Does One Country exercise some kind of primacy over Two Systems, as mainland officials increasingly assert? Can you actually have two systems in one country when the systems are so dissimilar, verging on incompatible? In some lights, the slogan has the look of magical thinking. China is a one-party state: the CCP is not just the governing party, it claims the state itself, the People's Republic. How does that factor into One Country, Two Systems? Are Two Systems even possible in such a political environment?文章認為，在一國兩制之下，香港只有在不挑戰中央政府權威的前提下，才獲容許享有各項自由，而 2014年的佔領運動跨越了這條界線；從2014年的一國兩制白皮書，到2015年的銅鑼灣書店事件，到2016年針對自決倡議的打壓，均顯示香港的公共空間將會不斷受限，而學術自由是其中一項受到影響的自由。
To take one issue that relates to the question of academic freedom, consider the question of authority. Academic freedom means intellectual inquiry where nothing is ruled out, and everything is subject to scrutiny, debate, and test. It is no respector of external authority: it cannot be and remain free.
The principle underlying such inquiry was enunciated by John Stuart Mill: "The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on , but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded." On such beliefs the jury is always still out. How can such a claim to perpetual debate be compatible with a system of absolute political authority, resting on a monological ideology accorded the status of unquestionable scientific fact, served by a political institution with its own army?
In one sense, One Country, Two Systems was no less than a utopian desire to square this circle.7 g0 A5 }; y0 Q3 [8 S/ [- w
| 歡迎光臨 公仔箱論壇 (http://5.39.217.76/) | Powered by Discuz! 7.0.0 |