To ensure the smooth, long-term implementation of “one country, two systems”, it is imperative that detailed arrangements and execution procedures for integrating the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s high degree of autonomy with the central government’s overall jurisdiction over the SAR are optimized in a timely manner. In view of the actual situation in Hong Kong, we must from now on focus on establishing and enhancing the relevant arrangements and procedures for the central government to exercise its overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong. This has been justified once again in the current battle against the novel coronavirus.

Since the SAR government started tackling the epidemic, there have been only a few occasions where  the central government authorities’ assistance to Hong Kong in the fight against COVID-19 was acknowledged; no one in Hong Kong has mentioned that the battle in the SAR is actually part of the national anti-epidemic campaign. At two of the press conferences organized by the SAR government, officials talked only about taking the recommendations of the World Health Organization as guidelines to combat the novel coronavirus, without mentioning any of President Xi Jinping’s relevant instructions. Some people might have the impression that Hong Kong’s battle against the epidemic is part of the international community’s efforts, but not part of the national anti-epidemic campaign.

In terms of specific measures safeguarding public health, Hong Kong has nearly shut down the flow of all personnel between the city and the Chinese mainland, in stark contrast to Macao, which chose not do to so. In particular, Macao’s chief executive openly declared that it would be unreasonable for the Macao SAR to request relief supplies such as face masks from the central government, as these materials are much urgently needed on the mainland. Hong Kong did the opposite — limiting the flow of personnel but not of materials. It even asked for surgical masks from the central government.

Hong Kong has virtually prevented all mainland residents from entering the city on the ground of disease prevention and control. On the other hand, it sees the mainland as the primary source of relief supplies and daily necessities. Is that what “one country, two systems” entails? Certainly not! This is a selfish interpretation and distorted implementation of the political framework.

In view of the actual situation in Hong Kong, we must from now on focus on establishing and enhancing the relevant arrangements and procedures for the central government to exercise its overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong. This has been justified once again in the current battle against the novel coronavirus

Hong Kong is supposed to do a better job in coping with the coronavirus epidemic after a virtual shutdown on cross-border personnel flow between the city and the mainland. In reality, panic took over the city, with people snatching up food, toilet paper and other daily necessities in supermarkets. With imported infection cases from the mainland having been effectively stopped, Hong Kong society disappointedly found out that the city simply does not have sufficient capacity to deal with the coronavirus outbreak.

For instance, because of the strong objection of local residents plagued by a “not in my backyard’’ mindset as well as disruptive efforts of opposition saboteurs, the SAR government has been struggling to set up enough facilities to quarantine infected patients or close contacts. At least 2,000 Hong Kong residents remain stranded in Hubei province after the SAR government’s initiative to fly back over 500 of them at the request of the public and those trapped at the epicenter of the epidemic. The move to bring them home has been somewhat hindered by the lack of sufficient quarantine facilities in Hong Kong. Currently, the four quarantine centers providing a total of 150 beds are approaching full capacity.

The shortage of surgical masks is another example that proves Hong Kong’s insufficient capacity to cope with the epidemic. Seeing the SAR government’s unsuccessful attempts to procure enough masks from overseas sources, the central government dispatched 17 million masks to the SAR despite the much-more severe shortage of face masks on the mainland. Obviously, these masks can provide only temporary relief. The SAR government has decided to subsidize the production of face masks locally. But it remains unclear when and whether the city can become self-reliant in mask supply. To put it more directly, the urgently needed masks and new quarantine center are still nowhere to be seen.

In pressuring the SAR government to completely shut down the access of mainland residents to Hong Kong, members of the opposition camp were trying to build the case that Hong Kong was operating separately under the “two systems” setup. This was an attempt to emphasize the differences between the “two systems” while downplaying the importance of “one country”, with the ultimate objective of denying the central government’s overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong.

The SAR’s inability to more efficiently and effectively tackle the epidemic in a way reflects a deficiency in political energy. Hong Kong needs stronger central government guidance and leadership on policy formulation and implementation in order to effectively implement “Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong” and a high degree of autonomy in the SAR.

The situation would be different had Hong Kong proactively made itself part of the national campaign against COVID-19 and recognized its inadequacy in policymaking and governance. Macao’s success in putting the disease under control has proved this point.

The author is a senior research fellow of China Everbright Holdings.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.