You are here: China > Government > SCIO Briefings >

SCIO briefing on 'Hong Kong: Democratic Progress Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems' white paper

: 0 Comment(s)Print E-mail China.org.cn, December 30, 2021

Adjust font size:

Global Times:

Following the LegCo election in Hong Kong, we noticed that the G7, the EU and the Five Eyes have all expressed their concerns and worries over the democratic development and electoral system in Hong Kong. They alleged that the new electoral system has undermined Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy under the policy of One Country, Two Systems, and that the central government shows no respect to the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. What's your opinion on this? Thank you.

Wang Zhenmin:

I really have no idea what they are worried about. We make Hong Kong better. Is this what they are worried about? Doesn't everyone in Hong Kong and the mainland expect to make Hong Kong better? This is even what the world expects. People in Hong Kong, the mainland and the world at large all expect Hong Kong to get better. If there are worries over this, I think such worries are unnecessary and driven by ulterior motives.

For a long time, some politicians in the West have believed that there is only one model of democracy in the world, namely, the democracy they are practicing. They cannot allow any other models of democracy. However, as a matter of fact, they practice different models of democracy in the West. Is the democracy in Britain the same as that in the U.S. or in France? They are different. They have their own democratic and electoral systems. Why can't they allow Hong Kong to have its own democratic system? This resonates with what Mr. Deng Xiaoping said in the past, that the old colonial mentality and Western-centric theories are haunting them, reflecting their pride and prejudice.

The democratic development in Hong Kong has its own reality and conditions, and it needs to solve Hong Kong's problems. In judging Hong Kong's democracy, we cannot say it is good when it is similar to or the same as the democracy of some country, or bad when it is different. We should take into account whether Hong Kong's democratic system can solve the problems of the people of Hong Kong and if the system has its own logic and ground. It is itself violating democratic principles for those politicians to promote and impose Western-style democracy against the will of others. Why can't we run our own affairs and make our own decisions? Why do you want to choose a system of democracy for us? We are running our own affairs and do not need carping and irresponsible remarks from others. We are not making decisions for you, and we never interfere with what systems and models of democracy other countries choose.

Professor Han and I both study constitution-related issues. In the past, academia often portrayed Western democracy nicely. But over these years, seeing the reality, more and more people no longer admire or worship it. The West still thinks that they occupy the highland of global democracy, superior to all others, and they can point fingers at the democracy of other countries and regions. But things changed a long time ago. Serious problems have been adequately exposed in their democratic practices. Their system is hypocritical and dangerous, with deep-rooted downside, not perfect at all, which has been exposed in front of the world for a long time. These years, they have been facing severe failure in internal governance, becoming examples of failed democracy rather than examples of thriving democracy. In particular, after the presidential election in the United States last year, we saw the American public occupy Capitol Hill. That was a "Beautiful Sight to Behold." Of course, if similar incidents happen in other places, the United States will offer criticism, saying things are out of order in those places. But when it happened in the United States, they argued that their democracy was perfect. This showed typical "double standards." Such democracy and chaos are witnessed and disdained by people worldwide. But they still peddle it to other countries and regions. These years, we have seen them make all efforts to tout their democracy, and how is the result? We have seen disasters threaten places where their democratic system has been forced. We have seen tragedies, relentless wars, and broken families in those places. They are reflecting on and reforming such democracy themselves, then why do they want to sell it in Hong Kong and other places? It is increasingly clear that their democracy doesn't mean people being the masters of the country. Taking a serious look into it, I don't think they will let the people be the masters of the country, like what the U.S. Constitution says - "We the people…" Because in that way, capitalists will have nowhere to be. Can they let the "one person, one vote" system make the decisions? Not possible. Then who are the masters? The politicians, the capital, and the money. The people, though, are shrouded and beguiled by the noise of democracy. So, we wonder that, after how many U.S. governments will the issues of poverty, wealth gap, and deep-rooted racial discrimination be tackled in the country? In more than 200 years, have these issues been solved? Are things improving or getting worse? Of course, as democracy deepens, these problems should have been better tackled. But they are not solved but worsened, which means something is going wrong with the system. In the democratic systems of such countries, the reality is that politicians hold money in one hand and ballots in the other. Where are the people? Can you see the people? When elections take place, people are God. Politicians beg voters for their ballots. But where are the people when elections finish? No one knows. Is there anyone serving the people? There is a saying that, you cannot see beautiful spring days when your eyes are closed, and people won't be able to see the mud on your legs if you keep standing in the water. Two elections have shown how the new democratic electoral system works in Hong Kong, and I believe future practices will continue to testify to its effectiveness. This is a success of democracy, benefiting local people and improving their wellbeing. There is no more chaos, "black terror," attempts for "mutual destruction," and filibusters. There is no more betraying one's own country for personal gains. And there is no more acting against China and creating disturbances in Hong Kong. The central government and local people have the most significant say in such important issue as the democratic development in Hong Kong. It is not something for foreign politicians to make comments on. We shall firmly follow our political system. Thank you.