Editor’s note:  The author is a veteran current affairs commentator. The following is the first of a series focused on the “one country, two systems” principle.

‘A  mission is accomplishable only if we remain committed to it”. This is a simple truth fully illustrated by the implementation of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong. The ultimate reason why it has encountered so many conflicts and challenges over the years is that the understanding of “one country, two systems” has been twisted and corrupted beyond recognition. Therefore, it’s imperative for Hong Kong to recall its original intent.

Back in 1950, the People’s Liberation Army had taken control of South China and was very close to accomplishing the epic mission of “liberating the whole country”, but stopped short of crossing the Shenzhen River into Hong Kong. No one was in doubt of the PLA’s capability to defeat the British colonists and reclaim the city, but the central authorities decided to take it slow. In hindsight, that was no doubt a wise decision, as evidenced by the crucial role Hong Kong played throughout the formative years of the People’s Republic amid ruthless attempts by Western powers to strangle the new China in its infancy. Hong Kong remained the only link between China’s mainland and the outside world for decades, and became the most important source of overseas investment when the reform and opening-up drive began in the late 1970s.

In fact, the Chinese government is determined to achieve the complete reunification of the motherland by resolving the questions of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan in that order. It has never been a question of whether or not, but how to achieve that ultimate goal with minimum cost acceptable to most people. Deng Xiaoping put it very clearly: “The real question for China is how to solve the question of Hong Kong and Taiwan. There are only two options — by peaceful means and otherwise.” He also concluded: “Whether Hong Kong will remain prosperous under China’s jurisdiction ultimately depends on policies tailor-made for Hong Kong.”

What is a “suitable policy for Hong Kong” then? After careful consideration, Deng came up with the great and innovative concept of “one country, two systems”, a brand-new and feasible solution for the international community, as well as China, in resolving this kind of inherited problem. This is a bold experiment in national governance and a significant contribution to human civilization.

“One country, two systems” was originally designed to resolve the question of Taiwan but ended up being applied to Hong Kong first. The rest is history. More than 22 years after China resumed the exercise of sovereign rule over Hong Kong, the “one country, two systems” principle has proved its effectiveness in sustaining Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, and gained recognition from the international community. Precisely because it proved workable, doable and popular, the US-based Fortune magazine, which declared not long before July 1, 1997 “Hong Kong is dead”, admitted more than a decade later, “We were wrong.”

As a new governance format, the exercise of “one country, two systems” will inevitably encounter conflicts and challenges. President Xi Jinping pointed out: “A nation that does not know where it came from has no idea where to go.” Reflecting upon the past helps explain and resolve the questions at hand, including the questions of why the central government chose “one country, two systems” over “one country, one system”; why the governance of the SAR is led by the executive branch instead of having a separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial; why the central government exercises overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong; whether it’s true that nothing has changed after China resumed sovereign rule over Hong Kong; and whether “one country, two systems” will prevail beyond 2047. 

Once these questions are answered, misunderstandings clarified, and confusing misinterpretations debunked, people will know what should be maintained, improved, corrected or abandoned. Only then will we be able to implement “one country, two systems” consistently and surely with increasing confidence and ease for as long as necessary.

The simplest way is usually the correct way. The next chapter of this series will discuss and straighten out the concept of “one country, two systems” by recalling its original intent.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.