The alternative facts about HK as known by biased West politicians

Zhang Xiaoming, deputy director of the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, said on Tuesday that a misunderstanding of the “one country, two systems” principle was to blame for a series of Hong Kong fallacies, adding that such misunderstanding must be corrected. It doesn’t take much effort to understand why Beijing needs to repeatedly emphasize the importance of a correct understanding of the political framework governing Hong Kong.

Bloomberg News claimed on the same day in an article responding to Zhang’s remarks: “The Legislative Council loyalty clause added to the questions about Beijing’s commitment to Hong Kong’s autonomy, after the enactment in June of the controversial security legislation.”

On Nov 11, the day the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted a decision clarifying the eligibility of Hong Kong lawmakers, The Financial Times published an opinion article by Jamil Anderlini headlined: “China’s ‘recolonization’ of Hong Kong could soon be complete”.

This is not balderdash uttered by some lunatic fringe in social media but wellarticulated views of well-educated writers published in mainstream Western media. Indeed, the way so many Western politicians and mainstream media outlets bombarded the latest NPCSC decision with such vitriol suggests they do not accept China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong, a right that can only be embodied through the exercise of jurisdiction anywhere in the world.

They have created and been holding onto some alternative facts about Hong Kong and “one country, two systems” that suit only their own narratives but not the historical and political reality of Hong Kong being a part of China. They believe Hong Kong is still a kind of trust territory over which the Western powers have a say over their socioeconomic and political development. For them, “one country, two systems” means that China does not have full jurisdiction over Hong Kong, cannot demand loyalty from the city’s public officeholders, and has no right to safeguard national interests, including national security, by plugging legal loopholes in the SAR.

Western politicians and mainstream media nagged about Beijing’s “commitments” without fail every time they took issue with Beijing’s policy on Hong Kong and tried to mislead their unwitting voters or readers. But they never pointed out what exactly Beijing had promised, except craftily misinterpreting “a high degree of autonomy” as “full autonomy” in their attempts to deny Beijing’s legitimate right to exercise comprehensive jurisdiction over the special administrative region.

The alternative facts about Hong Kong peddled by biased Western politicians and media can only rankle each other, but they have no impact on how the Chinese city is run.