Talk:One country, two systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
	This article is maintained by the Chinese politics workgroup.
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Hong Kong Portal This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Hong Kong To-do: edit purge Clean up all MTR station pages. They are literally all over the place. Two model pages are Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. They each describe a feature special to the station, Station layout, exit, and connections, as well as neighbouring stations and the station "box". We will also need plenty of updated pictures (e.g. removing all KCR-related images except those on the KCR article). Check that all pages have basically the same language structure as Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. Links to location maps are good too. (Should also perform these checks on Chinese Wikipedia.) Clean-up pages that link with TVB, especially its series pages.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One country, two systems article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Domestic 1.1 RFC 2 Two systems within one sovereign State 3 Pronunciation overkill? 4 Confusing sentence 5 Post 50 Years?

[edit] Domestic

In response to User:Huaiwei's edits: [1] [2]. As I have said in the edit summary [3], I don't think trade, extradition, aviation agreements are domestic affairs. If the word "own" sounds unprofessional, let's look for a good alternative. It's not accurate to say those affairs are all domestic. See also domestic policy. — Instantnood 14:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• domestic policy is a stub. trade is mostly domestic policy and is generally thought of as domestic, extradition, emigration, and aviation are definitely domestic policy - controlling who/what comes in and out. Domestic is an appropriate word here, and besides, there is a laundry list of what things HK controls immediately after which makes it very clear to the reader. SchmuckyTheCat 14:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  Then what is not domestic policy? :-D — Instantnood 17:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Foreign policy dosent really say much either. I would like to point out that most governments of independent states do not lump trade negotiations etc with that of foreign diplomacy. If the two are mixed, Taiwan will be an economical disaster, for example.--Huaiwei 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  Not really. The AIT/Taipei is said to be a de facto embassy in Taiwan. The ROC is said to be having de facto diplomatic relations with many other countries, although not officially recognised. :-) International trade is usually administered separately from diplomatic relations, but it is always a key issue for the relations between two countries. — Instantnood 17:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not really what? These de facto entities dosent add anything to what I was saying, does it? Do they address my point, that if international trade was to be considered foreign policy, and was to form a part of diplomatic relations, then Taiwan is not going to be able to trade with anyone except the likes of the Vatican City?--Huaiwei 17:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

    Seems like there's no such thing as de facto diplomatic relations in your mind. :-) Not only diplomatic relations with official recognition is diplomatic relations. — Instantnood 17:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I'm responding to the RFC for this dispute. I don't know much about Hong Kong and China, but from a simple word choice perspective, both "own" and "domestic" are poor choices. Domestic is simply wrong, as extradition is a distinctly un-domestic issue. Own sounds unprofessional. May I suggest, "The two SARs of Hong Kong and Macau are responsible for most of their governmental affairs, including..." James 20:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you James. I agree with your suggestion. — Instantnood 09:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that "governmental" dosent specify if its internal or external, thus changing the meaning of the sentence. Is this avoidance delibrate, coz if it was so to mediate this situation, then I am ok with it too.--Huaiwei 15:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to encompass both internal and external functions, as it would seem that the SARs do control some of their foreign affairs, as well as basically all their internal affairs. James 18:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

But reality is hardly that clearcut, and that applies to "internal" affairs as well. Would you consider domestic elections of the HK leader internal? I would, but as was well demonstrated in the recent spate of events, Beijing's intervention in the election process was clearly present. In fact, Beijing does have a say in how HK conducts its internal affairs in such a way that it does not contravene or erode national interests.--Huaiwei 19:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Practically, during the debate over the length of the term of office of the chief executive, it was an intervention. But the Central People's Government in Beijing does posess the power to do so, as the right to interpret the Basic Law, which is a national law, is in the hand of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The administration of the election processes is entirely out of the influence of Beijing. Beijing can only influenced how the members of the electoral college vote by non-structural means. And yes Beijing does have a say over Hong Kong's internal matters, but that's not an intervention. Let's say, the Malaysian government can protest over Singaporean reclamation works in the Strait of Johore. Is that intervention? — Instantnood 19:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

You are clearly downplaying the serious issues over the state of HK's autonomy, an issue which was very well documented in the press, so I dont think you could feign ignorance on this one. Depending on who you would like to believe, Beijing hand-picked Hong Kong's first leader, and does have an influence over who his sucessor is. Beijing was the one who wrote the HK basic law, which ironically gives it domestic autonomy. But it is precisely so, that it can also choose to reinterpret, amend, or even throw the entire law out of the window if it so prefers. Even the electorial college is well known to be relatively pro-Beijing. Did this come about by chance? Well...seems like the views out there would hardly think this is so. So does Beijing only interfere by "non-structural" means, whatever that is?

Your analogy on the reclamation issue is truly groundbreaking. Any national government can protest or make their views known to their counterpart in another country. But is that intervention? Is that having a say in another's affairs? That will only be true, if the other party's political system actually allows for such an intervention to take place (which is true when it comes to the HK situation). Is this the case between Malaysia and Singapore? No. Would you mind telling us in what way would Malaysia be "intevening" in Singapore's affairs over that particular issue, and if there is anything in Singapore's laws or constitution which states that Singapore's sovereignty is in anyway allowed to be called into question by allowing for direct intervention by any other country on Earth? And can you tell the difference between a case of direct intervention in a country's affairs, and one in which external influences or factors may sway governmental decisions/actions/policies/laws, etc?--Huaiwei 20:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes Beijing can reinterpret the Basic Law, and they can even scrap it if they wish to. But they cannot interfere how the election is held. They can ask the possible contenders to join or not to join the election, but they cannot bar anybody to submit an application form. They can influence the outcome through members of the electoral college who are pro-Beijing, but they cannot interfere the administration of the process of election.

What Beijing says about Hong Kong's internal affairs is intervention? What sort of direct intervention from Beijing is allowed accordling to Hong Kong laws and government structure? What policies in Hong Kong is directly intervened by Beijing? — Instantnood 20:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two systems within one sovereign State

About my edit [4]: the Chinese equivalent for (sovereign) State, country and nation are all 國/国 (although sovereign State can be more strictly and accurately translated as 主權國/主权国). Many experts in translation, politics and constitutional law have pointed out that the slogan form-like "one country, two systems" formula could be better translated as "two systems within one sovereign state" or "two systems under one sovereignty", or at least "one country with two systems", if the meaning has to be strictly and accurately reflected. — Instantnood 16:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Source it, cite it, make it verifiable. "Many experts" isn't sourced, cited, and verifiable. "translation issues" shouldn't be in the intro paragraph. SchmuckyTheCat 16:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  I read from newspapers. Don't think I do newspapers cutting with everything I read, do you? :-) That's not merely a translation issue, but rather, additional information to help readers understand the exact meaning accurately. — Instantnood 16:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• You are attempting to replace a commonly-known phrase with one laden with a POV from a small segment of society, so of coz it needs to be cited, including scanning your newspaper cutting. If you do not have a habit of cutting papers, and yet want to cite from it, then this is probably a signal that you should start clipping them!--Huaiwei 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reminder. Mind illustrate your own perception on the similarities and differences among "country", "(sovereign) state" and "nation"? What does the word "country" mean in the phrase "one country, two systems"? — Instantnood 17:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • And how does my personal views matter in this? I dont have a habit of using my personal views in redefining established terms the way you do.--Huaiwei 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

    I'm not requesting you to redefine anything. Rather, I am interested to know how you perceive the established definitions, and how you would explain it in your own words, for I am not sure if your perception of the established definitions is the same as other people. — Instantnood 17:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation overkill?

Why are there two romanisations for Cantonese listed? Surely its not necessary? --Sumple (Talk) 09:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that 1C2S currently is implemented only in Cantonese-speaking areas, I think one Cantonese romanisation is appropriate. Two, however, could be as you say, overkill. :D -- Миборовский 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's an article on this. The romanization of Mandarin was started about 1900 by Wade and Giles and effectively finished with the promulgation of the official Hanyu Pinyin system. Cantonese (linguistics) came along a lot later with every dictionary, grammar, training course etc developing its own incompatible system. So the infobox contains the two most common systems. m.e. 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing sentence

I'm new to this subject matter, but I am confused by the following sentence in an otherwise very informative article:

"Specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is given a constitutional status through the basic laws."

How do "basic laws" (assuming that these are laws of Hong Kong, not PRC) give the covenant the status of a constitutional element? Do the laws say something like, "this shall be as the constitution" without actually amending the constitution?

This sentence might inform readers who already know how this is handled, but it's not very clear to the naive reader.

Thanks for you consideration.

D'scribed 13:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)d'scribed

[edit] Post 50 Years?

I heard it from someone that this system will be abolished after 2047 and 2049 (for HK and Macao, respectively), and that both territories will be forced to convert to Communism, whether they like it or not. Is that true? Arbiteroftruth 07:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, clearly, if you heard it on the internet, it must be true. 24.89.245.62 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added the exact quote from the 2 book sources and there are alot more out there. Benjwong 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the population of Hong Kong and Macau will dwindle and reduce itself as that time comes...

(Unless the PRC made it illegal to emigrate out to a "less-Communist" place.)

88.105.105.48 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop the vandalism. You are trashing multiple articles by marking everything with need-citations. Benjwong (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's this got to do with the topic?

Shin-chan01 (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Someone just tagged "What will happen after 2047 and 2049 (50 years after the return of Hong Kong and Macao, respectively) is never stated" with a {{need citation}} along with 50 other sentences. The person doing massive tagging is obviously very new to the topic or vandalizing. Is like tagging "water is liquid" with a need citation. Really over doing it. Benjwong (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added a link to the topic. Is really just a proposal. Please don't look for a complete analysis of some sort on this article. Benjwong (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)