Hong Kong has been back under PRC rule-under the "one country two systems"-for a year now. Overall, even the British have been pleased, saying that things have been going even better than hoped. But is this really so? Only Chinese living in Hong Kong are qualified to comment. I offer several concrete examples:

The first issue the new government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) had to resolve involved cases of permanent Chinese residents of Hong Kong with children living in mainland China. Should the children have the right to reside in Hong Kong? The Sino-British Joint Declaration clearly declared that they should be considered permanent residents of Hong Kong. But the HKSAR government-claiming that Hong Kong could not absorb them-created a permanent residency permit which they must apply for, thus depriving them of a right guaranteed in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. This created the regrettable precedent of "the rule of men" taking priority over "the rule of law," and of administrative decisions overriding constitutional provisions.

Later, a ruling by the SAR high court that the children of illegal immigrants to Hong Kong had the right to reside permanently in Hong Kong was overturned by a higher appeals court. The court said the reason was that Article 22 of the Basic Law states that Chinese from other areas must have permission to enter the HKSAR, and the judges said that if families wanted to be reunited, this did not have to be in Hong Kong, but could be in mainland China proper. Obviously the SAR is sucking up to Beijing, and black has been turned into white, going against logic and sentiment.

In fact, the Hong Kong government had long ago feared that this provision in the Basic Law would spark a wave of illegal immigration around the time of the handover in July of 1997. But it still respected British legal tradition and the written law. However, the HKSAR does not respect the law and makes decisions arbitrarily, destroying Hong Kong's tradition of rule of law. This will have far-reaching consequences.

As another example, one civil servant friend of mine talked about joining a political party. He said, "If I join one, it might as well be the Communist Party." I was startled. When talking of Beijing or the Communist Party, this close friend became very cautious about saying anything critical. His words reflect that Beijing and the Communist Party are undoubtedly his new masters. Compared to the colonial era, when internal Hong Kong documents were clearly anti-communist, and now seeing this civil servant who not only does not dare to criticize the Communist Party but may even join it, it is definitely a new day.

Recently the mainland's Central Ballet Company performed The Red Detachment of Women in Hong Kong. The political orientation of this ballet is already incompatible with life in mainland China itself, much less with Hong Kong. Officials in charge of broadcasting in the HKSAR have not kept careful watch over the gate of ideology. To allow this kind of propaganda to be shown in Hong Kong is really a failure to fulfill their responsibilities, since it goes against Hong Kong's political traditions and against Beijing's own policies.

It will be remembered that, less than six months after taking over Hong Kong, Beijing and its agencies in Hong Kong were touting the slogan "prevent Hong Kong from being transformed into just another Chinese interior city," so as to remove doubts about their sincerity to implement "one country two systems." This was admirable. But in this past year there have already been miscarriages of justice. It is a profound challenge to maintain Hong Kong "unchanged for 50 years" [as the Basic Law promises]. In only one year, much has already changed, enough to make those who are aware of the situation worried about the future.

Chu Chun-hung, Hong Kong