| 当代中国政治研究所 | ||||||||||
| Http://www.ccpri.com | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
'HK independence' an empty argument |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Zhu Yucheng, former director of the Institute of Hong Kong and Macao Affairs under the Development Research Center of the State Council, pointed out in May 2004 that there were people seeking "independence" or "semi-independence" for Hong Kong. Right afterward, even those Hongkongers who held stereotypical views of the mainland were quick to clarify that no one in Hong Kong wanted to make the region independent. At that time, "Hong Kong independence" was a topic that the local people wanted to avoid. However, only 12 years later, this topic is being publicly discussed, and some locals even shouted extreme slogans. "Hong Kong independence" is a very dangerous trend of thought, even though it is a false proposition. People who call for "Hong Kong independence" explain that they want the region to be administered by people in Hong Kong and for Hong Kong to have autonomy, rather than real "independence." One interpretation of their argument is that they want Hong Kong's real autonomy within the "one-China" framework, which means it's actually a problem between the central government and the government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). This problem cannot be solved by extreme slogans. Hong Kong is a society with rule of law, and problems within Hong Kong should be resolved according to the law. The slogan of "Hong Kong independence" has seriously violated the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR. Even their argument about the central government's "intervention" is baseless. If we look back at the last 15 years since Hong Kong's return, we would find that the central government, under the principle of "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy, barely interferes in the SAR's affairs. People who clamor for "Hong Kong independence" may also argue that the central government's judicial interpretations of the Basic Law are interventions of Hong Kong's judicial independence. This goes against common sense. A high degree of autonomy is not equal to full autonomy. Hong Kong is a special administrative region, not an independent political entity. If these people want full autonomy, their appeal fundamentally conflicts with the logic of "one country, two systems." After Hong Kong's return to China, it seems that some Hongkongers ignore the basic fact that as a part of China, Hong Kong should undertake basic political responsibility toward the country. The central government always tries its best to maintain Hong Kong's long-term prosperity and stability. It's a mistake to maliciously misinterpret this well-intentioned purpose and view it as intervention. Some believe the argument for "Hong Kong independence" is caused by Hongkongers' nostalgic but delusional feelings. Some argue that it is a reflection of Hongkongers' weak sense of national identity. Others think that it shows Hongkongers' discontent with the SAR government. If these analyses are the argument for "Hong Kong independence," they can all be resolved through joint efforts by the central government, the Hong Kong SAR government and the people of Hong Kong. Hongkongers do have a local consciousness. But among the populace, those seeking "Hong Kong independence" are a minority, and this will never become mainstream thought in Hong Kong society. However, we should be cautious about this farce because external forces may become involved and make use of it. Hong Kong is a society with a high degree of freedom. The policy of "one country, two systems" enables the continuity of this freedom. No Chinese people, including Hongkongers, will tolerate those making use of Hong Kong's free environment to split the country. Actions of splitting sovereignty will never be forgiven, and the painful memory of national disintegration in history still lingers among Chinese today. The author is deputy director of the Contemporary Chinese Politics Research Institute of Shenzhen University |
||||||||||
