My Take | The real question Hong Kong must ask over ‘independence’
The city can’t be an independent state, but the issue for its residents is what degree of independence is allowed under “one country, two systems”
After the Brexit vote, CNN ran a lengthy article titled “Hong Kong’s Brexit ambitions: Could city ever be independent from China?”
One could just as well ask a similar question about Texas and the United States. Both scenarios are highly unlikely, if not impossible. Still, there are a minority of people in both places who advocate independence, so the question is not wholly irrelevant.
Unfortunately, Hong Kong’s constitutional setup after 1997 is much misunderstood. This misconception is often betrayed by the rhetorical question: How come Hong Kong people were never offered the option of independence before 1997? In a similar vein, it is sometimes mischaracterised in a sensational way as a colony under a new master. As a Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong actually enjoys a good deal of independence and sovereignty. As Nick Gordon, an occasional Post contributor once wrote: “Hong Kong and Macau have many of the trappings of sovereign states. They have their own currencies, control their own borders, issue their own passports, have their own legal systems, tax and spend as they see fit and have their own set of social and political rights.
“One could even make the argument that with their control over currencies and borders, and freedom from external or central regulation, Hong Kong and Macau have de facto sovereignty that even exceeds … some of the member states of the European Union.”