At first glance, the past twenty-two years in Hong Kong seem to have been quite successful. After returning to China's embrace, political stability during the first 15-16 years was largely untroubled. Capitalism, whether in the prominent financial sector or in export industries, has continued to grow unabated. It has become clear in recent years that Hong Kong's per capita income now surpasses that of the UK. It is hard to deny that the formula of “One Country, Two Systems” that China applied to Hong Kong has not succeeded.

However, the “Umbrella Movement” protests in 2014 and the violent protests that lasted for several months in 2019 have prompted a reconsideration of whether “the two systems” are truly effective or in need of reform.

Interestingly, while the Chinese populace feels that handing Hong Kong over to the British in 1852 after the “Opium War” marked the beginning of a painful century of national “shame,” some of the current student activists are calling for Hong Kong to be returned to British rule or to re-align with the Western world. These individuals were all born after Hong Kong's return to China.

The question is whether the educational aspect of “two systems” has been ineffective in nurturing the younger generation?

Moreover, many protests express grievances about economic inequality in Hong Kong, where the gap between the rich and the poor is vast and continues to widen. The middle class and the poor struggle to find affordable housing, while billionaires enjoy spacious residences in beautiful locations. Anyone who has visited Hong Kong can see this disparity.

The issue is whether the “two systems” in the economic realm have left capitalism untouched and un-reformed. Have they allowed private land ownership and let housing prices and rents be dictated too much by market forces?

Has the government invested adequately in affordable housing for the middle and lower classes? Or has it merely continued the practices from the British era? It is important to remember that mainland China is not solely capitalist; it also has a guiding socialist state.

Ultimately, while Hong Kong has experienced continuous economic growth, it now lags behind neighboring Shenzhen, which is managed by China and has only been developing for forty years. Shenzhen has evolved from agricultural roots to a thriving industrial base and has become a financial hub that rivals Hong Kong. In recent years, Shenzhen has also emerged as China’s “Silicon Valley,” a center for 5G technology and at the forefront of the fourth industrial revolution.

The “two systems” issue in development planning may have made Hong Kong too “independent,” preventing it from fully leveraging the strengths of surrounding cities or regions. Has it failed to integrate into a development plan that accelerates the country’s transition into the fourth industrial revolution? It’s worth noting that Shenzhen operates under a similar “one country, two systems” framework but does not strive for separation.

When Hong Kong was first integrated, Chinese leaders emphasized “two systems,” which yielded results and successes. However, with success comes challenges. Many friends in China now believe that moving forward, there should be a greater emphasis on being “one country” together.

I believe that the principle of “One Country, Two Systems” should be firmly maintained for at least fifty years, but the “two systems” need to be improved. In this regard, Hong Kong people should not assume they are “superior” to the general Chinese populace; they should be humble and learn from the strengths of the other system.

As a “fan” of Hong Kong for over forty years and a friend of China, I see that Hong Kong must continue to coexist with China. I hope to see these “two systems” adapt to each other, learn from one another, and I urge for a peaceful resolution to the conflicts in Hong Kong, leading to improvements for all parties involved!