01 view
Written by: Yu Pinhai
2021-06-15 17:00
Last update date: 2021-06-15 17:00
The relationship between power and trust is subtle. This is a necessary understanding to understand Hong Kong’s predicament. Hong Kong is an excellent case for analyzing the relationship between power and trust.
Hong Kong is not a sovereign country, but a special administrative region of China. Its source of public power cannot be compared with that of a sovereign country.
Because of being misled by Western ideology for a long time and lacking a deep understanding of "one country", Hong Kong people are not used to distinguishing the differences in the structure of public power between different political attributes.
Everyone thinks that the power of the government naturally comes from the people. They mistakenly apply the power of a sovereign state to Hong Kong, which is not a state, so that some people think that "independence" can be discussed.
Although the power held by the Hong Kong government is guaranteed by law, due to poor governance, the public’s trust in the government has fallen to the bottom, and the due respect for power naturally no longer exists. As a result, once a conflict that ignites distrust is encountered, the society becomes stable. There is no guarantee.
Political development depends on the trust of the central government
Hong Kong is essentially a city in China. For historical reasons, the Central Government has passed the Constitution and the Basic Law to provide Hong Kong with more powers than other Chinese cities. This is the background of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy."
However, these powers are not inherent in Hong Kong. They are granted by the central government on their own initiative and are derived from the "comprehensive governance" extended by the sovereignty enjoyed by the central government.
This kind of power delegation is based on two kinds of trust. On the one hand, the central government trusts the maturity of Hong Kong politicians in handling power distribution, and the acceptance mechanism can be open; on the other hand, it allows Hong Kong to have a high degree of governance in public affairs. autonomy.
As the latter part, national defense and foreign affairs are not included; for the former, the central government and Hong Kong have been able to jointly optimize the authorization mechanism under negotiation.
The central government believes that Hong Kong’s governors have the ability and sufficient political loyalty to govern Hong Kong well. As long as the trust still exists, Hong Kong can continue to enjoy these powers. The specific manifestations include allowing Hong Kong to fail to complete national security legislation for more than two decades, and to govern Hong Kong. The democratically elected elements of the structure can be gradually increased.
Once trust is greatly reduced, the Central Committee will use its own methods to adjust the way in which power is granted, just as the National People's Congress Standing Committee completed the "Hong Kong National Security Law" for Hong Kong and directly promoted the reform of the electoral system.
Nevertheless, the central government has not reduced Hong Kong’s authority in the governance of public affairs.
Some people do not know how to distinguish between the two, thinking that the central government has changed the "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". In fact, it has only changed the power distribution mechanism.
Once trust is greatly reduced, the Central Committee will use its own methods to adjust the way in which power is granted, just as the National People's Congress Standing Committee completed the "Hong Kong National Security Law" for Hong Kong and directly promoted the reform of the electoral system.
(Data Picture/Photo by Gao Zhongming)
After the national security legislation and the electoral reform, Hong Kong people must re-understand that the development of Hong Kong's political system depends on the trust relationship between authorization and authorization between central and Hong Kong within the framework of "one country, two systems."
The people of Hong Kong have been obsessed with discussions about whether they trust the central government for a long time. They have never thought that there is a question of whether the central government trusts Hong Kong, let alone that if trust disappears, the power-giving mechanism on which "Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong" can be completely changed.
Some Hong Kong people are so arrogant that they don't even understand such simple truths. No wonder some people imagine that "Hong Kong independence" and encouraging foreign sanctions against China are political tricks that can be played.
The delegation of power between the Chinese government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is based on trust. There is almost no game at all. Unlike in the European and American systems, political parties determine power ownership through games. Hong Kong’s destiny is based on this relationship between power and trust. They are both external and internal, and interact with each other.
Power is not taken for granted, not even trust. They are all real. The British hoped that China would continue to cede Hong Kong to the British after taking advantage of the aftermath of the Battle of the Falkland Islands. All that was gained was that Mrs. Dayall "smashed" from the stairs of the Great Hall of the People. Come down, does anyone in Hong Kong think that they have more bargaining chips than her?
Some people think that Hong Kong has certain unique advantages and that the central government will be cautious when dealing with Hong Kong issues.
The basis of this imagination is unknown, but it explains how the protesters turned a blind eye to the central political bottom line and swaggered to invite foreign forces to participate in the game.
This of course shows their ignorance, but also reflects their impulsive recklessness and irresponsibility.
Traditionally, even if the pan-democratic party has disagreements with the central government and has a mediocre relationship, it has never stepped on the red line and will not lose trust.
In recent years, the nature of Hong Kong’s "resistance" has undergone a fundamental change with the emergence of "Hong Kong independence" and the brave. If you participate in the primary election of the Legislative Council under the banner of paralyzing the operation of the Hong Kong government, it will touch the red line, and the central government cannot sit idly by.
The "Hong Kong National Security Law" and the reform of the electoral system are a big hit, letting Hong Kong society realize what is "total governance", what is the political ethics of "one country, two systems", and how trust can be used as a lubricant for all of this is even more important. The thing is, in the politics and governance of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, there is no room for violence, willfulness, arrogance, and separatism.
Traditionally, even if the pan-democratic party has disagreements with the central government and has a mediocre relationship, it has never stepped on the red line and will not lose trust.
(Profile picture)
Governance is more important than loyalty
Trust does not just rely on political loyalty. It is also an evaluation of ability. The social disturbances that have occurred in recent years have made people doubt whether those who govern Hong Kong have the ability to govern.
The Hong Kong parliament is chaotic. Pan-democratic and established members, whether they come from functional constituencies or direct elections, do their performance meet the expectations of the public?
If Hong Kong citizens can't see results, how can the central government based on performance evaluation find evidence that they are competent?
Many people use "waste" to describe Hong Kong's institutional politicians.
The establishment has institutional advantages in Hong Kong and holds most of the seats in the parliament, and government officials actually hold the executive leadership. But why can't they ensure prosperity and stability and are led by the protest movement?
The reason is that they have absolute control, but they have no rules and no formation. How can such an incompetent political force be extremely loyal, and how can they bear the responsibility of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy"?
President Xi Jinping emphasized doing the CCP’s own tasks as a key means for China to resist external challenges. However, the situation in Hong Kong shows that the institutional forces that assume governance responsibilities are not equipped to complete their tasks. In this case, the central government can still Don't worry about entrusting power to them?
There are at least two objective conditions for the development of Hong Kong's political system. One is that it must meet the premise of "one country", or it must be developed within China's national system, rather than independent of the country or political arrangements outside of its system; Another objective condition is political trust, which is the central government's trust in the loyalty and governance capabilities of Hong Kong's political establishment.
After more than 20 years of practice, the central government has lost trust in the original political arrangement due to various situations that undermine the "one country, two systems." If you want to continue to promote the development of the system on the original track, you need to re-establish trust.
This is where Hong Kong needs to raise awareness in the Chinese state system.
It is like being promoted by an ideal manager, hoping that the company can give more powers and responsibilities. It must first gain the trust of the boss, including the trust of ability and the trust of loyalty to the company.
If the people of Hong Kong mistakenly believed that this relationship did not exist, it is time to re-recognize it.
In the past, the people of Hong Kong thought that the object of the Central Committee’s struggle was the protesters. That must be a misunderstanding.
What the central government wants to solve is not just the turmoil. All the elements that allow the turmoil to occur, including those in power who provide the environment and soil for the turmoil, the establishment and pan-popular political forces that condone the turmoil, cannot cope with it, and even the business elites who resist social reforms. Take responsibility for your role.
"Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" means that the central government entrusts the elites of Hong Kong to govern Hong Kong, but the result is not satisfactory. The entrusting party loses trust and decides to reorganize the entrustment arrangement. This is reasonable and consistent with the spirit of the "contract.
The establishment has institutional advantages in Hong Kong and holds most of the seats in the parliament, and government officials actually hold the executive leadership. But why can't they ensure prosperity and stability and are led by the protest movement?
(Profile picture)
What Hong Kong needs today is to emancipate the mind
Hong Kong was originally a transit point for Western culture to spread to the east. The social class structure allowed this culture to find soil, cultural preferences brewed ideological identity, and economic interests consolidated it.
As long as economic injustice occurs, ideological conflicts will naturally become prominent, and even intensify into class contradictions, which in turn will continue to deteriorate on the political level.
When government administration touches this level of politics and is used by politicians to amplify all kinds of contradictions endlessly, the consequences are unimaginable.
The political turmoil that occurred in 2019 was a political shock launched by the "Hong Kong independence" and brave protesters who found an opportunity to unite with opportunists.
They may have succeeded in achieving their goals, but some of the Lifei groups were robbed, and the society was torn into yellow and blue camps. The price was to obscure the long-existing governance deficit, so that the society was out of focus when it should focus on governance. , The already extremely low political trust continues to weaken, and the deep-seated contradictions of the economy and people’s livelihood are becoming more and more difficult to return.
It is not difficult to repair a tear, but if the tear is due to loss of trust, it will not be easy to repair. This is a truth that everyone is familiar with.
There are many similarities between the tearing in Hong Kong and American society. People from different camps have lost their trust in each other.
It is as if the traditional pan-people think that the recent reform of the electoral mechanism is a retrogression in democracy, which reflects their inability to get out of the original political discourse and fail to understand the relationship between trust and power.
They should also reflect on whether the anti-amendment riots are a retrogression in democracy, or even a retrogression in Hong Kong politics.
If violent riots are forced, isn’t the central government’s severe counterattack also forced?
The central government has stopped some people's unrealistic illusions and established a political foundation for continuous reforms. It is just a weak rhetoric to regard such suppression as a democratic regression.
The evaluation of political events should be based on their social effects, not on the basis of ideological orientation, or even prejudice that certain political events are unreasonable.
At a minimum, Hong Kong’s political order has stabilized, and everyone can once again focus on improving governance and dealing with deep-seated social conflicts that have existed for a long time but cannot be truly resolved.
Politics is to make people's lives better through governance. This is its original meaning.
In order to achieve this goal, a good political order often includes a balance of many values and systems. Democracy is only one of them, and elections are one of the forms of democracy.
For a long time, Hong Kong’s political discourse has been severely narrowed and distorted. The politics that should have contained numerous values and institutional balances has been anchored in a narrow, single, highly ideological democratic freedom, and even simply locked in directly elected seats. It is not governance, nor is it the welfare of the people.
Hong Kong has been in the quagmire of ideological debates for a long time, and the focus has long been shifted. It is simply not the subject, but everyone still enjoys it.
This understanding of democracy is obviously incomplete and narrow, and has no connection with governance.
What Hong Kong needs today is to emancipate the mind, to reform the ideological cognition of traditional electoral democracy, and to return to the original intention of politics.
"Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" is an extension of "one country, two systems". Since "one country, two systems" is the joint responsibility of the central government and Hong Kong society, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" will not be purely the task of Hong Kong people. The central government has the same responsibility to make it successful.
(Profile picture)
Actively reshape democracy with Hong Kong characteristics
If the election reform plan is examined with a positive attitude, the central government's trust in "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" has not changed.
This reform is only in response to the chaos that has occurred in the past period of time. The authorization and power distribution methods have been adjusted, and some defensive steps have been taken to ensure that the considerations of system design are respected, and to prevent Hong Kong rulers from making some low-level mistakes again.
Regarding the traditional perception of Hong Kong society, the direction of universal suffrage proposed in the Basic Law has not changed, nor has it weakened the standard of a high degree of autonomy under "One Country, Two Systems." Generally speaking, it is necessary to correct the negative and differentiated "One Country, Two Systems" and develop a positive and integrated system. "One country, two systems," and reset the political significance of "one country, two systems" in governance, not in the power game, let alone challenging the power of the central government.
"Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" is an extension of "one country, two systems". Since "one country, two systems" is the joint responsibility of the central government and Hong Kong society, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" will not be purely the task of Hong Kong people. The central government has the same responsibility to make it successful.
Since Hong Kong is unable to solve the problem for the time being, the central government should of course assess the situation and issue orders directly for Hong Kong so that Hong Kong society can focus on reform and development.
For the central government, the first thing to do is to ensure the political loyalty of those who govern Hong Kong to avoid unnecessary political conflicts and internal conflicts, and then to find those with appropriate capabilities from the patriotic group of governing Hong Kong, and to pursue better choices in the selection process. With great certainty, it prevents speculators and the incompetent from winning easily in the elections, thereby consolidating their trust in the rulers of Hong Kong.
As a sub-government, the responsible team in Hong Kong must be trusted by the higher-level regime in terms of political loyalty and governance capabilities. If the trust is not complete, how can the higher-level regime adopt an open attitude to power instead of implementing risk management?
In the final analysis, many people are not accustomed to the power that Hong Kong has from the central government, and they are more unwilling to accept that the riots have harmed the trust on which authorization depends. If trust cannot be reconstructed, there is no room for Hong Kong's political development. The democracy that most Hong Kong people expect Deepening will be indefinitely.
Hong Kong people should ask whether Hong Kong’s democratic governance and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" must imitate the British and American game politics?
In recent years, the Anglo-American democratic system has successively exposed deep-seated problems. It has been increasingly threatened by populism and capital. Politics has become an arena and a vanity fair for different interest groups. Not only does it no longer focus on governance, but it is like a frog in warm water, which makes it difficult to make people’s lives become better. Even better, even the prevention and control of the epidemic is so unbearable.
As far as Hong Kong is concerned, instead of following the crisis-ridden and problem-prone Anglo-American democracy, it is better to bravely break out of myths and carry out innovations in democratic practice. Under the framework of "one country, two systems", it is like establishing a talented democratic system that conforms to Hong Kong's actual conditions and focuses on governance. Capitalism does not need to adhere to the Anglo-American model. There are many other options. You can even create a set of capitalism and democratic politics suitable for Hong Kong.
What Hong Kong needs is a booming economy, a happy life for the people, and a fair and just society. Since the original capitalism could not do it, it must be reformed.
When Hong Kong’s original political system cannot uphold the principle of "one country, two systems," cannot resolve the deep-seated contradictions that have been troubled for a long time, and cannot achieve fairness and justice, we should find a more suitable system.
In the process, Hong Kong society may have different views from the central government. This requires Hong Kong people to persuade the central government on the premise of enhancing the central government’s trust in Hong Kong, rather than arbitrarily denying the central government’s worries and concerns.
Some liberals told me that this is not Hong Kong as they understand it. Maybe they should get used to disappointment, or even get used to the fact that the spotlight of democracy no longer shines on them. The democratic utopia they imagined never existed. Democracy can only be disenchanted. Only by anchoring governance can we truly solve the people's problems, have vitality, and be the democratic path Hong Kong people must take under "one country, two systems."
Putting Hong Kong People Ruling Hong Kong into Practice——A positive reflection on the reform of the electoral system｜Yu Pinhai
Hong Kong should become another "Hong Kong"｜Yu Pinhai
Trust or suspicion-"Second Return" after the National Security Law｜Yu Pinhai
What is "Hong Kong Characteristic Capitalism"?
｜Yu Pinhai
Yu Pinhai, Hong Kong, People Administering Hong Kong, One Country, Two Systems Democracy, Hong Kong Characteristic Capitalism 01 Viewpoint