In order to mend relations with Beijing, the Hong Kong authority tried to force the Legislature to pass Article 23. The results were not pretty. Hundreds of thousands (some reported one million) of offended and angry citizens took to the streets and protested in a large-scale march, drawing worldwide attention.

To understand what was really happening, one must determine whether it is true that China and Hong Kong are “One country under two systems.”

When people in Hong Kong were celebrating the takeover by the Chinese government, it was based upon their belief in the “one country under two systems” promise by Beijing and that it could guarantee that the lifestyle of people in Hong Kong would not be affected after the takeover. But six years later, the reality is quite different. It seems that the Hong Kong authority could not wait to replace “two systems” with “one country”; the conflicts within the society were getting more and more obvious. “One country under two systems” was simply disappearing. If Article 23 was passed, the lifestyles of the HK people would be changed even further, and at the same time, it implied that “one country under two systems” was officially over. From the policies the Beijing officials used to “repair” this mistake, the people in Zhongnanhai seemed to be aware of this situation.

Apart from the conflict within “one country under two systems” itself, it will help us to analyze this complicated issue by considering whether it is possible or not. Why don’t we compare the relations between Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan and China?

When China had signed “Agreement Article 17” with a representative of the Dalai Lama, China was promising them that they could have “one country under two systems” and their life styles would not be affected because China wanted to “liberate” Tibet in a peaceful way. But even before the ink on the agreement dried, China was forcing to implement the so-called “Social transformation” in Tibet. The Tibetans were compelled to revolt and thus the Chinese Army took over Tibet completely. The Dalai Lama was force to leave China and "Aticle 17" became a scrap paper.

Deng Xiaoping desired initially to have Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong and said it would “remain unchanged for fifty years.” He reinstated that it would be used to set an example for ‘reuniting’ Taiwan. Maybe he meant to say before Taiwan “returns” to the Mainland. However, because he had lied in the case of “liberating” Tibet, not only Taiwan (which was already an independent country) was suspicious about it, but people in Hong Kong also doubted the truth behind “one country under two systems.” In recent years, everything Dong Jianhua and his people (who were promoted by the Chinese government) had done in Hong Kong made more and more people believe that “one country under two systems” was a temporary policy before “re-unification.”

Relations between Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan and China are complex. Tibet and Taiwan are two extremes: the Dalai Lama wants Tibet to be autonomous, as stated in Article 17, and to fulfill “one country under two systems” as China had promised to Hong Kong. On the other hand, the majority of people in Taiwan absolutely refused to have “one country under two systems,” and calls to “maintain the status quo” and “asking for independence” were just as strong. In the Taiwanese people’s opinion, Hong Kong is just a new “colony” taken over by China. So here emerges a strange phenomenon: the Dalai Lama wants “one country under two systems” in Tibet but Beijing refused. Taiwan obviously refused to have “one country under two systems” but China insisted on forcing it upon Taiwan without the opportunity for negotiation. Naturally, Hong Kong was left as decoration under such circumstances.

To resolve these problems, it eventually all comes back to whether China was sincere about “one country under two systems” or not. China should go back to the beginning and re-negotiate with Dalai Lama to bring “Article 17” back to the negotiating table. In this way, not only Tibet can be autonomous but also Hong Kong will regain its confidence in “one country under two systems.” This will at least establish a systematic basis for releasing the tensions between China and Taiwan and allowing the search for a better way for them to co-exist. The key is whether the political mechanisms in China allow it to develop greater sincerity on “one country under two systems.” In other words, we should take a close look at what caused “Article 17” to be thrown out and why “one country under two systems” has failed.