MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, the constitutional reform package was eventually voted down and the disputes over the reform have actually sapped the community as a whole. Over the past two years, Hong Kong has focused its attention on politics while livelihood problems have been neglected. Our society has been relying on the past strengths and Hong Kong’s competitiveness is on the decline. I would like to remind Hong Kong people that we should never allow our economy and people’s livelihood to be adversely affected by politics. We have seen in recent years cases of many regions engaging in fierce political struggles to the neglect of economic development and people’s livelihood; consequently, society as a whole, particularly young people, suffer enormously. Hong Kong should not follow their footsteps. Fortunately, recently there are many voices in the community requesting us to redirect our attention on people’s livelihood, and there are proposals of capitalizing on the opportunities brought about by the “One Belt One Road” initiated by the Central Government, hoping that our economy can move back to the right track.
While I think that economy and people’s livelihood are our most pressing tasks, there are certain basic problems which definitely require clarification and that is, the meaning of “one country, two systems”. Recently, there are signs of deliberate misinterpretations of the meaning of “one country, two systems”, leading the society onto a crooked path. If this situation continues, it is highly likely that new conflicts may emerge and by then, Hong Kong will never have a day of peace.
The basic meaning of “one country, two systems” is the existence of two systems in one country. It is stated in the Basic Law that “the socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years”. However, it is also explicitly provided that Hong Kong shall be a local administrative region which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People’s Government, and it is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China.
As a general understanding, Hong Kong implements a system different from that of the Mainland within the same country, and it enjoys a high degree of autonomy. There are altogether three elements in question, namely “one country, two systems and a high degree of autonomy”. According to the provisions in the Basic Law as well as the advice of the then Basic Law drafters and legal scholars, the three elements of “one country, two systems and a high degree of autonomy” are equally important. However, today some people interpret the meaning of “one country, two systems” from different angles. They have on the one hand incessantly exaggerated the importance of “two systems”, but intentionally or inadvertently neglected “one country” on the other. They have even interpreted a “high degree of autonomy” as a concept similar to “absolute autonomy”, which not only distorts the Basic Law, but also gives rise to social conflicts and disputes.
Although it has been nearly 18 years since the reunification of Hong Kong, many Hong Kong people still lack an in-depth understanding of the Basic Law, and they also lack a thorough understanding of the Central Authorities. This being the case, when somebody brings up the idea of “attaching importance to two systems and belittling one country”, it easily draws the support of the people, in particular young people who are discontented with society. As a matter of fact, in recent years, some people have persistently distorted the meaning of “one country, two systems” in an attempt to interpret “a high degree of autonomy” as “absolute autonomy”, which has intentionally or inadvertently provoked the feelings of some radicals and stirred up various social conflicts. This is by no means conducive to society. The mainstream opinion in society will not support this kind of radical thoughts because such behaviours are actually playing with fire.
It is most worrying that such extreme and radical ideology has emerged in society. Some days ago, the Police detected a bomb-making case. It was suspected that a radical organization claimed to be the “National Independent Party” planned to initiate a bomb attack at a time when the constitutional reform package was put to vote. As the case is currently under investigation, we are not in a position to make too much comment. I have no idea whether this is an organized act to promote “Hong Kong independence” or simply an isolated incident. In any case, Hong Kong people should stay alert. Though such extreme ideology or acts of “Hong Kong independence” may only involve a handful of people, the whole society of Hong Kong may be affected when the poison sets in. I believe the vast majority of the people will not support this kind of radical act. For those people aspiring to democracy, they only want to pursue freedom and happiness, rather than deal a blow to the stability and prosperity of society.
Nowadays, the widespread of distorted remarks on the Basic Law is attributed to the fact that many people have little knowledge about the Basic Law and can thus be easily exploited. Many people interpret the Basic Law arbitrarily with their own preconceived ideas. They have imposed their own thoughts on the interpretation of the Basic Law, trying by all means to exploit the textual loopholes. Hence, there is a significant discrepancy between their perceived Basic Law and the genuine Basic Law. In fact, there are authoritative interpretations of the Basic Law and we are not allowed to make casual remarks. In my view, the Government should accord top priority in stepping up the publicity of the Basic Law in order to rectify the mistakes, so as to facilitate Hong Kong people’s understanding of the true meaning of the Basic Law provisions, and stop certain people from interpreting the Basic Law arbitrarily.
I so submit.