Talk:Hong Kong Question

Permanent one country two systems

@Labratscientist I would first like to point out that SCMP is not state-owned, Alibaba is not an SOE. Moreover even if it was, like the VOA, it's still a WP:RS by community consensus. It's a valid source.

And secondly, a statement by Xia Baolong cannot be taken as speculation. He is stating not his personal decision (which he has no legal right to implement on his own), but the decision of the central government — which has never indicated that 1C2S is not permanent. So unless his words were immediately repudiated by the government then they can be taken as policy. I cannot stress this enough, Xia Baolong does not decide on the legal position of Hong Kong, he is just a director of a party agency. It doesn't matter if he retires, passes away or other, unless repudiated that is the official position of the government. Anything else is speculation. SigillumVert (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

"Xia Baolong does not decide on the legal position of Hong Kong, he is just a director of a party agency." Then , how come the statement he made here should be taken as the position of the Chinese Central government. I am really confused here. Labratscientist (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

One country, two system is also a promise made by Deng to the western leaders. Not to speak ill of Xia, I don't think he is on the level to correct Deng. Labratscientist (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Because Xia Baolong is speaking in the capacity as a member of the government. He doesn't make the decisions on his own (at least not without his superiors), and he can't publicise them without his superiors approving. If he did state something so important without government approval he would be promptly sacked or even prosecuted for state secrets, depending on what was said. That's not what happened here.

You are correct that Xia can't contravene Deng. But Xi can and Xi is Xia's boss. Effectively Xi, in his capacity as leader of China, decided—or greenlit—that 1C2S is permanent. SigillumVert (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If it is a statement of such authority, then there would be extensive reporting to it and we wouldn't be arguing about it in a small corner of wikipedia. From where I see, if what you said is true, British government would probably have a formal response to it to welcome the decision, along with other democracy loving nations. If the statement is not taken seriously by other nations (as Deng's once did), it should not be by wikipedia.

I also wonder how true this "If he did state something so important without government approval he would be promptly sacked or even prosecuted for state secrets, depending on what was said. That's not what happened here." is. Labratscientist (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Look, we are not privy to what governments internally do or do not consider "serious". That is never public information nor should we expect it to be. Wikipedia is just here to relay what is verifiable. The Chinese government says they intend to make 1C2S permanent, we can verify this through reports in the media. Here is Paul Lam saying the same thing.

British government would probably... – that's speculation. It doesn't make sense to merit inclusion (or in this case exclusion) based on what some entity might probably do.

Frankly, I'm not even sure we should include the other "questions" apart from the handover one. The postulation of said "questions" seems to be WP:SYNTH constructed from primary sources instead of secondary sources. SigillumVert (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It does not matter what the Chinese government promises (which already has a terrible track record to begin with) because we are not taking them at their word. There is sufficient news coverage and academic analysis about this topic that it warrants inclusion. Northern Moonlight 22:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

So you propose we just ignore news reports on absolutely major developments and pretend nothing happened because... politicians lie? SigillumVert (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

So you propose we just ignore news reports

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have not said this.

We can and should include the statement per WP:DUE. What we cannot do is to read a statement from a government official saying the "one country, two systems" will continue after 2047 and just close the books on it. Per WP:SPECULATION: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included (bolded emphasis mine). Northern Moonlight 08:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

And I agree with you! I am not arguing for us to state unequivocally what will happen in the future.

I am merely saying we should recognise that what was once a "question" due to relevant powers silence/ambiguity on the matter is no longer ambiguous. SigillumVert (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

If the question has been "answered", we can use the past tense to denote it. Northern Moonlight 20:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I find this reasoning unconstructive. I am adding a needs update inline at very least until there is a source cited that was published after those statements addressing the intended continuation. Also the first two are SYNTH. SigillumVert (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way, China's involvement in their big tech is really not a secret. You might want to read more on the topic. Labratscientist (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I know, but that is not really relevant to WP:RS. The reason I use SCMP is because there is community consensus on it. You may well be right, but it's not me who you need to convince but the RS noticeboard and establish a consensus there. SigillumVert (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

They already did the discussion on WP:SCMP. The issues is known. Labratscientist (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)