综合一区欧美国产,99国产麻豆免费精品,九九精品黄色录像,亚洲激情青青草,久久亚洲熟妇熟,中文字幕av在线播放,国产一区二区卡,九九久久国产精品,久久精品视频免费

Apps in smartphones come up with new updates every other week, but the software that Hong Kong operates on - "One Country, Two Systems" - has yet to produce an upgrade since the Basic Law was adopted on April 4, 1990 by the National People's Congress.

Hong Kong's social, political and economic systems definitely have changed. However, most of these changes are more reactive than proactive. Some of the developments conflict with the original design, others are ad hoc measures not well thought out. To date, we still lack a comprehensive review of where we want Hong Kong to go, where in fact it is heading, and the discrepancies between the two. The second decade since the handover will soon come to pass, and it is time that we do some summing up.

Some time ago, I wrote here about "One Country, Two Systems 2.0". I am glad that my call for change is joined by a growing number of people. In his recent piece of commentary "HK needs systematic overhaul" (May 17) published here, Thomas Chan Man-hung declared what Hong Kong now needs "is a major overhaul of the entire local governance system: a process of decolonization or at least a structural reorganization and reorientation of the policy regime that presents fundamental changes to the pre-1997 colonial system (including its civil service establishment) and 16 years of ineffectual governance since."

Our Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying also spoke of the "systemic problem" when questioned by the media. His remark was widely perceived as an attempt to shed responsibility for public discontent, but allocating blame where blame is due is often the first step towards reform.

CY has the power to clear his name. If he elaborates fully on the "systemic problem", provides solutions, implements them and makes Hong Kong a better place, then we know that he indeed has been correct all along. But if he just removed the statement from the government website, never to talk about "the systemic problem" again, then perhaps it really is nothing but an excuse.

Here are some of the things that might have caused the "systemic problem". The first is guaranteed prosperity. Believing that Hong Kong's prosperity is the ultimate indicator of the well-being of "One Country, Two Systems", and that prosperity can only be achieved through stability, our country's leaders have tried hard to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.

There are costs in keeping Hong Kong prosperous, and they give rise to moral questions. It is not a secret that more and more citizens and government officials in the Chinese mainland are questioning the preferential treatment that Hong Kong has been enjoying. At the same time, guaranteed prosperity makes Hong Kong people lazy and gives them a false sense of entitlement.

Both the central government and the SAR government should make it clear that Hong Kong's prosperity is conditional. It cannot be maintained if Hong Kong keeps on losing competitiveness, or if, say, Central is occupied.

The second problem behind Hong Kong's poor governance is its single-minded pursuit of economic development. When other Chinese cities are catching up economically, some in Hong Kong feel a constant urge to get the city even richer so that we can leave our mainland cousins behind us once again. This is the anxiety behind the discourse of "becoming just another Chinese city".

The reality is that maintaining economic growth much faster than other Chinese cities is no longer possible, and perhaps even morally unjustifiable. However, we can distinguish Hong Kong as a city of compassion, of inclusiveness, of equality and of culture. The mainland now urgently needs capacity building in soft-power, and this is an area which Hong Kong has an irreplaceable niche if we put our freedom of speech and of the press to good use.

As Lui Tai-lok has well argued, the basis underlying the original design of "One Country, Two Systems" has changed. If we cannot renew the synergy, there will only be more conflicts ahead.

The author is a member of the Commission on Strategic Development.

(HK Edition 05/28/2013 page1)