None of the 11 legislators from the Democratic Party who took part in a survey conducted by Wen Wei Po answered the question whether or not the "one country" in "One Country, Two Systems" is the People's Republic of China (PRC).

They all dodged the question probably because they did not want to place Emily Lau Wai-hing, their provocative ally, in an even more difficult position, or because they were simply not certain about the definition of "one country". Anyway, their refusal to answer the sensitive question of political principle has inevitably aroused a lot of suspicion.

It would not have been surprising if it were Taiwan lawmakers avoiding this question. The current division of the country that has lasted for more than five decades has led to dissension over the interpretation of "one country" on both sides of the Taiwan Straits.

Beijing leaders have reiterated that there is only one China in the world, that both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one and the same China, and that any topics can be discussed under the "one China" premise. The "one China" mentioned here is perhaps neither the PRC nor the Republic of China, but simply a territory of 9.6 million square kilometres that is distinguished from the rest of the world.

Hong Kong is different. The Hong Kong issue originated from imperialistic plundering in modern history. It has been the consistent stance of the Chinese Government to never accept the unequal treaties imposed by imperialist powers. It has never abandoned its sovereignty over Hong Kong.

That is why Deng Xiaoping told the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the early stage of the Sino-British talks that the question of sovereignty is not negotiable. That is why the accurate description of the reunification in 1997 is the resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong by the Chinese Government.

Since the international community recognizes the central government in Beijing as the sole legitimate government of China, Hong Kong's motherland is obviously the PRC. For Hong Kong people, hence, there is nothing uncertain about the definition of "one China".

Hong Kong returned to the embrace of the motherland six years ago to become a special administrative region of the PRC, to which Hong Kong's sovereignty belongs. Its legislators pledge their allegiance to the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR of the PRC. Only with all these definitions in place can "One Country, Two Systems" take root in the territory and build for Hong Kong a strong regime and institutional protections.

It is most significant for a political party to clarify to which country it identifies. Even for an opposition party, it cannot bypass this fundamental principle as long as it is operating within the establishment.

Recently, the Democratic Party again expressed its willingness to communicate with the central government to put forward opinions on the governance and development of the SAR.

If this wish is sincere, the 11 "democratic" legislators should not have treated the "one country" question with an ambivalent attitude. This is not only a question of respect for the central government, but also a direct manifestation of the establishment of the national concept.

It is disappointing that the DP's sense of national identity is in such a state even though six years have gone by since Hong Kong reunited with the motherland.

(China Daily HK Edition September 19, 2003)