The Roman statesman, political theorist, philosopher, and orator Cicero (106-43 BC) stated that “Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable, than loyalty.” Loyalty can certainly have several definitions, but the one that is of more interest to us in this article is the first one provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, i.e., “faithful in allegiance to one’s lawful sovereign or government”.

In this regard, much is being written these days about Beijing’s recent declaration that only patriots should administer Hong Kong, while unveiling a plan to change the Special Administrative Region’s electoral system to ensure that. Regarding this announcement, Premier Li Keqiang, addressing the National People’s Congress, warned foreign forces not to interfere.

As expected, this decision has been criticized by many, especially by media outlets from the West, which claim that this is another step toward the “end of Hong Kong”, toward the “obliteration of Hong Kong’s freedoms”, and so on.

Since the National Security Law for Hong Kong was enacted in June, many media outlets throughout the West have been tirelessly repeating that this law meant “the death of Hong Kong”, in the same way that the handover was then being peddled as “a death sentence for Hong Kong” in 1997, and yet here we are, with Hong Kong being as prosperous and vibrant as ever. Now the electoral reform move seems to be, to them, another step toward this fictitious “death of Hong Kong”.

This “patriots only” move, albeit criticized by many, makes perfect sense to me: Having freedoms must not be confused with lack of loyalty. Hong Kong, since 1997, is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, under the “one country, two systems” principle. Many commentators in the West tend to neglect two elements from my last sentence: “of the People’s Republic of China” as well as the “one country” part of the “one country, two systems” formula.

Under the “one country, two systems” principle, Hong Kong continues to enjoy its distinct political, socioeconomic and legal arrangements under a unified China — for at least 50 years without change (note “at least”, which means that 2047 need not be the end of “one country, two systems”).

As I mentioned in “Security law will secure future of Hong Kong” (China Daily HK Edition, June 19, 2020), in the perception of some people in the West, Hong Kong is some sort of international city or foreign concession. To them, it does not belong to China, even though China has undisputed sovereignty over it.

Therefore, they believe Hong Kong’s future should be a matter of discussion among several countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, whereas the immutable fact is that Hong Kong is and will remain part of China.

Hong Kong being part of China means that the interests of Hong Kong should be aligned with those of Beijing, and vice versa. In other words, Beijing cannot harm Hong Kong’s future and prosperity, and Hong Kong cannot harm Beijing’s either, because both the HKSAR and the Chinese mainland are completely intertwined. 

Hong Kong and the mainland, being all in the same boat, must row in the same direction, not in the opposite one, which means that those in charge of Hong Kong must be loyal to the country.

Being loyal does not mean to renounce to the “one country, two systems” principle at all. Actually, it means exactly the opposite. Hong Kong will retain its distinct political, socioeconomic and legal arrangements at least until 2047 (and I’m sure after that), but those freedoms must be retained in a scenario of mutually beneficial cooperation underpinned by Hong Kong’s loyalty.

There is no doubt Hong Kong is set to play a key role in China’s future economic development, which means that Beijing has never neglected Hong Kong’s interests, including its prosperity.

Hong Kong’s involvement in projects like the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the digital yuan tests shows us that Beijing still prizes the Special Administrative Region and considers it to be very valuable. But the only way for Hong Kong to fully leverage its advantages is by working with the mainland as a team.

For example, it will benefit tremendously from participating in the Bay Area’s development, which brings together the two special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macao plus nine municipalities in Guangdong province. The Bay Area, dubbed by the media as “China’s answer to Silicon Valley”, has a combined population of over 69 million and a GDP of around US$1.5 trillion (comparable to that of the Tokyo Bay Area and the New York Metropolitan Area).

Now that Hong Kong’s unemployment rate has hit a 17-year high, isn’t it wise for Hongkongers to try to grasp every opportunity to thrive instead of doing the opposite? Undoubtedly, the Bay Area master plan provides a unique opportunity for Hong Kong to be part of a national development plan that will bring wealth, jobs and other opportunities to the area.

Furthermore, if we have a look at how other countries react, or would react to similar situations, we can clearly see that most countries adopt a tough stance on disloyal or subversive elements within their respective territories, same as China is proposing now, even tougher in many cases.

But let’s make no mistake here: This is not really about democracy. It is fair and acceptable to present different views on governance provided they are not championed by violence. Beijing has never prevented Hongkongers from having different opinions and expressing those. China has prevented the violent ways of yesteryear and 2019, which should never return to Hong Kong.

Hong Kong can still look forward to a bright future as one of the world’s most important financial hubs. But this can be assured only when Hong Kong remains part of China and is governed by people loyal to their own country.

Hongkongers need to acknowledge the considerable success of “one country, two systems”, and need to engage with Beijing on the basis of the shared goal of working toward the betterment of the nation. In other words, Hong Kong’s interests must be aligned with those of Beijing at all times.

The author works as a FinTech Advisor and Researcher. He holds an MBA and a doctorate in Hong Kong real estate law and economics. He has worked as a business analyst for a Hong Kong publicly listed company and has given seminars on Central Bank Digital Currencies and Blockchain in many international conferences and universities.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.