Is 'One Country, Two Systems' 1.0 Still Relevant? Upholding Freedom

After twenty-eight years of turmoil and the endless misinterpretation by the Chinese and Hong Kong governments, many believe that 'One Country, Two Systems' and the Basic Law are outdated and their reputations are bankrupt. The future development of Hong Kong is seen as a choice between two extremes: independence or integration with the mainland. We argue that defending Hong Kong's freedom does not require extreme independence; instead, it is sufficient to return to the original intent of 'One Country, Two Systems' and the Basic Law, and to add or emphasize the amendment of two or three articles.

Those who hold such extreme views are not without reason. Many things were originally good but have been damaged beyond repair or are at least no longer suitable for public relations. The functional constituencies of the Legislative Council are an example. The original intention of functional constituencies was to allow the Legislative Council to have representatives from different professions, reflecting the situations and opinions of various industries more effectively than direct elections by district. Chris Patten's 'New Nine Groups' allowed all members of a profession to vote for their representative, ensuring that each industry had its representative in the Legislative Council. However, after the Communist Party significantly reduced the voter base of functional constituencies to corporate votes and the votes of a minority of vested interests within the industry, the functional constituencies became a public relations disaster. Functional constituencies with a large voter base were no longer considered, and the entire system was labeled as anti-democratic and a symbol of vested interests, establishing direct elections by district as the path to democratizing the legislature, even though functional constituencies, if properly used, could achieve better democratic outcomes.

'One Country, Two Systems' has fallen into this public relations crisis. Due to years of misinterpretation and past failures, many believe that 'One Country, Two Systems' is bankrupt or was always a scam. We do not see it this way because independence or integration are extreme options. Returning to the original intent of 'One Country, Two Systems' and strictly adhering to the Basic Law is the best way to balance the interests of all parties and bring the greatest freedom to Hong Kong.

First, the Basic Law was originally a constitution that upheld freedom, judicial independence, and various freedoms, including freedom of speech. In addition to numerous provisions protecting human rights, it importantly established Hong Kong's semi-independent status, meaning that except for foreign affairs and military matters, all other affairs are decided by the Special Administrative Region itself (including the issue of universal suffrage). However, the central government has continuously engaged in covert interpretations of the Basic Law and neglected the implementation of its human rights provisions, leading to the tarnished reputation of the Basic Law and 'One Country, Two Systems'.

Moreover, while independence may seem the best option to protect Hong Kong's own interests, it is merely an idealistic notion lacking a realistic foundation. Take Taiwan as an example; despite long-term support from the United States and the natural barrier of the Taiwan Strait, and having been separated from mainland China's rule for nearly eighty years, it has not declared independence. In contrast, the option of Hong Kong's independence is not only certain to be suppressed by the Chinese Communist Party but also discouraged by Western democratic societies. We can responsibly say that returning to the original intent of 'One Country, Two Systems' and the Basic Law is the best guarantee for Hong Kong's freedom, democracy, and economic independence. This is not a step backward—because it has never been properly implemented—nor is it outdated—but rather the most suitable starting point for Hong Kong's future democracy and freedom.

For instance, the recent controversy over Li Ka-shing's sale of the Panama Canal container terminal: the Basic Law originally established private property rights:

The protection of property rights under the Hong Kong Basic Law mainly comes from the following provisions:

Article 6: This article stipulates that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong) enjoys a high degree of autonomy, including the right to protect private property under its own legal system, provided it does not violate the Basic Law. Specifically, this means Hong Kong can enact its own laws to protect property rights, and both property rights and creditor's rights should be legally protected.

Article 105: This article provides that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall protect the right of private property, including that lawful property shall not be unlawfully encroached upon, and prohibits the expropriation of property unless it is for public needs and compensation is made in accordance with legal procedures. Specifically, Article 105 states:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall protect the right of property and prohibit unlawful infringement of property.

In the case of expropriation of property, it must be for a reasonable and necessary public purpose, and compensation must be paid according to fair standards.

Article 16: This article regulates the legislative power of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, allowing Hong Kong to enact laws according to its actual situation, but the legislative process and content must not violate the requirements of the Basic Law, including the protection of property rights.

In short, Articles 6 and 105 of the Hong Kong Basic Law are the main provisions protecting property rights, emphasizing respect for and protection of private property, as well as the necessary procedures and compensation requirements for expropriation.

The Basic Law provisions generated by AI above essentially boil down to two principles: 1) Prohibition of unlawful infringement of property. That is, the rights of ownership, transfer, and income from property must be protected. 2) Even if private property is expropriated or destroyed for reasons of national security, necessary procedures (such as through the courts) and equivalent compensation (in this case, the consideration of over a hundred billion Hong Kong dollars) are required. Therefore, the Basic Law or 'One Country, Two Systems' 1.0 could protect Li Ka-shing's rights in this transaction. However, the government and the central government ignored the Basic Law and forcibly influenced this commercial decision.

As for preventing the central government from further misinterpreting and covertly amending the Basic Law, we believe it is sufficient to add or re-emphasize two or three articles:

1) The Basic Law is written in Hong Kong's two official languages—English and Traditional Chinese. If there are discrepancies between the Chinese and English versions, the English version shall prevail.

2) The interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress (NPC) is limited to foreign affairs and military matters, and can only be requested by judges of the Court of Final Appeal. Neither the NPC nor the Hong Kong executive and legislative organs can unilaterally request or implement NPC interpretations.

3) Like constitutions around the world, the Basic Law is only used to limit and interpret government power. There is no situation where citizens or any legal persons violate the Basic Law.

*The yellow part was written by ChatGPT4