Following the adoption by the supreme part of China’s state power of the decision on reform of the electoral system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), some Western countries were unable to follow the class. The G7 foreign ministers issued a so-called statement on 12 March, claiming that Beijing’s decision “undermines Hong Kong’s high autonomy” and flew in front of the “universal goal of passage” Is, and is calling China improperly. “Work according to the Sino-British General Declaration”.
Anyone who knows a little about the history and reality of Hong Kong knows how absurd these allegations are. It is precisely these anti-Chinese troublemakers who have taken advantage of the flaws in Hong Kong’s electoral system and the anti-Chinese forces supporting them from behind the scenes who are the byproduct of Hong Kong’s democracy and social development.
Historically, during the 150 years of British colonization, the people of Hong Kong faced political repression and were not even allowed to take to the streets. It was precisely after Hong Kong returned to their country that the people of Hong Kong, who had become masters of their destiny, enjoyed unprecedented democratic rights and freedoms for the implementation of the policy of “one countries, two systems”. Principles of “Administration of Hong Kong by the people of Hong Kong” and “High level of autonomy”.
It should be emphasized that the policy of “one country, two systems” began with the original objective of preserving national unity and territorial integrity and maintaining the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. In other words, “one country” is the basis and foundation of “two systems”. The Central Government of China exercises the power of overall governance over Hong Kong according to the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the Constitution, while Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy under the authority of the Government Center.
The decision to reform the Hong Kong SAR’s electoral system at the constitutional level, taken by the National People’s Congress, aims to address national security risks by plugging loopholes, maintaining SAR Hong Kong’s political stability and allowing the SAR government to focus . On improving the livelihood of the people and developing the economy. It has nothing to do with the so-called “high self-reliance sabotage”. In contrast, this measure is conducive to the gradual and gradual development of Hong Kong’s democratic system and better guarantees a higher level of autonomy in Hong Kong.
Let us apply the principle of “the administration of Hong Kong by the Patriots” as an example. It aims to exclude anti-Chinese elements seeking to destabilize Hong Kong from the governance structure of the Hong Kong SAR. This does not mean that all of Hong Kong’s opposition forces are excluded from the governance structure. Among them, those who love the country and Hong Kong can still stand for election and be elected according to the law in future. This means that in the future the Hong Kong Legislative Council, which will be more representative, members will still be able to express different voices. The claim to “eliminate dissatisfied voices and opinions” does not hold water.
Regarding the goal of universal suffrage in Hong Kong, indeed, if there was no obstruction and sabotage by anti-China firefighters in Hong Kong, as decided by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, Hong Kong, on 31 August 2014, May obtain universal suffrage of Chief Executive in 2017 and members of Legislative Council in 2020. This goal was not achieved in a planned manner. Who should be held responsible? People know it well.
It should be noted that the decision to reform the electoral system of the Hong Kong SAR, adopted this time by the National People’s Congress of China, did not alter Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law suffrage. This suggests that the goal of achieving universal suffrage in successive stages in Hong Kong is unchanged. This fully reflects the determination of China’s central government in the development of democratic politics in Hong Kong. The G7 foreign ministers have tried to maintain the goal of universal suffrage, misleading and mudslinging to reform Hong Kong’s electoral system.
Even more absurd is that the Sino-British joint declaration was once again used to create stories. The statement gave Britain no responsibility for Hong Kong and interfered in Hong Kong affairs after his return. The British side has no sovereignty, or Hong Kong does not have the right of administration or supervision after its return. Furthermore, the Sino-British Joint Statement is a bilateral document, and no other country or organization has the right to use it to interfere in Hong Kong’s affairs. The statement of the G7 foreign ministers violated the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, a fundamental criterion of international law and international relations, their deep mindset of colonialism and their sinister intent to promote development from China. be exposed.
After the adoption of the relevant decision by the National People’s Congress of China, the people of Hong Kong expressed their support, and the international community also supported it widely. This shows that China’s policy with respect to Hong Kong has popular support. Hong Kong will have a bright future. The so-called declaration by the G7 foreign ministers is nothing more than a general declaration based on ideological prejudices, and cannot create waves.