Hong Kong's political system is imperfect but effective
Rachel Cartland's criticism of our political system was scathing and to my mind, as an indigenous Hongkonger, an insult. But I think her words serve as a warning to us as well.
Her criticism of our political system was scathing and to my mind, as an indigenous Hongkonger, an insult. But I think her words serve as a warning to us as well.
No political system in this world is perfect. It is true our chief executive does not have any political affiliation, but I believe this is the innovation and creativity that has enabled a period of calm and prosperity after the handover. Legco is split between geographical and functional constituencies and flaws are observable, but all political systems have problems. For example, the British parliament is not perfect. A referendum will be held in Scotland in September in which Scottish voters will decide whether to become independent from Westminster, so clearly not everyone is satisfied.
The "good and evil godmother" analogy is a joke. In early colonial rule, there was no native representation in Hong Kong, and the Public Order Ordinance could be used to limit freedom of speech in Hong Kong. The fact is Britain never thought to allow political development in Hong Kong until the handover loomed and it faced international pressure for not having done so.
Is China an evil godmother, then? In a way, it has caused a degree of disruption, especially in terms of the influx of tourists. But politically, it is trying to do everything it can to make Hong Kong a better place. The ultimate concern is sovereignty, because it is a fact that Hong Kong is a part of China, not a political opinion.
Cartland's words serve as a reminder to Hongkongers. Recently, I observed that some internet users said we were better off under British rule. This statement deprives us of our dignity. Colonisation is not politically realistic, and we are a Chinese society that does not need British hegemony.
