Zheng Yongnian: Who is the ＂protest capital＂ in Hong Kong?

The situation in Hong Kong has developed to this day, and it is not so shocking.(Bloomberg)

For Hong Kong observer, the situation in Hong Kong has not been so shocking to this day.Over the years, the protests in Hong Kong have never been interrupted. It is not difficult to calculate how many large and small protests have occurred in the city, from different backgrounds and different goals.Such frequent social protests in a city are very rare in world history.In fact, protests tend to have what people say, and protests have become daily.Some people say that Hong Kong is a veritable protest capital, which is not over.

What people are shocked is the violence of protests.Hong Kong is a wealthy city, mostly in the middle class. It is more rational and more peaceful than other places.But now it is completely different, and violence has become an irreversible general trend.And this is not difficult to understand that if any social protest, if all parties cannot be compromised, it will inevitably end with violence.Too many historical experience proves this inevitable result.

To this point, people must choose which side.But if facing the future, people must spend a lot of energy to understand why.What happened to Hong Kong?Why has it developed to the point where it is not available today?Where is the future of this city?

To put it bluntly, there is only one fundamental problem in Hong Kong, that is: who is the main Hong Kong?

In 1997, Hong Kong sovereignty returned to China from the United Kingdom and implemented a country, two systems.So is China governing Hong Kong?the answer is negative.Because of the implementation of one country, two systems, China only enjoys sovereignty, has no governance, Hong Kong people govern Hong Kong, and the governance of power is in the Chief Executive and the Hong Kong Government.In this way, China has few actual sovereignty and less, which is manifested in a limited diplomatic field, while only reputation sovereignty in most fields.Even the garrison is only symbolic.As far as governance is concerned, the most substantial legal system is not within China's sovereignty.

In maintaining one country, two systems, mainland China does not actively involve Hong Kong affairs as West said.Even with the idea of intervention, it is restricted by the ideology of one country, two systems.The actual situation is that in order to maintain one country, two systems, the mainland transports a large number of benefits to Hong Kong in order to maintain its prosperity at least economical.Relevant parties do also want to do something that can promote substantial sovereignty, but one thing I want to do has not been done, such as 23 articles earlier and the regulations on this delivery.The exchanges and exchanges between society, economy and civilian levels have greatly increased, but these can have an impact on the economy of Hong Kong, but there is no substantial impact on the governance system and capabilities of Hong Kong.

There is no organic connection with the party with the chief executive

Is the Hong Kong government governing this city?nor.Here are many system design factors.As far as power structure is concerned, Hong Kong has implemented a three -power separation system.Under this system, which power is in Hong Kong administrative authorities?Less than half of the power of legislation can be said to belong to the administrative authorities, and this half of the power is achieved through the formulation faction.The administrative authorities have no power to the judges at all, and the entire judicial system is almost in the hands of the Hong Kong -English authorities that live in seclusion.Even the administrative system, in addition to the Chief Executive, is still accepted from Hong Kong and British authorities as a whole.

As far as the source of political power is concerned, the problem is even greater, because Hong Kong is basically non -political politics, that is, the emergence of the chief executive and the inevitable organic connection between the political parties.At the practical level, the Chief Executive had to use the civil service system as a political party.During the operation, this makes administrative neutralization.Once the chief executive is politicized, the civil service system has to be political (whether it is active or passive), and this politics is more likely to run counter to the chief executive's political intent.Many people publicly put pressure on the SAR government this time to show their pressure on the SAR government.

Because there is no solid political (political party) support, it has been difficult for the SAR government to make a difference over the years.How many effective legal and policies have passed the SAR Government?I want to make a difference in Special Capital, but there is no good result.It is difficult to have good results even if you have goodwill and actually improve the status of Hong Kong.The abortion of the housing policy of the first chief executive Dong Jianhua is a good case.

Is the people of Hong Kong governing Hong Kong?Obviously not.Hong Kong people have been fighting for their ideal Hong Kong people to govern Hong Kong, that is, dual universal elections.But because of the competition in all aspects, there are no results so far.(However, it should be pointed out that the dual election is just an ideal idea, because there are too many experience that even if the general election is achieved, it may not have effective governance.)

What's more serious is that through the bottom -up social movement to achieve the achievement of the established goals, the process itself has great problems.First, it is difficult to adjust the mouths and cannot reach compromise. People have a step -by -step political reform fantasy.In the process of fighting, the protesters did not have no chance to achieve their demands, but because there was no compromise, all opportunities were east.Second, protests have evolved into violence, and developed into social movements, or sports -type society that protested for protests.In this way, the protesters do not want to follow me, and I will definitely not let you do a mentality of doing things, causing a serious confrontation between the government and the protesters.

Foreign forces have always been

So is foreign forces dominated Hong Kong?It is clear that Hong Kong is an international city, and the existence and intervention of foreign forces is not surprising.For a long time, this city has been an Eastern Information Center, and many Western countries (especially the United States) have strong forces.But as long as Hong Kong is open, foreign forces will definitely be there, and they will also work hard to influence Hong Kong's development.This is reality, whether people like or not.What needs to be concerned is whether the SAR government has the ability to curb the negative impact of these foreign forces.

As far as foreign forces are concerned, it is especially important to emphasize the role of British, because Hong Kong was previously a British colony.As far as Britain's influence on Hong Kong is concerned, to a large extent, after the return of 1997, Hong Kong has only changed from a British direct colony to an indirect colony of Britain.Except for some text changes and literal articles (even including the Basic Law), when the return of 1997, Hong Kong has not changed anything.After the return, no major changes (especially institutional changes) have occurred to reflect the autonomy of Hong Kong people or sovereignty in China.All parties work hard to adhere to the rule of law of Hong Kong.

There is no doubt that the rule of law is indeed the essence of the system in Hong Kong and the basis of the order of Hong Kong.But this rule of law has become the most effective tool for maintaining vested interests (especially British interests).Not only that, because they are indirect colonies, Britain or other foreign forces, they only take the advantages of fishermen without any responsibility.Today, this set of rule of law system has evolved into the right to speak in foreign forces. It is not only the most effective supervisor of the SAR Government, but also the most effective resistance for the changes in Hong Kong.

However, this does not mean that this set of rule of law needs to withdraw from the stage of history.Who is the rule here?Comparing the differences between the country independent from the colonial and after World War II, people can clearly see how to deal with the institutional heritage left by the colonies.

After the war, after the victory of the anti -colonial rule, after the independence, some countries completely retained the original colonial system and followed the colonies to implement Western democracy.However, many countries have implemented colonization.However, because of the different ways of colonization, the results are good or bad.Some countries are simple and rude, abolished all institutional heritage, and new systems (especially canThe establishment of an effective operation) cannot be established, which not only affects the relationship with the West, but also restricts the development of local areas.

Successful experience in Singapore

However, in other countries, anti -colonization has also been carried out, but it can not only retain some positive colonial heritage, promote local development, but also have a good relationship with the West.Singapore is the most typical.After independence, the original colonial heritage was effectively de -colonized. While retaining positive heritage, it removed its negative surface.As far as the rule of law is concerned, no one will deny Singapore's rule of law system, which is developed on the basis of colonial heritage.

There are only a few successful experience in Singapore: firmly holding the rule of law in your own hands.Since Singapore's independence, it has never been ambiguous on issues involving sovereignty and major interests of the country, and has always made every effort to protect it, and is not afraid of offended any country.This is in sharp contrast to the rule of law in Hong Kong.To a large extent, the rule of law in Hong Kong can effectively protect the interests of the original colonies, but it is difficult to increase the interests of Hong Kong itself.

Governance is not in the hands of Hong Kong people

Naturally, the maintenance of this set of rule of law is also related to the vested interests of Hong Kong itself.The question here is, is Hong Kong ruled these vested interests?Maybe not.Obviously, they are theoretically the elite of Hong Kong, and the development of Hong Kong is their vital interests.However, it is also due to the defects of the system. This vested interest only pursues interests, but does not have to bear any political responsibility.Over the years, there have been many beneficiaries that have been rushed up and facing the situation of retreating throughout the body.The rule of law has the same logic for vested interests, that is, the rule of law is the most effective weapon to protect their interests from losses.Considering that Hong Kong's deep -rooted vested interests have grown up during the period of Hong Kong and British authorities, this logic is not difficult to understand.

Mainland China does not understand all these situations, and therefore anxiously changes.But perspective of realism, because it is the implementation of one country, two systems, it is difficult for mainland China to change the colonial heritage of Hong Kong in the past. Only Hong Kong itself has this ability.However, reality seems to be the opposite.As mentioned above, because of various institutional factors, governance is not in the hands of Hong Kong people, whether it is a SAR government or Hong Kong society.What's more serious is that some Hong Kong people blame this situation on the central government, and therefore aimed at the central government.At the actual level, after the return, colonial education not only did not change, but instead intensified.The former democratic movement still had some anti -British taste, and now it has turned to the anti -motherland mainland.The state's identity is completely on the opposite side.It is clear that the main body of the protesters over the years is the younger generation who grew up after the return of 1997. They are also the main body of Hong Kong's independence.

Because of this, the one country and the two systems that were originally separated. The mainland emphasized that one country, and the Hong Kong side emphasized the two systems, while the SAR government was caught in the middle, which was powerless.

Hong Kong Government is restricted by various constraints

In order to resolve this ride, mainland China has also begun to make active policy adjustments in recent years.The construction of the Greater Bay Area is a good example.This is undoubtedly the right direction.When a country and two systems encounter difficulties, for the mainland, the question to answer is: What can one country do?Development plans such as the Greater Bay Area are originally to gradually resolve contradictions through the unilateral open policies of the mainland through social and economic methods to look forward to the final solution to the problem.

However, at the bureaucratic level (including the mainland and Hong Kong), people do not understand the problem deeply.The bureaucratic level tends to solve the problem by changing the two systems.The provisions launched this time are typical examples.Because there were 23 experiences before, the social response to the regulations for the delivery should be expected, but there was no sufficient consideration at the bureaucratic level, and it was hurriedly pushed out.

In any case, it is not surprising that there is no effective governance subject in Hong Kong today.The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government is not only subject to various constraints from inside, including the right to restrictions from institutional design and constraints from social forces.Government status.Although this is not to say that the SAR government does not want to make a difference, but it is so weak that no one has the ability to do things well.At the same time, although the pursuit of public welfare is impossible, some people are still pursuing private interests, that is, the invisible old colonies and vested interests.The inaction of pursuit of public welfare and the pursuit of private interests has caused the reality of Hong Kong today.

Today, after such a long and fierce social protest movement, many contradictions faced in Hong Kong have been fully exposed. Even if those who do not float on the table and hide behind them, people have a clearer understanding of them.But this does not mean that the problem can be solved.The effective solution of the Hong Kong issue still depends on who to answer Hong Kong?The problem.Since all these problems are the result of the lack of political subjects in Hong Kong. Before no political subject appeared, no one would naive that Hong Kong would have a stable situation, and these problems would be resolved.More importantly, Hong Kong today is not at the beginning of the return of Hong Kong, and things have happened, and Hong Kong cannot return to the origin.The challenge to mainland China is: How to return the second return to Hong Kong?

The author is a professor at the East Asia Research Institute of Singapore's National University

The article only represents personal point of view