一九九七年，管治香港一百五十年的英國，將香港移交給共產黨的中國，至今整整十年。如果用一句話描述香港回歸十年，應該說，這十年是「一國」與「兩制」激烈衝突的十年，是兩種社會制度不斷鬥爭的十年。
眾所週知，中國收回香港帶有鮮明的鄧小平個人功利主義印記，他採取的策略是一方面威逼英國人撤退，一方面以高度自治籠絡港人。一國兩制是最重要的承諾。現在怎樣評估一國兩制？成為人們最關注的焦點。中共向英國和香港人保証香港原有的資本主義制度不變。顯然，關鍵是政治制度，因為經濟上，大陸也在急劇資本化，不存在兩制問題。那麼十年來，中共在政治上怎樣對待香港呢？以行政主導代替原有政制實際存在的三權分立；以人大釋法否決香港人○七○八雙普選的合法要求；以愛國者標準包辦特首選舉；以各種統戰手段侵蝕香港的新聞自由……面對這種種政治干預，香港人不斷地抗爭，二○○三年五十萬人的示威遊行，導至保安局長及董建華先後下台，名震全球。
最近，吳邦國的授權講話，觸犯眾怒。預示著兩制的衝突，在香港還將繼續下去。一國兩制十年實踐的失敗，反映在從前首相戴卓爾夫人、港督彭定康到國際輿論最近的批評上，也反映在台灣朝野對一國兩制一致的抗拒上，中共借此引誘台灣歸順的預謀可說完全落空。這促使我們對一國兩制要作一些根本的探討。
首先，是香港回歸罔顧民意的產物。九七回歸前的多項民調顯示，大比例的香港人都主張「維持現狀」，不願意接受一個專制政府的管治（至今港人對中國和中國人的認同，仍然有限）。但中共堅決否定了香港人參與九七回歸的談判，更不用說舉行公投。鄧小平相信，作出「五十年不變」的承諾，是威脅英國就範（如接見戴卓爾夫人的談話）防止民變的同時必備的權宜之計，哪裡是什麼「偉大創造」？香港不民主的回歸模式，是主權轉移的根本缺陷。
其二，一國兩制的違憲性質。中國憲法第一條明文「禁止任何組織或者個人破壞社會主義制度」，卻允許憲法之下的基本法規定「實行資本主義制度」。這樣露骨的人治特色，意味著「一國」可以隨意干預「兩制」，以「一國」壓「兩制」。十年來，他們正是這樣幹的。而實際上，「兩制」從未侵犯過「一國」，在主權、駐軍、外交方面港人毫無訴求。
最後，也是最重要的是，中共權力的獨裁性質，根本不能容忍香港作為一個民主政治樣板存在於它的主權之下。十年來對於香港民主自由的打壓，地下黨治港的不斷滲透擴張，直到任用港共份子為高官，吳邦國公然宣稱中央壟斷權力，港人治港的騙局已日益彰顯，一國兩制也就趨向名存實亡。因此，我們何必去湊熱鬧慶祝回歸，而應該爭取中英協定和基本法許諾的治港權力回歸香港。
2007-6-30 香港
Hong Kong 's Return? Let's Return to Hong Kong Instead
By Jin Zhong
After governing Hong Kong for a century and a half, Great Britain transferred sovereignty of the colony to Communist China in 1997. Since then, there has been serious conflict between the concepts of “one country” and “two systems,” resulting in continuous struggle between the two social systems
China 's resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong was clearly imprinted with Deng Xiaoping's utilitarianism, which was aimed at coercing the British to withdraw, while winning over Hong Kong people with promises of a high degree of autonomy. The most important of the related promises was that of “one country, two systems.” How should we assess “one country, two systems” now? That has become a key concern.
The Communist authorities promised Britain and the local people that Hong Kong 's original capitalistic system would remain the same. It is clear that the crux of the issue lies, rather, with the political system, since the rapid shift of the mainland to capitalism has eradicated the problem of two different economic systems. So how have the Communist authorities treated Hong Kong over the past 10 years in the political context? They have replaced the original separation of the three branches of power with an “executive-led” system; interpreted Hong Kong's Basic Law in such a way as to veto the legitimate popular demand for universal suffrage starting in 2007/2008; monopolized the election of the Chief Executive through the imposition of a standard of “patriotism”; and have eroded press freedom with “united front” maneuvers….. The people of Hong Kong have never ceased to fight against Beijing 's interventions; half a million people took to the street in 2003, forcing out the Secretary for Security and ultimately then-Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa. The world was stunned.
Recently, the people of Hong Kong were infuriated with the remarks of the nominal head of the legislature, Wu Bangguo, indicating that the conflict between the two systems will continue. The failure of “one country, two systems” is exemplified in the recent criticisms by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the last Governor Chris Patten and other international opinion, as well as the unanimous resistance of the people of Taiwan to a similar “one country, two systems” model, which has foiled the Communist plot to lure Taiwan into submission. All of this prompts a fundamental reexamination of the so-called “one country, two systems” concept.
First, Hong Kong 's handover of sovereignty went against the will of the people. Before 1997, many public polls showed that the majority of the people wanted to “maintain the status quo,” and were unwilling to be ruled by a despotic government. (To this day, the proportion of local people who see Hong Kong as part of China and themselves Chinese citizens is still limited.) But the Communist government simply refused to let Hong Kong people have a say in the negotiations regarding 1997, much less choose their destiny through a popular referendum. Deng Xiaoping used the promise of “no change for 50 years” as a measure of expediency to coerce Britain into giving up Hong Kong (for example, in his talk with Thatcher) as well as to prevent a revolt by the local populace. In what way does this qualify as a “great invention”? The undemocratic nature of the handover was its fundamental flaw.
Secondly, “one country, two systems” violates the Chinese Constitution. The first article of the constitution “forbids any organization or person to sabotage the socialist system,” but the Basic Law provides for the “implementation of a capitalist system.” This outrageous exhibition of rule by man indicates that the “one country” of China can interfere with and suppress “two systems.” For the last 10 years, this is exactly what has happened. At the same time, “two systems” has never infringed on the “one country,” and Hong Kong people have never made any such demand in terms of sovereignty, military installations or foreign relations.
Finally, and most crucially, the Chinese Communist authorities, being dictatorial by nature, simply cannot tolerate Hong Kong becoming a model of democracy under their rule. In the past 10 years, with the suppression of Hong Kong's democracy and freedom, the continuous infiltration and expansion of undercover Communists to the extent of appointment to Hong Kong's cabinet, and Wu Bangguo's declaration that all power belongs to Beijing, it has become increasingly obvious that “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” is an arrant fraud, and that “one country, two systems” exists in name only. Instead of celebrating the “return to China ,” we should fight for the returning to Hong Kong of the autonomy promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
June 30, 2007 Hong Kong
