香港“病了”。今年夏天以來，因修訂《逃犯條例》，激進示威者不斷發起暴力衝擊行為，不僅針對執法的警察，而且有針對性地針對一些機構、商店甚至是個人，讓所有關心香港的人士擔心。特區政府採取了一些措施，然而無論是行政長官的道歉，還是特區政府的正式撤回修例草案，無論是《禁蒙面法》的“阻嚇”，還是施政報告的“派糖”，都沒有消解示威者的“怨氣”。事態延宕至今，示威者“失焦”，有些人變得為反對而反對，為發泄而發泄，出現更激烈的“孤狼式”破壞；普通市民“失望”，有的埋怨特區政府沒有更好地回應示威者訴求，有的埋怨特區政府沒有更好地採取止暴制亂措施，特區政府動輒得咎，掉入“塔西托陷阱”。

香港究竟怎麼了？特區政府的管治究竟怎麼了？

說到管治或曰治理，香港曾長期處於英國的管治之下。在回歸前長達一個半世紀中，新自由主義的理念加上時代的因緣際會，造就了香港“亞洲四小龍”之一的經濟奇蹟。騰飛的經濟改善了民生，也掩蓋了許多問題。1997年香港回歸祖國，意味着重新納入中國的治理體系。在“一國兩制”制度下，香港享有比港英時代更多的權利，中央政府負責香港涉及國家層面的事務，特區政府負責特區內部事宜，即港人治港，高度自治。

香港回歸22年來，中央政府一直恪守承諾，在憲法和基本法的框架內，給予了特區政府充分的自治空間。從此次“修例風波”也可看出，中央政府充分尊重特區政府的高度自治，支持特區政府放手應對不斷發展的事態。按照基本法的規定，特區政府可以在必要時向中央政府請求協助，然而事情發展至今，特區政府一直立足於靠自身來解決問題，中央政府的態度也一直是“理解、信任和支持”，給足特區政府磨練、成長的空間。畢竟，港英時期是“英人治港”，港人從未嘗過當家作主、決定自己命運的滋味，即便是在港英統治後期，出現了華人高級官員，政策的決定權依然掌握在英國政府及其派駐的總督團隊手中，華人公務員一直扮演的是政策執行者角色。

隨着香港的回歸，許多關乎香港未來發展的重大決策權掌握在了港人手中。從行政長官到問責官員再到16萬多公務員，他們是落實“港人治港”的具體責任人。這次“修例風波”在某種程度上算是對特區政府管治香港能力與水平的一次檢驗。

這一屆特區政府的治理能力與水平如何？見仁見智。當然，治理好香港不僅僅是特區政府的責任，也是中央政府的責任。就像“一國兩制”的成功實踐，不僅與特區政府相關，也與中央政府相關，二者是權力不同、分工不同的雙主體，目標都是香港的長期繁榮穩定。在通往這一目標的路上，風雨挫折在所難免，最重要的是同心同德。

怎樣治理好香港？這是一個動態的過程。對特區政府而言，首要的是提升管治團隊的治理能力與水平。制度既定，“一國兩制”會長期堅持，那麼在這樣的制度下，如何處理好與中央政府的關係，如何落實港人治港、高度自治，如何從政策執行者轉變為政策制定者，作為一個國際行為體如何界定自身的國際責任，這統統是特區政府要考慮的問題。

具體到當前的事態，特首林鄭月娥及其管治團隊應各盡其責，齊心協力，因為維護香港法治、恢復社會秩序、止暴制亂不僅僅是警方的責任，還是整個特區政府的責任。“修例風波”發展到今天，有太多情緒性東西滲入其中，是是非非已難涇渭分明，唯一明確的是所有香港人都在一條船上，何去何從，需合力決定。

對中央政府而言，“一國兩制”是中國特色社會主義制度的有機組成部分，當然要堅持。不僅要堅持，中央政府還有責任在實踐中不斷完善這一制度，有責任與特區政府一起培養更多愛國家、愛香港的管治人才，有責任與特區政府一起為香港的未來擘畫藍圖，讓社會制度、發展模式、發展階段等都與內地不同的香港發展得更好。

對在香港有重大利益的國際力量而言，香港是中國開放的一個平台，是觀察中國發展的一個獨特窗口。如果要了解未來的中國，就不該關掉這一扇窗戶，因為香港治理得好，對香港好，對中國好，對世界也好，締造的是“多贏”局面。

Hong Kong is sick. Since the start of demonstrations against the proposed amendment to its fugitive offenders law during the summer, radical protesters have carried out violent attacks, targeting not only law-enforcement officers but also institutions, shops and even individuals.The situation has raised concerns among all who care about Hong Kong. The government of the special administrative region has responded with some measures, none of which have helped to reduce protesters' anger, be it the chief executive's apology, the formal withdrawal of the amendment bill, the anti-mask law's attempt to deter masked protesters or the policy address, which was rich in supportive measures.In prolonging the situation, the protesters have lost focus. Some now oppose for the sake of opposition. Lone wolf attacks are increasing. Residents are disappointed. Some accuse the HKSAR government of failing to respond to protesters' demands in better ways while others accuse it of passing up better measures to stop the violence. The government seems to be blamed for whatever it does.

What is going on in Hong Kong? What is wrong with the governance there?

When it comes to governance, or governing, Hong Kong was under British rule for a long time. In the century and a half before the handover, neoliberalism combined with the serendipity of the times to enable Hong Kong to perform an economic miracle and become one of the so-called Four Asian Tigers. The booming economy led to improved livelihoods, but at the same time it hid many problems. Hong Kong's return to the motherland in 1997 meant re-integration into Chinese governance. Under the “one country, two systems” doctrine, Hong Kong enjoys more rights than it did under British rule. The central government handles state-related affairs, while the SAR government is in charge of Hong Kong's internal affairs — meaning Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy.

In the 22 years since Hong Kong's return to the motherland, the central government has honored its commitment and given the SAR government full autonomy within the framework of the Constitution and the SAR's Basic Law. In the course of the disturbances and social unrest, it has been clear that the central government fully respects that high degree of autonomy and supports the SAR government in its handling of the ever-evolving situation. Under the Basic Law, the SAR government may, when necessary, seek assistance from the central government. However, as things have developed so far, the SAR has been trying to tackle the problems on its own, and the central government has consistently expressed understanding, trust and support, giving it full space to hone its actions. After all, under British rule, the Hong Kong people never had a taste of being masters of their own affairs or determining the course of their own destiny. In the later period of British rule, some Chinese rose to senior levels in government, but policy decisions remained in the hands of the British government and its governor's team. Chinese civil servants were only policy implementers.

Since Hong Kong's return, the power to make important decisions on the city's future development has been in the hands of the Hong Kong people. The chief executive, the principal officials and the more than 160,000 civil servants are the people putting into reality the principle of “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong.” The recent developments have to a certain extent been a test of the SAR government's capabilities and performance.

Is this SAR government fully capable, and has it performed well? That is a matter of opinion. Admittedly, it is the responsibility of not only the SAR government but also the central government to govern Hong Kong well. By the same token, the success of the “one country, two systems” policy bears not only on the SAR government but also on the central government. The two levels of government have different powers and a division of labor, but both seek long-term prosperity and stability for Hong Kong. In the journey towards this goal, while setbacks may be unavoidable, it is critical that the two should be of one heart and one mind.

How should Hong Kong be governed? It is a dynamic process. For the SAR government, it is of paramount importance to enhance the capabilities and performance of the governing team. The SAR government must ponder a series of questions: How should it handle the relationship with the central government? How should it put into practice the idea of Hong Kong People administering Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy? How should it evolve from a policy implementer to a policymaker? And how should it define its own responsibility as an international actor, all within the “one country, two systems” framework, as it will be there to stay for a long time?

With regard to the current situation, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and the governing team must work closely together, since it is not the responsibility of the police only but also the whole SAR government to uphold the rule of law, restore public order and stop riots and violence. Too many emotions have been involved in the protracted social unrest, blurring the distinction between right and wrong. But clearly all Hong Kong people are in the same boat and will have to decide together what course to follow.

The central government will naturally uphold the “one country, two systems” policy as an integral part of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Besides adherence to that framework, the central government also has the responsibility to continuously improve, in practice, the relevant institutions and to train together with the SAR government more talented people who love the country and Hong Kong. It is incumbent upon the central government to work with the SAR government to draw a blueprint for Hong Kong's development, albeit with institutions, modes and stages that are different from those on the mainland.

For international entities with significant interests there, Hong Kong provides a balcony view of a more open China and a unique window for observing China's development. To understand the future of China, this window must not close. A well-governed Hong Kong will be win-win for Hong Kong, for China as a whole and for the rest of the world.