The thing is, Robert Godfrey, that Deng isn’t the leader of China. The dictator is Xi and the definition of someone who is not a “patriot” is whomsoever disagrees. For sure Xi wants Hong Kong to be “prosperous” and “stable” and, by his own definition, “patriotic” but he does not want it to be FREE. And that is what this is all about.
It's one country, two systems. Not two systems, one country. One country comes first for reasons Deng explained years before the Colony' reversion.
As Robin Daverman points out, China’s position has been remarkably consistent since 1984. Here's Deng’s speech on the Hong Kong issue in 1984:
"We have discussed the policy of "one country, two systems" more than once. It has been adopted by the National People's Congress. Some people are worried that it might change. I say it will not. The crux of the matter, the decisive factor, is whether the policy is correct. If it is not, it will change; otherwise it won't.
"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. Of course it should include other Chinese, too, as well as foreigners invited to serve as advisers. What is a patriot? A patriot is 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. Those who meet these requirements are patriots, whether they believe in capitalism or feudalism or even slavery. We don't demand that they be in favor of China's socialist system; we only ask them to love the motherland and Hong Kong.
Basically even back in 1984, China’s stance was that as long as Hong Kong is well-run by patriotic Chinese, prosperous and stable, it doesn’t really matter what “system” it wants to experiment. Policy development is very much a process of social experimentation, not religion. If it works, great. If it doesn’t, then they need to change and make it work.
As you can see, political system is not a red line, economic system is not a red line. Philosophy is not a red line. Patriotism is.
The thing is, Robert Godfrey, that Deng isn’t the leader of China. The dictator is Xi and the definition of someone who is not a “patriot” is whomsoever disagrees. For sure Xi wants Hong Kong to be “prosperous” and “stable” and, by his own definition, “patriotic” but he does not want it to be FREE. And that is what this is all about.
It's one country, two systems. Not two systems, one country. One country comes first for reasons Deng explained years before the Colony' reversion.
As Robin Daverman points out, China’s position has been remarkably consistent since 1984. Here's Deng’s speech on the Hong Kong issue in 1984:
"We have discussed the policy of "one country, two systems" more than once. It has been adopted by the National People's Congress. Some people are worried that it might change. I say it will not. The crux of the matter, the decisive factor, is whether the policy is correct. If it is not, it will change; otherwise it won't.
"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. Of course it should include other Chinese, too, as well as foreigners invited to serve as advisers. What is a patriot? A patriot is 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. Those who meet these requirements are patriots, whether they believe in capitalism or feudalism or even slavery. We don't demand that they be in favor of China's socialist system; we only ask them to love the motherland and Hong Kong.
Source: Deng Xiaoping on "one country, two systems"http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/19/content_307590.htm
Basically even back in 1984, China’s stance was that as long as Hong Kong is well-run by patriotic Chinese, prosperous and stable, it doesn’t really matter what “system” it wants to experiment. Policy development is very much a process of social experimentation, not religion. If it works, great. If it doesn’t, then they need to change and make it work.
As you can see, political system is not a red line, economic system is not a red line. Philosophy is not a red line. Patriotism is.