Nan (front, second from right) and British Ambassador to China Evans (front, second from left) were in the certificate Sign on.(Picture source: Internet)

The original negotiation strategy of the British side on the Hong Kong issue was to "exchange sovereignty for governance rights", that is, the British agreed to hand back the sovereignty of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula (they believed that according to the treaty, this was already done) ceded to them) in exchange for maintaining jurisdiction over the entire Hong Kong, including New Kowloon (i.e. north of Boundary Street) and the New Territories . There were different opinions on the deadline of 25 or 30 years. This seems very naive and ridiculous now, but at that time the British believed that China was working hard to develop the economy and restore social order. Hong Kong was very important to China. It was impossible for us to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong without the British factor. According to the internal deployment of the British government, the Hong Kong issue was originally supposed to be raised with China 25 years before 1997, that is, in 1972. However, China's political situation was still not stable and clear in 1972, so the British delayed the proposal to Beijing until 1979 by Governor-General MacLehose.

It is obvious that Britain completely misjudged China. Against this background, Comrade Deng Xiaoping generously proposed "guaranteing no changes for 50 years" to resolve this problem. It was a stroke of genius.

Today, for the same reason, the time point of 2047 has replaced 1997 and has once again become a factor of unrest in Hong Kong society. This is a problem that many people would not have thought of, and even if they had thought of it, they would not have thought it would come so quickly.

According to the official statement, "No changes can be made in the first fifty years, and there is no need to change after fifty years." However, many people believe that the "one country, two systems" policy will end in another 25 years. " The promise of "remaining unchanged" will lose its international guarantee. If there are no supplementary actions, it will also lose the guarantee within the Basic Law. The fundamental issue that Hong Kong people (and some outsiders related to Hong Kong) worry about is that "one country, two systems" will automatically lose some guarantees after 2047. Therefore, I believe that Hong Kong’s celebration of the handover this year should not be related to the “50th anniversary” and “half-time” - the past 25 years are not the first half, and the next 25 years will not be the second half - these statements have no basis in reality. It will affect some people's confidence in Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" to a certain extent and cause unnecessary anxiety and social unrest.

The policy of "one country, two systems" was first proposed in response to the Taiwan issue in the 1970s. At the beginning of 2019, President Xi also proposed to study the "one country, two systems" Taiwan plan. The policy of "one country, two systems" is a long-term strategic concept of the country. For Hong Kong and Macao, it is a continuation of the original basic policy of "long-term planning and full utilization" of Hong Kong and Macao issues. In the face of major changes unseen in a century, maintaining the economic and social systems and lifestyles of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan for a long time has its own special significance and role as a buffer zone and supplementary zone for the country. How we make a clear, long-term, and stable statement on such strategic thinking is another challenge we face. Ultimately, this is still a question of confidence.

"Two systems" has never been the cause of the problem

Many people think that "one country, two systems" is a concept full of contradictions. It is difficult for the "two systems" to coexist, reconcile, interact and cooperate. "Two systems" Conflict is inevitable. The reason behind it is that China is a socialist country that adheres to the Four Basic Principles, while Hong Kong is a typical capitalist society . Because of the differences in the "two systems", many specific policy issues will form opposition. If we carefully review the experience of the past 25 years, although there are many problems that have arisen in the process, when we analyze each case in detail, we will see that the cause is not at all due to the conflict between the "two systems". Or to put it more accurately, the conflicts and problems that arise between the mainland and Hong Kong have nothing to do with differences in systems.

Take the central government's legislation for Hong Kong to safeguard national security as an example. Every country has such laws. This is not a question of socialism or capitalism. If you compare the current version of the National Security Law with the relevant laws before Hong Kong's return to the motherland, it is by no means more severe and harsh than the original laws. It can be said in a nutshell that the claim that the problems that have arisen since Hong Kong's return to the motherland stem from the conflict between the "two systems" has no factual basis.

Image source: Visual China

In the process of implementing "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, whether it is the interpretation of the law by the National People's Congress, various relevant resolutions made by the National People's Congress, the establishment of a national security law for Hong Kong, and the modification of Hong Kong's electoral system, it is the state that implements itself powers to deal with some situations and problems that arise in Hong Kong. This is not a conflict between the "two systems", nor a conflict between the two systems of socialism and capitalism, nor a conflict between the national system and the Hong Kong system. This is just a matter of some people not understanding, having different opinions, or not accepting the central government's approach to handling Hong Kong affairs. Elevating these contradictions, problems, and controversies into institutional disputes is purely exaggeration, distortion, and sensationalism and has no factual basis. The central government's approach to handling certain situations in Hong Kong is no different from how a unitary country handles its domestic local affairs.

The 25th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to the motherland is an important day. If we roughly summarize the experience of the past 25 years, the practice of "one country, two systems" is a continuous effort, constant exploration, and many experiments. It is the adaptation of Hong Kong people to living under the national system. It is a process in which Hong Kong people abandon their life experience under British rule and learn to live in the big family of China. This kind of exploration, experimentation and adaptation will not go backwards or stop in the future, but will go further and become more mature and stable based on the continuous deepening of experience and understanding accumulated by the central government and compatriots across the country over the past 40 years. , with the efforts of all parties, we will work together to create a brighter future for Hong Kong.

This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer.com. The content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's opinion. It may not be reproduced without authorization, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observer.com on WeChat guanchacn and read interesting articles every day.