The notion of “patriots governing Hong Kong”, which has been gaining attention over recent months, has upset some quarters in Hong Kong society and many foreign politicians, who, in a knee-jerk reaction, instantly came up with various versions of conspiracy theories, including one suggesting that Beijing is going to “liquidate” the “pan-democrats”.

The fact is, “patriots governing Hong Kong” didn’t just come out of nowhere. It has existed ever since the conception of “one country, two systems” as a fundamental precondition for the implementation of this political innovation. This is evidenced by late State leader Deng Xiaoping’s remarks made in 1984, which are included in the third volume of Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping.

“Some requirements or qualifications should be established with regard to the administration of Hong Kong affairs by the people of Hong Kong. It must be required that patriots form the main body of administrators, that is, of the future government of the Hong Kong special region,” Deng told a delegation of Hong Kong business tycoons and political leaders visiting Beijing in June that year. He defined “patriot” as “one who respects the Chinese nation, sincerely supports the motherland’s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong and wishes not to impair Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability”.

Unarguably, the electoral system in effect in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, as prescribed in the Basic Law, is intended to ensure that only patriots will have a chance to administer the region.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case as it should be. As we all know, pro-independence legislators-elect Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching did make it to the Legislative Council by gaining enough votes, only to be disqualified by the court later after they insulted the Chinese nation with derogatory words while donning a flag with the anti-China words “Hong Kong is not China” when they took the oath of office on Oct 12, 2016. Other separatists also managed to gain a seat in the legislature, including Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who has not only kept bad-mouthing China, including Hong Kong, but also relentlessly sought foreign interference in and sanctions on Hong Kong.

This, coupled with the fact that the city’s district councils have mostly been grabbed and controlled by “black revolution” participants or supporters and that subversives like Benny Tai Yiu-ting have plotted to rig the next LegCo election with their so-called “35-plus” scheme, indicates that there are loopholes in Hong Kong’s electoral system. The anti-China elements in Hong Kong have been exploiting those loopholes with some degree of success.

It is unimaginable that the central authorities would just sit by and do nothing to restore the normal function of the Hong Kong SAR’s electoral system as intended. After all, “one country, two systems”, as well as Hong Kong’s long-term stability and prosperity, are at stake.