but
rest of the PRC. "One country, two systems" is the formula: it has to be made to work both ways. It can only work both ways if the CPG gives Hong Kong the autonomous space in which to allow its "lifestyle" to continue, and if it respects the law.
I am concerned that the implications of this may not yet have registered fully. I need to understand more fully the position of the CPG in this regard.
I imagine that China is willing to stand by its commitment to allow Hong Kong to exercise a high degree of autonomy. In the Basic Law, however, I see signs that the PRC will not rely on the assertions of others that a high degree of autonomy can be operated without danger to the security interests of the CCP as defined above. Where the Basic Law appears to me to be in breach of the Joint Declaration therefore, the breaches may stem from this understandable and predictable concern of the CPG, unlawfully imposed. Nonetheless, if so, the CPG concerns still need to be fully addressed within the context of the Joint Declaration. My underlying fear is that unless the balance is right between all of China's interests, the danger is that each of them could lose out. Hong Kong's interests are China's interests: but Hong Kong must not forget that the reverse will be true too. The verbal paradox between co-operation and confrontation can obscure this fact; for it makes opaque the true needs of both Hong Kong and Beijing, and it makes more difficult the exercise of the rights and duties of the United Kingdom agreed under the treaty to run until 2047.
(d) Hong Kong's official and other priorities need to be understood in
Beijing as not constituting a threat to the CCP. Economic and commercial concerns are rightly pre-eminent for many in Hong Kong; but certain political structures, forms of administration and "lifestyle" seem to me to be the pre-conditions for non-interventionist economic policies and for the concomitant maintenance of economic performance. I can envisage circumstances in which these could be at risk. I am concerned in particular about the full and unhindered exercise of freedom of speech.
(e)
The only people who can and will take Hong Kong's interests continuously to heart as a self-standing priority are Hong Kong people themselves. In this context, I have yet to understand fully the reasoning behind the provisions of the Basic Law which reduce to a lower level than today the possibilities for certain types of political action by elected members of the Legislative Council. It appears that at the point that Hong Kong people are able directly to elect their own representatives, the PRC will reduce their power.
I would like to understand the reason. As of now, I find it hard to see how such arrangements are consistent with the spirit of the principle of Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong. I would like to know more. Doubts about bona fides may be an issue on all sides.