Last Friday I was invited to join Benny Tai and Joseph Cheng, on the RTHK program Pulse, to discuss our different views on the white paper. I discovered that all three of us guests, together with the host of the program, agreed that the paper really contained nothing new. It was simply reiterating what had already been stated by various central government officials, and what was already well-known.

However, the paper has caused quite a stir. Many of those in the pan-democratic camp condemned it. Joseph Cheng said it did not say anything about human rights and ignored the rights of Hong Kong people. Benny Tai said Beijing was imposing its will on Hong Kong people. Their views seem to be quite widespread among the opposition. They ignore the fact that the white paper was simply stating the facts, while expressing Beijing's concerns.

In the interview I used the term "factual worries". The host responded and asked: "What if the worries are not based on fact." It is not easy for an academic like me to discern whether there is any foreign influence trying to steer Hong Kong's democratic movement one way or another. It appeared to me that Beijing was genuinely worried - given the well-documented history of certain countries meddling in the affairs of other countries. So from my viewpoint the white paper is an honest document.

Among those matters of concern for pan-democrats, is the requirement for judges in Hong Kong courts to correctly interpret the Basic Law and to love the country. Another concern is the observation that the judiciary is part of the establishment. One of the most vocal dissenters is Alan Leong, leader of Civic Party. He said he was "completely taken aback" by the document, which had sent a shiver up (his) spine. "It is a sea change to our understanding of what 'One Country, Two Systems' should mean," Leong added.

He also took issue with the notion that judicial decisions made in Hong Kong should take account of the country's needs. This notion is really no different from the common law principle that judges should make their rulings with reference to the prevailing values of society and the public interest. Why should anyone assume the needs of the nation are in discord with the needs of Hong Kong? I recall former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa's well publicized comment: "If Hong Kong does well, the country will do well; if the country does well, Hong Kong will do even better."

There is nothing wrong with the concept that the legislature, the judiciary and the executive are all members of a team serving the SAR. I believe in the separation of powers as the best arrangement to serve the public interest. But separation of powers does not mean separation of interests. Being human, the executive can make mistakes. The idea of a separation of powers ensures that the legislature can help steer the executive away from making mistakes. Similarly, although the judiciary needs to be independent to make fair decisions, the judiciary and the executive should both be concerned about the public interest. "Being seen to be fair and independent" means that the judiciary need not see an issue in the same way that the executive does. They are still partners in the sense that they share the same goals.

According to Western culture, adversarial democracy is the only way democracy should work. But from the point of view of Chinese culture, democracy should not work this way. Democracy is not putting different interest groups at loggerheads against one another. Democracy is laying down one's own interests in pursuit of the common good. Democracy should not imply promising favors to constituents in order to win votes. Democracy should involve everyone working hard to promote the common good.

So far the Chinese model seems to be working well. China's governmental model is often interpreted as being dictatorial. But how can it be dictatorial if the country's leaders are responding to people's needs? This is not to say everything is perfect. One can always find things to criticize in a vast country like China. But in what country, anywhere, are people totally satisfied?

The white paper observed that in Hong Kong "some are even confused or unbalanced in their understanding of 'One Country, Two Systems' and the Basic Law." This could be because most people in Hong Kong do not understand the Chinese model of democracy. One-party government is automatically seen as being dictatorial. To those who hold such beliefs, the concept of rebelling against Beijing represents rebellion against a dictatorial regime. I realize there is no one who is really serious about this, but many are talking as if they were. It is important to let them know that they do not understand China. Actions speak louder than words. A political reform package within the framework of the Basic Law, which is seen to be liberal, will go a long way to communicating this message.

The author is director of the Center for Public Policy Studies at Lingnan University.

(HK Edition 06/17/2014 page9)