4月20日和4月21日，《南华早报》网页版和纸质版先后刊发外交部驻香港公署特派员谢锋英文署名文章，呼吁国际社会全面准确理解、真心实意支持落实基本法。文章全文如下：

　　The international community needs a full and accurate understanding of the Basic Law

　　Xie Feng

　　“One country, two systems” is a pioneering initiative with no historical precedent and a major contribution China has made to the world. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has codified the policy into law with concrete provisions. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law, it is important to review the essence of the instrument, both to stay true to its original aspirations and to find the right way forward.

　　First, it is important to grasp the relationship between the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

　　The constitution of China, as the fundamental law of the state, has the supreme legal status and authority. It represents the legal origin of the system of special administrative region, and of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong special administrative region. To be specific, the Hong Kong special administrative region was established according to Article 31 of the 1982 constitution, which states that, “The state may establish special administrative regions when necessary”.

　　The preamble of the Basic Law also makes it clear that, in accordance with China’s constitution, the National People’s Congress enacts Hong Kong’s Basic Law, “prescribing the systems to be practised” in Hong Kong “to ensure the implementation of the basic policies of the People’s Republic of China regarding Hong Kong”.

　　Therefore, the constitution is the parent law, to which the Basic Law is subordinate. Hong Kong has the obligation to respect and abide by China’s constitution.

　　Second, the Basic Law is essentially the legal embodiment of the “one country, two systems” policy.

　　“One country, two systems” is a basic state policy the Chinese government adopted and has stayed committed to. It was proposed, first of all, to realise and uphold national unity. The preamble of the Basic Law begins with the sentence that “Hong Kong has been part of the territory of China since ancient times”, and lists “upholding national unity and territorial integrity” as the first aim of the enactment of this law.

　　All these show that “one country” is the foundation of and prerequisite for “two systems”, while “two systems” is subordinate to and derived from “one country”. Should the foundation be undermined, “two systems” would be out of the question. It is wrong to consider “two systems” on a par with “one country”, and even more so to deny and oppose “one country” on the grounds of “two systems”.

　　A major reason for the chaos in Hong Kong lies exactly in that forces trying to sow trouble in Hong Kong and China at large have dismissed “one country” and hence challenged the foundation of “one country, two systems”.

　　“One country, two systems” has been adopted by the Chinese government and implemented in Hong Kong through enacting the Basic Law in accordance with the constitution. It is not something Hong Kong is intrinsically entitled to, still less “granted” by the United Kingdom.

　　Britain’s colonial rule in Hong Kong, through the governors appointed by its monarch, lasted till the very last second on June 30, 1997, during which Hong Kong people had little say over their own affairs, not to mention a high degree of autonomy.

　　Third, the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong is not an inherent power but is authorised by the central government. There is no division of power between the central government and the Hong Kong government. The central government supervises the implementation of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong.

　　China is a unitary state, where the central government has overall jurisdiction over all local administrative regions. China has resumed exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong in the full sense of the term, including overall jurisdiction.

　　According to the constitution and the Basic Law, such overall jurisdiction includes the rights to establish special administrative regions; organise the Hong Kong government; enact, amend and interpret the Basic Law; supervise the high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong; issue directives to the chief executive; decide on applying national laws locally and so on.

　　Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Basic Law stipulates that the NPC authorises Hong Kong to “exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this law”.

　　Obviously, it runs counter to the spirit of “one country, two systems” and provisions of the constitution and the Basic Law to assume Hong Kong enjoys “full autonomy” under “one country” that exists in name only, and that the central government should leave Hong Kong alone except for its foreign affairs and defence.

　　It is also wrong to emphasise solely Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy while denying the overall jurisdiction the central government has, or even smear the central government’s exercise of rights under the constitution and the Basic Law as an “interference in Hong Kong affairs”, an “attempt to tighten control of Hong Kong” or an “erosion of the rule of law and autonomy of Hong Kong”.

　　Fourth, the Basic Law has drawn a red line that is not to be crossed: any attempt to endanger national sovereignty, security or territorial integrity is strictly prohibited.

　　Safeguarding national security is crucial for fully and faithfully implementing “one country, two systems”, and is a constitutional obligation of Hong Kong under the Basic Law.

　　Article 23 requires that Hong Kong “shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the central people’s government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies”.

　　Nearly 23 years since Hong Kong’s return to China, the relevant laws are yet to materialise. Those trying to sow trouble in Hong Kong and China at large have not only demonised Article 23 and obstructed the legislative process, but also colluded in a bid to turn Hong Kong into an independent or semi-independent political entity, and a base for infiltration, sabotage, secession and subversion against China.

　　During the unrest following the proposed amendments to Hong Kong’s Fugitive Offenders Ordinance last year, these forces trampled the Basic Law and Hong Kong’s rule of law, challenged the central government’s authority, committed vandalism, and begged for foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs and sanctions upon the city.

　　Manipulated by certain foreign countries, some plotted to overthrow the legitimate Hong Kong government through filibustering in the Legislative Council, street violence and collaboration with external forces.

　　A handful of extremists even openly waved flags, shouted slogans and made statements calling for so-called “Hong Kong independence”. Such behaviour has severely endangered national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, undermined the foundation of “one country, two systems”, and challenged the authority of the Basic Law.

　　The practice of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong, which is to remain unchanged for 50 years, has entered its medium term. Taking stock of the past 23 years, we can find that at the crux of the strife in Hong Kong is often a failure to fully and accurately understand the Basic Law. In particular, the troublemakers have deliberately skewed the principles and contents of the Basic Law, and obstructed its full and faithful implementation.

　　They have even played the victim, and accused instead the central government and the Hong Kong government of violating the Basic Law and the policy of “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong”, and eroding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. Therefore, it is imperative to get the fundamentals straight and set things right.

　　As supporters of the “one country, two systems” policy and stakeholders in Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability, members of the international community need to grasp the Basic Law and earnestly support its implementation.

　　Only when the Basic Law is fully and faithfully implemented, and the systems and mechanisms related to the implementation of the constitution and the Basic Law in Hong Kong are improved to keep abreast of the times, can we ensure “one country, two systems” is applied without being bent or distorted, and will achieve greater success in the future.

　　国际社会应该全面准确理解基本法

　　谢锋

　　“一国两制”是一项前无古人的制度创新，是中华民族对人类社会的一大贡献。基本法是“一国两制”方针政策的具体化和法律化。在香港基本法颁布三十周年之际，重温其核心要义，既是不忘初心，更是引领未来。

　　首先，要正确认识中国宪法与基本法的关系。

　　宪法是中国的根本大法，具有最高法律地位和效力，是特别行政区制度和香港基本法的法律渊源。1982年通过的中国宪法第31条规定“国家在必要时得设立特别行政区”，这是中国政府设立香港特区的法律依据。基本法序言中明确指出“根据中华人民共和国宪法，全国人大制定香港基本法,规定特区实行的制度，以保障国家对香港的基本方针政策的实施。”可见，宪法是母法，基本法是子法，基本法从属于宪法，香港有尊重、遵守国家宪法的义务和责任。

　　第二，《基本法》本质上是“一国两制”方针政策的法律体现。

　　“一国两制”是由中国政府制定并坚定不移执行的一项基本国策，它的提出首先是为了实现和维护国家统一。《基本法》序言第一句即开宗明义指出，“香港自古以来就是中国的领土”，并将“维护国家的统一和领土完整”列为基本法的立法目的之首。

　　这些都表明，“一国”是实行“两制”的前提和基础，“两制”从属和派生于“一国”并统一于“一国”之内。“一国”是根、是本。如果“一国”原则出现动摇，“两制”就无从谈起。“一国”和“两制”不是平行的，更不能用“两制”否定和抵制“一国”。香港出现乱象，一个重要原因是反中乱港和外部势力无视“一国”之本，挑战“一国两制”的原则底线。

　　“一国两制”是中国政府根据宪法通过制定基本法赋予特区并实施的。“一国两制”不是香港与生俱来的，更不是由英国“赐予”。一直到1997年6月30日23时59分59秒，英国女王任命的总督还在香港进行殖民统治，既没有“港人治港”，更没有高度自治。

　　第三，香港的高度自治权不是固有的，而是来源于中央授权，香港与中央不是分权关系，中央对“一国两制”在香港的实施有监督权。

　　中国实行单一制国家结构形式，中央对所有地方行政区域拥有全面管治权。中国恢复对香港行使主权是包括全面管治权在内的完整主权。根据宪法和基本法，中央政府对特区拥有的全面管治权包括特别行政区的创制权，特区政府的组织权，基本法的制定、修改和解释权，对特别行政区高度自治的监督权，向行政长官发出指令权，决定在特区实施全国性法律等等。

　　同时，基本法第2条规定，“全国人民代表大会授权香港特别行政区依照本法的规定实行高度自治，享有行政管理权、立法权、独立的司法权和终审权”。

　　显然，那种认为香港在一个中国的名义下享有完全自治，中央政府只有外交权和防务权，因此应该对香港特区事务不管不问，本身就背离了“一国两制”原则精神，也不符合中国宪法和基本法的相关规定。只谈特区享有的高度自治权，否定中央政府的全面管治权，甚至把中央政府依法行使宪法和基本法赋予的权力诋毁为干预香港事务、收紧对港管治、破坏香港法治、侵蚀香港自治，是完全错误的。

　　第四，基本法划出了一条红线，即不能危害国家主权、安全和领土完整。

　　维护国家安全是全面准确贯彻“一国两制”的核心要求，也是特区根据基本法必须履行的宪制责任。

　　基本法第23条规定，“香港特别行政区应自行立法禁止任何叛国、分裂国家、煽动叛乱、颠覆中央人民政府及窃取国家机密的行为，禁止外国的政治性组织或团体在香港特别行政区进行政治活动，禁止香港特别行政区的政治性组织或团体与外国的政治性组织或团体建立联系”。

　　香港回归已近23年，相关立法仍未完成。反中乱港势力不仅千方百计反对阻挠23条立法，将其妖魔化，而且勾结外部势力，挖空心思想把香港变成一个独立或半独立的政治实体，并变成渗透、破坏、分裂、颠覆中国的桥头堡。去年修例风波中，反中乱港势力践踏基本法和特区法治，挑战中央权力，肆无忌惮地打砸抢烧，“邀请”和乞求外国势力插手香港事务和制裁特区。还有人企图通过议会拉布、街头暴力等推翻特区合法政权。一些极端分子甚至公然打出“港独”旗帜，呼喊“港独”口号，发表“港独”宣言，严重危害国家的主权、安全和领土完整，踩踏“一国两制”原则底线，挑战基本法权威。

　　“一国两制”在香港实践已进入了“五十年不变”的中期。23年来香港社会出现各种纷争，往往与没有全面准确理解基本法相关。特别是内外反中乱港势力揣着明白装糊涂，刻意歪曲基本法宗旨和内容，阻挠基本法全面准确实施，甚至恶人先告状，倒打一耙，将违反基本法、破坏“港人治港”、侵蚀高度自治的脏水泼向中央和特区政府。我们必须正本清源、拨乱反正。

　　作为“一国两制”方针政策的拥护者，香港繁荣稳定的持份者，国际社会应该全面准确理解、真心实意支持落实基本法。只有全面准确落实基本法，与时俱进完善特别行政区同宪法和基本法实施相关的制度和机制，防止“一国两制”变形走样，才能确保“一国两制”事业行稳致远。