One Country, Two Systems ¡V
a Prolonged and Painstaking Task

Paul Kwok-wah Yip

¡@

A Translated Version of the Speech in Chinese to the Postgraduate School
of the Chinese Academy of social Sciences

¡@

China resumed exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong on 1 July 1997. In the twinkling of an eye, this long expected event came and went and now becomes a memory. During the period when Hong Kong's reversion was being celebrated, reports in China strongly portrayed "reversion" as being "an eradication of the century-old national shame". This manner of portrayal, I believe, really touched the hearts of multitudes on the Chinese mainland. But the ordinary citizens of Hong Kong did not feel too strongly about it. The reasons are varied and complex. One reason may be that Hong Kong people, long separated from the motherland as they have been, are emotionally less attached to the nation. Another reason may be that, faced with a changing situation with a host of imponderables, they are apt to harbour somewhat shaky or unrealistic sentiments. This indeed is understandable.

The mainland interpretation of "eradication of century-old national shame" is basically this: China's century-long humiliation began with the cession of Hong Kong following defeat inflicted by Britain in the Opium War; such humiliation ended with China's smooth recovery of Hong Kong after a century-and-a-half's hard endeavour which turned China into a strong world power and forced the British to give up their colonial possession without recourse to arms. The historical chapter of humiliation is now over and done with and hereafter a new page of glory is turned.

From the point of view of national dignity, this interpretation is in order. But I was a history major and I like to put things in a historical perspective. If we look at our experiences during the past century-and-a-half from a historical angle, if we look at Hong Kong's present situation and the prospects of "one country, two systems" against the background of our motherland's unrelenting endeavour to modernize, I shall have certain views of my own to offer which somewhat differ from the generally held view.

At the time it reverted to the motherland, Hong Kong had already evolved from a little known fishing village into an international metropolis which is the cynosure of the international community. The reasons for Hong Kong's success are manifold. The hard work and wisdom of the Hong Kong compatriots is one reason. The logistical support and political buffer offered by the motherland is another. Any attempt to analyze Hong Kong's success cannot just focus on some of the reasons as if they represent the whole. Yet, however undesirable this approach may be, it is better than taking a hooded view. Everyone knows that today's Hong Kong is a piece of treasure and Hong Kong's reversion to the motherland means the restoration of this piece of treasure to its original owner. This is a happy event for all. At the same time, we should admit, in an objective way, that the British contributed in some measure to Hong Kong's success. Economic prosperity is arguably not the most valuable thing the British secured for Hong Kong. The most valuable thing is probably the effective systems and concepts for governing a modern society. To put it in simple terms, we would do well to spend some time studying and absorbing a few of the basic institutions left behind by the British, particularly the process through which these institutions were put in place. They are: the rule of law, freedoms, checks and balances, and clean government.

The rule of law: The rule of law pervades every stratum and every aspect of Hong Kong society. The government governs according to the law, enterprises operate according to the law, individuals act and behave according to the law. Social order is founded on law and subject to the law. These are the sine qua non which characterize the evolution of a society with free and simple economic and contractual relationships into a modern business society with complex contractual relationships.

Freedoms: Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of the person, and freedom to travel in and out of the country. These are the rights and safeguards to which the people of Hong Kong are accustomed. Under the law, various freedoms can be exercised in an orderly way and this gives the citizens a more comfortable feeling and an adequate sense of security. They live, work and study with great devotion and drive. The free flow and rapid circulation of information and ideas enable society as a whole to maintain a high degree of dynamism, creativity and forward momentum.

Checks and balances: Vis-a-vis the executive branch of government, we have independently articulated public opinion, an independent legislature and an independent judiciary. These closely monitor social activities on every front, including the way the government governs. These activities are subjected to exhaustive discussion and gruelling criticism. This process will have the timely effect of correcting excesses so that society will not go farther and farther away in the wrong direction under the overwhelming influence of radical forces, thus averting crises and turmoil. Because of the existence of this conventional, fine-tuning mechanism, various social forces can act as checks and balances on one another. They will alternately advance and recede, and constantly rebalance themselves to maintain the long-term stability and continued development of society.

Clean government: This principally relates to the executive branch of government and the civil service. Owing to the rule of law, the presence of a monitoring system, a reasonable mode of operation and a mechanism for sharing of interests, the Hong Kong government is basically a clean government. The absolute majority of civil servants carry out their duties in a fair and just manner. Instances of corruption are few and far between. The citizens have confidence in the administrative system. Government departments have performance pledges which they make public. The civil service ranks top in the world in terms of efficiency. This style of work has spread to the business sector where importance is being attached to integrity and the keeping of promises. Society as a whole, whether in the context of public or private dealings, basically functions on the basis of mutual trust which operates in a virtuous cycle. This substantially promotes efficiency, cuts wastage and improves quality.

Rather than saying that the British left behind in Hong Kong the basic institutions of the rule of law, freedoms, checks and balances, and clean government, it would be more appropriate to say that these were first introduced by the British and were then copied, absorbed, assimilated, and restructured by local Chinese people to fit their own use having regard to Hong Kong's unique social circumstances. Hence, although these institutions are of a foreign origin, they have, in effect, been localized. It is like transplanting a superb plant species on Chinese soil where it has taken root, blossomed and is beginning to bear fruit.

The Chinese nation originates from racial amalgamation and integration of a vast scale. After the mainstream culture of the Han race had taken shape, it still continued to open up so as to absorb things of value from other races, assimilate them and turn them into components parts of the Han culture. These instances were by no means rare throughout our history. Buddhism was introduced from India into China where it was absorbed to become our most influential religion. We permitted races from regions to the west of China to join our mainstream society and in the course of time they even became the rulers of China. Their administrative reforms were adopted and these helped usher in the era of might and glory during the Tang dynasty. Isn't it true that Beijing, our present state capital, had been built, developed and governed by Liao, Jin, Menggu and Qing who were races other than the mainstream Han race? Isn't the term "Hutong"¡]­J¦P¡^a foreign term? And isn't it true that the position of Beijing has never been compromised by this? Foreign things may not necessarily be unfit for China. From a historical point of view, we had indeed got some excellent gifts from outside China.

Looking ahead into the 21st century, it will be a rather long time before China can succeed in her endeavour to catch up, from her position of relative backwardness, with advanced countries and stand tall with head raised high among the world's nations. If any of us have had the chance to travel abroad, we will probably have noticed that the Chinese race in fact have the potential to prosper. Compared with other races, Chinese people are rather hardworking. For reasonable returns, they are willing to work hard for long hours and they are industrious and sharp-eyed. In some developed countries, many of the citizens depend on the government to look after them and have no qualms about being a burden to society. But most Chinese people want to rely on themselves to make a living and would feel ashamed to rely on relief doled out by others. Hedonism is prevalent in some societies where people enjoy themselves without a care for what tomorrow will hold. Without any qualms they spend money in advance and live on loans or credit. Chinese people rarely have this sort of habit. Most of us prefer to work hard and enjoy the fruits of our labour later. We have a strong habit of saving money to benefit our children.

However, it is worth our while to ask ourselves one question. This characteristic of the Chinese people has existed for thousands of years and why is it then that in the recent couple of centuries we still lag behind others? Nationalism and patriotism, pure and simple, will be no answer to this question. We are therefore obliged to review our social systems and our production technology. For a considerable length of time, the systems we implemented failed to induce our people to give of their best and failed to enable the efforts of individuals to fuse and integrate in a positive way. For a yet longer period of time, the technology we used was principally that which had been passed to us by our forefathers and we seldom had regard for new inventions outside of China. We refused to admit that we lagged behind others and so we resisted advanced things devised by others. We even closed our doors and severed all contacts with the outside world. How stupid of us! Even today, some people are still looking at the new world order in the same old way. They fail to see that the world has progressed beyond the cold war stage and that the principal form of international competition in the 21st century will no longer be ideological confrontation between opposing camps. They fail to see that competition will surely be in terms of trade, efficiency, quality, creativity and cultural pluralism against the background of economic globalization, open international markets, and fewer and fewer man-made barriers. And such competition will lead eventually to integration and harmony. Of course, it is open to question whether there will be integration and harmony borne of competition or just a clash of civilzations as propounded by Professor Samuel Huntington, Harvard University.

To score success in this competition and integration process, we must never close our eyes, cover our ears and stand still; we must have an open mind and a positive attitude to absorb and assimilate the world's messages and data. That being the case, the unrestricted circulation of data and information will be very important. In this respect, there is a patent gap between Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland. Hong Kong is doing rather well whereas the Chinese mainland's performance is less than ideal. It would not be easy to convert in one go the mainland scenario into the Hong Kong scenario. That is why it is vital to maintain Hong Kong's original advantage as an important window to China. This I understand to be one of the reasons for implementing "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. This is also the basis for my conviction that China will stay firm in keeping "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. It is because this will cater to China's overall interests to the greatest extent.

However, staying firm in implementing "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong is no easy task. This is mainly due to contradictions between the bona fide intention to stay firm in keeping "two systems" and our accustomed way of cultural thinking in the course of dealing with things. Many people, whether they be in Hong Kong or on the Chinese mainland, regard "one country, two systems" as a pragmatic, stopgap measure and also a transitional arrangement to which there is no alternative if the intention is to lessen the impact on the status quo as much as possible. So, during the implementation process of "one country, two systems", a number of conceptual contradictions will emerge. If these are not promptly neutralized, and if those who call the shots erroneously use their power in interfering with the Special Administrative Region's affairs, it will be an open question whether "one country, two systems" will eventually succeed. A concerted effort on our part to make "one country, two systems" work is called for.

Let me quote a practical example. After the festivities in celebration of Hong Kong's reversion to the motherland were over, I happened to meet some friends who were high-ranking cadres in the mainland's public security departments. They expressed surprise at the smooth and stable situation that prevailed in Hong Kong both before and after the reversion. In particular, they failed to understand why diverse forces with diametrically opposite political persuasions could have simultaneously and clearly stated their respective stances without causing social unrest, why the Hong Kong police had not turned out in overwhelming numbers to deal with individual bodies that employed extreme tactics to express themselves, and why the police had tackled the situation with such aplomb as to imply full anticipation of almost every move on the part of the demonstrators.

Did any of us ever imagine how the SAR government and the opposition parties had acted in coordination immediately before and after the reversion? In fact, parties of different political persuasions had given the SAR government prior notice as to what activities they were planning to hold immediately before and after the reversion, when such activities would be held, what the basic theme would be, what slogans would be shouted, what the colour of flags or banners flown would be . . . . . . so on and so forth. There was tacit understanding between both sides. The SAR government even arranged transport for members of the opposition parties who had to hasten from one venue to another. Did it ever occur to any of us what the result would have been if a totally different approach had been proposed by someone who was desirous of adopting the most high-handed means to ensure tranquillity in the streets and only one voice being heard in Hong Kong? I don't know whether to call it a pity or luck that we cannot turn history back and let it unfold again in a totally different way; we cannot go back to the time immediately before and after the reversion in order to try out the opposite approach to see what the result would be. But I personally believe that the contrary would be the case, that is to say, the citizens would be worried, afraid and disaffected and more people would harbour confrontational sentiments, thus giving rise to more violent clashes in the streets.

In fact, in the eyes of Hong Kong people, it is right and fitting that a modern international metropolis endowed with flourishing commerce and industry should be pluralistic and open; it should be a place where freedom of expression exists and where various schools of thought simultaneously compete for attention. An open system should itself be made up of disparate forces and should not be dominated by the powers-that-be who would permit only one voice and one posture. This is what many Hong Kong people understand to be one of the hallmarks of success for "one country, two systems".

As I said numerous times before, a silent Hong Kong will do the Chinese nation absolutely no good. If, one day, Hong Kong has only uniform public opinion to utter or even lapses into total silence, I can tell those seated here in no uncertain terms that "one country, two system" is then in dire straits. Some foreign investors once remarked that one of the principal reasons they chose Hong Kong, but not Singapore, to be their base was that there was free flow of information in Hong Kong -- not just information, but an exciting variety of commentaries, and not only commentaries, but a plethora of strange rumours. In the eyes of foreign investors, rumours constitute an important type of information. Rumours represent information disseminated through unofficial channels. They tell of falsehoods or truths. One would have to test one's intelligence in order to distinguish between truth and falsehood. He who can successfully do this will be able to act in advance and gain the upper hand. This is a special feature which a fair and open market should have. Therefore, foreign investors consider the unrestricted circulation of information to be an important indicator as to whether Hong Kong would "stand or fall". It is precisely for this reason that the unrestricted circulation of information is a factor given important weighting in the Hong Kong Free Market Indicators project which I am to launch.

In terms of historic mission, the successful implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong patently has another goal to fulfill, that is, it is to shine as a beacon to beckon to Taiwan. As President Jiang Zemin has remarked, a first example has to be set. The rise of China in the 21st century will be accompanied by demands for close cooperation between Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, for suspension of confrontation, for positive links, for cessation of secession and for reunification. It is only through giving full play to the wisdom and talent of the people in Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, through economic thrift, hard work, sustained construction, self-empowerment and gaining of a foothold in the world that success can be assured.

We probably feel that the situation in Taiwan is a cause for worry. Leaving aside the question of "Taiwan independence", we feel that Taiwan society lays one-sided emphasis on democracy and freedom without corresponding development in the rule of law, clean government and the mechanism for checks and balances. As a result, there is unscrupulous use of money power and social order is being undermined. Such a state of affairs cannot be regarded as good governance to attain lasting stability. And this leads us to another question. We have been stressing the importance of unrestricted circulation of information. We have been pointing out that the prolific flow of information and the parleying of concepts and ideas will galvanize and enhance creativity, increase our efficiency, attract investors from advanced countries throughout the world to come to participate and compete so that our economic development will be vastly promoted. But we must have a strong and sound social framework to cushion off the shock that this may create.

Let us take for instance the calm situation that prevailed in Hong Kong prior to and after the reversion. We cannot simply say it was due to Hong Kong's strong police force which kept demonstrators at bay that a trouble-free situation was eventually ensured. As a matter of fact, this situation bespoke the civilized attitude of the government, the discreet restraint on the part of political activists and the tolerance of the powers-that-be. Of course, all these factors reflect a deeper dimension to Hong Kong's social structure, that is to say, numerous development opportunities to enable people to give full play to their varied talents and abilities uninhibited by man-made obstacles, a set of systems for interest and power sharing acceptable to the majority, a calm and tolerant atmosphere to enable people to freely express and exchange views, a system of rule of law trusted and respected by the majority of people, and independent monitoring through the articulation of public opinion. That being the case, people with disparate interests and views can basically find a point of balance on the basis of mutual accom-modation and society as a whole can thus remain stable.

I really believe that it is very important to have the rule of law in place. Between the two different models of social transformation, I consider the Hong Kong model to be better than Taiwan's. Leaving aside the question of there being advocacy for independence in the Taiwan polity, let me say that Taiwan's political reform had preceded the institution of a sound legal system. When long-standing contradictions within society were suddenly given free rein and there was no adequate rule of law to guide it, contradictions would reach flashpoint and turn into clashes. Social turmoil would result. As regards Hong Kong, the contrary is the case. Before political reforms were introduced, a relatively sound system of rule of law had been instituted. We can see that in the course of political reform during the past dozen years or so, democracy was introduced into the legislature and local boards and councils. Basically speaking, no social turmoil resulted. Of course, our democracy has yet to develop further. As President Jiang Ze-min said in his speech delivered at the SAR's inauguration ceremony, we have to continue with our reform until the legislature and the Chief Executive are elected by universal suffrage.

Of course, it is no easy task to set up the system of rule of law. One prerequisite is that the legislature must be magnanimous enough to accommodate disparate interests and views, must have the wisdom to find a point of balance acceptable to society, and must have the ability to enact laws capable of effective enforcement and of addressing current abuses. Only then will the public be willing to recognize, accept and abide by the laws so enacted. A system of rule of law commanding the respect of and observance by the public must at the same time have a fair and just executive organ to serve as its enforcement arm. This enforcement agency must protect those who observe the law, prosecute those who break the law, scrupulously act within the powers conferred on it by the law and never abuse its powers. Only then will the public believe that laws are not useless words written on scraps of paper nor are they tools to enable the powers-that-be to monopolize power. Only then will the public actively cooperate with the law enforcement agency to observe the law. But the most reliable foundation for the system of rule of law is awareness on the part of members of society. Only when the majority of people understand the importance of the rule of law, its general principles as well as basic contents, observe the law of their own accord, and readily resist acts that violate the law will the system of rule of law become secure as a rock. A drawn-out process will need to be gone through in order to achieve this. Moreover, there must be a large corps of leaders with far sight and wisdom, a multitude of people's representatives with courage and a sense of commitment, and vast numbers of people with knowledge and integrity who will devote themselves to this task through education, striving, setback, review, struggle and at times acute confrontation. Only then will it be possible to build a comparatively stable system of rule of law.

I should point out frankly that the comparatively sound social framework that Hong Kong has in place does not have a long history. In fact, this has evolved and come about during the past 30 years or so. Thirty years ago, serious social turmoil erupted in Hong Kong which exposed the numerous contradictions built up during earlier years within the local community. Such turmoil sapped Hong Kong's strength and undermined people's confidence. It was a very bad thing. Yet it galvanized Hong Kong society into restructuring itself. The then Hong Kong British administration noted how the tide had turned and changed tack to follow it by reinforcing the rule of law, promoting clean government, raising the quality of the civil service, and letting the people participate in public affairs. A full quarter century was spent on gradually transforming Hong Kong from an ossified and closed society dominated by bureaucrats into a flexible, open, tolerant and highly efficient society which better caters to the needs of modern commercial and industrial development.

Each country has her own special national ethos. China has a long history, expansive territory and a vast cultural heritage. It goes without saying that her national ethos is different. It is abundantly clear that China will have to traverse a different path in evolving from a traditional agricultural society to a modern business society. And on this path, China can rely on Hong Kong to provide valuable reference material as to what useful things of a foreign origin can be harnessed to China's benefit.

Social transformation is a massive project of systemic engineering which takes a long time to complete. In the course of it, sharp shots of pain will be experienced before the interactive effects of various basic factors can manifest themselves. Owing to Hong Kong's unique experience, the locally generated China-related factors and the foreign factors generated by British colonial rule underwent concentrated and intensive interaction in very limited space over a considerable period of time, took up the challenge posed by the change in Sino-British political relations, and were made subject to tests as well as selection in the world market. After gruelling tests and trials, Hong Kong's systems and ideas of today eventually took shape. This process had continued for more than 100 years and proceeded at a much quickened tempo during the past 50 years. We had passed from racial discrimination to relative equality, from serious disparity between the rich and the poor to availability of basic social security, from internecine partisan confrontations to pluralism and tolerance; from rampant corruption to clean government. And all these changes took place in a society consisting mainly of Chinese people. From the point of view of social transformation, this was a rare experiment. In terms of result, this was a rather successful transformation experiment.

Putting Hong Kong's experience during the past 100 years in the Chinese historical perspective and then viewing it from the angle of China's modernization drive, we will find that we were setting aside limited space in a particular historical time slot to carry out an unprecedented but immensely rewarding experiment. The Hong Kong experience obviously cannot be transferred and applied outright to China. But it can serve as reference so that the Chinese nation can absorb the beneficial and useful parts of it through a scrutiny of the positive and negative experiences stemming from the experiment and apply the parts learnt to various regions where the same will be tried out in the context of practical circumstances. This can be done in much the same fashion as the transplanting of Hong Kong's diverse economic experiences and parameters to the mainland market since the latter's opening up a dozen or so years ago.

I once drew an analogy between "one country, two systems" and a bucket containing two kinds of water separated not by a non-permeable steel plate but by a cellular membrane which can permit the two kinds of water to permeate. This analogy is not intended to negate the "river water not encroaching on well water" promise. "To encroach" connotes wilful intent which indeed must be stopped. But two co-existing systems will invariably affect each other and interact. It would not be possible to completely separate one from the other. This is an objective phenomenon. Therefore, the crux will be to enable desirable elements to exchange and mingle and undesirable elements to be segregated and displaced.

Deng Xiaoping once said that he would want to build several or a dozen Hong Kong on the Chinese mainland. In terms of hardware construction, many mainland cities have, since "opening up and reform", absorbed from Hong Kong such elements as would fit and serve their respective purposes. But, apart from the readily visible highrises, bridges and highways, a modern commercial and industrial city needs a large volume of software construction which is not readily visible. Citizens hope that the economy will grow at a steady pace which will gradually improve their livelihood. Enterprises hope that the market will develop to perfection and their rights and interests will be protected under the law. The government hopes that society will be stable and sufficient financial resources will be available to implement various development programmes. All these are reasonable demands. But why is it that numerous difficulties are being encountered in the course of implementation? In the case of Hong Kong, these demands have been satisfied in fair measure. What is the reason for this? In terms of principle, the comparatively sound state of software construction is an important factor. My personal view is that the rule of law, freedoms, checks and balances and clean government I mentioned earlier are softwares of foremost importance.

The social transformation experiment carried out by China in Hong Kong has not yet been completed. Hitch-free sovereignty reversion is only part one of the experiment. We have yet to carry out part two which is more important. After the departure of the British, Chinese people in Hong Kong have wholly taken over the government machine which is already there. The intention is to continue to reinforce and perfect the systems and concepts that have been operating effectively so far. Only when future results prove to be better than past results will we be deemed to have wholly succeeded in "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy".

Hong Kong's past success represents a set of systemic experiences borne of the successful fusion of eastern and western cultures. However, some people are worried lest the introduction into China of the western superstructure acquired by China through her recovery of Hong Kong should become a Trojan horse deliberately left by the western powers on Chinese soil. These people would not be at ease unless some of the doubtful elements are removed and exterminated. I would not agree with them. On the contrary, I personally think that Hong Kong is like the white horse which carried back to China the Buddhist scriptures gotten by the Reverend Tang San-zhuang during his westward pilgrimage centuries ago.

History is the result of the interaction of diverse forces and is not determined by any motive which one particular party may harbour out of wishful thinking. Regardless of the good or sinister intentions of the British, if our national culture has sufficient vibrancy to absorb the beneficial parts of the Hong Kong treasure trove which is replete with positive and negative experiences, the writer of history will happily form the judgment that the trove is the new western scriptures gotten by the Reverend Tang during the 20th century. If we cherish a priori suspicions and resistance towards this treasure trove, we may eventually waste it or damage it for no purpose and in a fit of pique label it as the 20th century Trojan horse. Faced with challenges in the 21st century, the Chinese nation must have a magnanimous mind and a keen eye to put this Hong Kong treasure trove to good use and harness the valuable experiences of Hong Kong's social transformation to the nation's benefit by drawing copiously on this "western scripture". Only then will the effects of Hong Kong's "reversion" and "eradication of shame" be deemed to be fully realized.

Mr. Paul Kwok-wah Yip is the Chairman of Hong Kong Policy Research Institute.