To commemorate the 10th anniversary of its establishment, a Hong Kong-based think tank, Savantas Policy Institute, organized a seminar to discuss the relationship between the central authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Heavyweight speakers from a broad political spectrum, including Lau Siu-kai, vice-president of the China Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies, Jasper Tsang Yok-sing, president of the Legislative Council, and Ronny Tong Ka-wah, former legislator and convener of the newly established think tank Path of Democracy, took part in the discussions.

All three speakers, in their presentations on the remit of the authority and responsibility of the central government, revealed significant divergence in their interpretations of “One Country, Two Systems”. Lau shed light on the central government’s frustrations at worrying developments which appeared to challenge the central government’s authority and deny them of a legitimate voice in Hong Kong affairs.

According to Lau, since 2003 the central government started making statements which signaled their concerns, but they appeared to have fallen on deaf ears. Eventually, the central government felt obliged to spell out their concerns emphatically in the first ever white paper on the implementation of “One Country, Two Systems” in Hong Kong in June 2014. Unfortunately, some of the assertions in the white paper, such as that the central government has “complete jurisdiction” over Hong Kong, created the opposite effect of arousing alarm in Hong Kong that the central government might be backpedalling on its promise of a “high degree of autonomy”.

Jasper Tsang pointed out that, since 1997, there had been three “crises” in the implementation of “One Country, Two Systems”, namely the mass protest in 2003 against the enactment of local legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law; another mass protest in 2012 against the introduction of national education as a separate subject in the school curriculum; and more recently, the controversy over the method for electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage and the unlawful “Occupy Central” movement which it triggered. All three crises resulted in the rejection of the Hong Kong SAR’s agenda to take appropriate measures to protect “the sovereignty, security and developmental interest” of the nation, and represented considerable setbacks for the central authority.

The three speakers were unanimous in their assessment that the implementation of “One Country, Two Systems” in Hong Kong had reached a tipping point. As Zhang Xiaoming had pointed out in an article published in November 2012, there are inherent contradictions in the implementation of this bold and unprecedented concept. If these underlying tensions were not properly managed, the future of “One Country, Two Systems” and the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong could be in jeopardy. All three speakers were in agreement that more interaction between the central government and different stakeholders in Hong Kong, including those from the opposition in the Legislative Council, would help improve understanding of the Basic Law, and enhance mutual respect and tolerance.

A welcome development is the recent visit of Zhang Dejiang, the chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. During the visit, Zhang reaffirmed the central government’s commitment to the implementation of “One Country, Two Systems” as a well thought-out, long-term national strategy. His exhortations to Hong Kong people not to lose sight of the original intents and purposes of the concept, not to lose patience and to maintain confidence, attest to the central government’s determination to make “One Country, Two Systems” a success.

Zhang’s activities in Hong Kong during his visit also show his awareness of the changes in Hong Kong’s social and political environment since the reunification, and the need to engage leaders from the opposition to promote greater mutual understanding and to reduce tensions. Although Zhang’s face-to-face meeting with the leading political figures of the city, including the harshest critics of the government, lasted no more than an hour, it was unprecedented in the opportunity afforded for different stakeholders to voice their strongly held opinions in a candid and forthright manner.

What the central government needs to recognize is that, with the introduction of democratic elections as provided in the Basic Law, the Hong Kong SAR Government no longer functions as a simple, “executive-led” successor administration to the colonial Hong Kong administration. Although the local government still retains the prerogative to initiate bills and expenditure proposals, the political system in Hong Kong has evolved into a polyarchy — a system in which power is vested in multiple actors including the legislature and the judiciary.To reduce the tensions underlying the implementation of “One Country, Two Systems”, which all three speakers agreed remains the best arrangement for Hong Kong going forward, it is necessary for the central government, as well as the local government, to adopt a more inclusive, collegial and participatory style in the implementation of “One Country, Two Systems”. There needs to be more patient explanations of the original intentions of the concept, more communication with different stakeholders, and more efforts devoted to promoting mutual respect and understanding.