香港“病了”。今年夏天以来，因修订《逃犯条例》，激进示威者不断发起暴力冲击行为，不仅针对执法的警察，而且有针对性地针对一些机构、商店甚至是个人，让所有关心香港的人士担心。特区政府采取了一些措施，然而无论是行政长官的道歉，还是特区政府的正式撤回修例草案，无论是《禁蒙面法》的“阻吓”，还是施政报告的“派糖”，都没有消解示威者的“怨气”。事态延宕至今，示威者“失焦”，有些人变得为反对而反对，为发泄而发泄，出现更激烈的“孤狼式”破坏；普通市民“失望”，有的埋怨特区政府没有更好地回应示威者诉求，有的埋怨特区政府没有更好地采取止暴制乱措施，特区政府动辄得咎，掉入“塔西托陷阱”。

香港究竟怎么了？特区政府的管治究竟怎么了？

说到管治或曰治理，香港曾长期处于英国的管治之下。在回归前长达一个半世纪中，新自由主义的理念加上时代的因缘际会，造就了香港“亚洲四小龙”之一的经济奇迹。腾飞的经济改善了民生，也掩盖了许多问题。1997年香港回归祖国，意味着重新纳入中国的治理体系。在“一国两制”制度下，香港享有比港英时代更多的权利，中央政府负责香港涉及国家层面的事务，特区政府负责特区内部事宜，即港人治港，高度自治。

香港回归22年来，中央政府一直恪守承诺，在宪法和基本法的框架内，给予了特区政府充分的自治空间。从此次“修例风波”也可看出，中央政府充分尊重特区政府的高度自治，支持特区政府放手应对不断发展的事态。按照基本法的规定，特区政府可以在必要时向中央政府请求协助，然而事情发展至今，特区政府一直立足于靠自身来解决问题，中央政府的态度也一直是“理解、信任和支持”，给足特区政府磨练、成长的空间。毕竟，港英时期是“英人治港”，港人从未尝过当家作主、决定自己命运的滋味，即便是在港英统治后期，出现了华人高级官员，政策的决定权依然掌握在英国政府及其派驻的总督团队手中，华人公务员一直扮演的是政策执行者角色。

随着香港的回归，许多关乎香港未来发展的重大决策权掌握在了港人手中。从行政长官到问责官员再到16万多公务员，他们是落实“港人治港”的具体责任人。这次“修例风波”在某种程度上算是对特区政府管治香港能力与水平的一次检验。

这一届特区政府的治理能力与水平如何？见仁见智。当然，治理好香港不仅仅是特区政府的责任，也是中央政府的责任。就像“一国两制”的成功实践，不仅与特区政府相关，也与中央政府相关，二者是权力不同、分工不同的双主体，目标都是香港的长期繁荣稳定。在通往这一目标的路上，风雨挫折在所难免，最重要的是同心同德。

怎样治理好香港？这是一个动态的过程。对特区政府而言，首要的是提升管治团队的治理能力与水平。制度既定，“一国两制”会长期坚持，那么在这样的制度下，如何处理好与中央政府的关系，如何落实港人治港、高度自治，如何从政策执行者转变为政策制定者，作为一个国际行为体如何界定自身的国际责任，这统统是特区政府要考虑的问题。

具体到当前的事态，特首林郑月娥及其管治团队应各尽其责，齐心协力，因为维护香港法治、恢复社会秩序、止暴制乱不仅仅是警方的责任，还是整个特区政府的责任。“修例风波”发展到今天，有太多情绪性东西渗入其中，是是非非已难泾渭分明，唯一明确的是所有香港人都在一条船上，何去何从，需合力决定。

对中央政府而言，“一国两制”是中国特色社会主义制度的有机组成部分，当然要坚持。不仅要坚持，中央政府还有责任在实践中不断完善这一制度，有责任与特区政府一起培养更多爱国家、爱香港的管治人才，有责任与特区政府一起为香港的未来擘画蓝图，让社会制度、发展模式、发展阶段等都与内地不同的香港发展得更好。

对在香港有重大利益的国际力量而言，香港是中国开放的一个平台，是观察中国发展的一个独特窗口。如果要了解未来的中国，就不该关掉这一扇窗户，因为香港治理得好，对香港好，对中国好，对世界也好，缔造的是“多赢”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.