LettersWhat’s wrong with Hongkongers protesting under ‘one country, two systems’?

The millions of peaceful protesters are merely exercising their right to improve society, there is no infringement on ‘one country’

They are carrying out their duty as citizens to speak up, compelled by love for their homeland. There is no reason they should exit Hong Kong

2-MIN READ2-MIN

Thousands of mostly elderly Hongkongers march in support of young anti-extradition protesters, calling for the withdrawal of the extradition bill and demanding universal suffrage, in Hong Kong on July 17. Photo: Winson Wong

Published: 8:00am, 24 Jul 2019Updated: 2:05pm, 24 Jul 2019

The purpose of the protests in Hong Kong is to effect changes to make one of the two arrangements under “one country, two systems” a better system to live in – at least in the minds of the protesters. This in itself does not contradict one country, two systems. The vast majority of protesters bear no opposition to “one country” – they merely seek to “improve” the society in which they live.

One can debate the merits of what they see as “improvement” but, being members of society, they certainly have the right and the duty to voice their opinions and feelings, within the framework of one country, two systems, however flawed their view may seem to their opponents.

The two arrangements need not be the same, or else there would be no point in “two systems” in the first place. Neither should one system be 100 per cent dictated by the other system, in which case the dictating system is by default the only system. Within this context, protests against one of the two systems cannot be regarded as infringing on “one country”.

Certainly there must be some validity in some version of the proposed changes to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance that should present a workable solution. However, this Fugitive Offenders Ordinance issue itself seems to have long lost its relevance. The protests have grown to be more about the arrogance, and the deaf ear, of the present administration. And yes, specifically the chief executive. Even within the “one country” framework, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s attitude need not have been so abrasive and in your face as to announce that the ordinance would be put on a fast track while the first million-strong march was still underway on June 9.

Some of your readers advocate that the millions of peaceful protesters who carried out their duty as citizens to speak up, compelled by the love of their homeland, should exit Hong Kong (“Can’t accept ‘one country’ in Hong Kong? Head for the exits”, July 18).

Those hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rioters that participated in violence, and those that do not accept “one country” – maybe. The millions of peaceful protesters or marchers? Pure nonsense.

Tenny Doone, Palo Alto, California