LettersHow Hong Kong’s rival political camps can make ‘one country, two systems’ work for everyone

The pro-establishment camp must perfect the art of balancing the demands of ‘one country’ with the appeal of ‘two systems’, while the pro-democracy camp must stop lobbying foreign countries

2-MIN READ2-MIN

Hong Kong police officers perform a flag-raising ceremony at the Golden Bauhinia Square in Wan Chai. Photo: Nora Tam

Published: 7:10am, 23 Apr 2020Updated: 7:10am, 23 Apr 2020

As the social unrest of last year reverberates amid the coronavirus pandemic, our society is more polarised than ever. Now, a new focal point of tension has emerged from the controversies surrounding Article 22 of the Basic Law and the central government’s “supervisory role”.

That said, it is when confrontation is at its fiercest or tension at its highest that the need to find common ground becomes more pressing than ever. I believe there are two common grounds which many may lose sight of, as a result of being distracted by the current disputes.

The first is that no party would derive pleasure from seeing the Chinese socialist system being imposed in its entirety on Hong Kong. Interconnected with this is the second common ground: “one country, two systems” is the most suitable approach to ensure that Hong Kong remains a distinctive and special city of China.

Recognition of the above common grounds sheds light on the most pragmatic way forward. Clearly, the city would be of no use to any party if it transforms into another Shenzhen. To the extent that the pro-establishment camp would prefer a Hong Kong that remains distinctive, they should act as prudent balancers between the demands of “one country” and the appeal of “two systems”.

Being a prudent balancer carries with it a twofold duty: gently resisting efforts that take away the core of the Hong Kong’s competitive advantage while promoting and nudging reasonable policies by the central government with regard to Hong Kong.

As for the pro-democracy camp, recognition of the common grounds yields the clear conclusion that all foreign lobbying efforts should cease. These campaigns only serve to provoke the central government: if all it sees is hostile efforts to undermine it, how can it be convinced of the advantages in maintaining Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy?