{"id":3388,"date":"2023-07-07T21:23:31","date_gmt":"2023-07-07T13:23:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/yzzks.com\/index.php\/2023\/07\/07\/%e4%bb%a5%e5%88%b6%e5%ba%a6%e8%87%aa%e4%bf%a1%e6%8e%a8%e8%bf%9b%e6%9c%89%e9%a6%99%e6%b8%af%e7%89%b9%e8%89%b2%e7%9a%84%e6%99%ae%e9%80%89\/"},"modified":"2023-07-07T21:23:31","modified_gmt":"2023-07-07T13:23:31","slug":"promoting-universal-suffrage-with-hong-kong-characteristics-with-institutional-confidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/current-politics\/3388\/","title":{"rendered":"Promoting universal suffrage with Hong Kong characteristics with institutional confidence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Promoting universal suffrage with Hong Kong characteristics with institutional confidence <\/strong><\/p>\n

On May 4, Zhang Xiaoming, Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People\u2019s Government in Hong Kong, published a signed article titled \u201cAdvancing Universal Suffrage with Hong Kong Characteristics Through Confidence in Our System\u201d in Hong Kong\u2019s *Wen Wei Po* and *Ta Kung Pao*. The full text is as follows: <\/p>\n

Hong Kong\u2019s political reform has entered a critical stage. On April 22, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government announced a proposal regarding the method for electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017. Whether this proposal will be approved by a two-thirds majority of all Legislative Council members will be determined by July at the latest. Currently, the debate surrounding the universal suffrage proposal continues. At this juncture, whether it is Legislative Council members with voting rights or the general public who have the right to vote for Legislative Council members, it is helpful to rationally reflect on fundamental questions such as the origins of Hong Kong\u2019s universal suffrage system, why it differs from those in other places, and what kind of universal suffrage system is truly suitable for Hong Kong\u2014and carefully weighing the underlying principles\u2014will, I believe, be helpful in getting to the root of the matter, building consensus, adopting a pragmatic stance, and facilitating the implementation of universal suffrage.<\/div>\n

The system of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive is derived from the Basic Law <\/strong><\/p>\n

The system of universal suffrage for electing the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was first stipulated in the Basic Law. The Sino-British Joint Declaration, signed in 1984, did not mention the term \u201cuniversal suffrage,\u201d but merely stipulated that the Chief Executive would be \u201cselected through election or consultation in the region and appointed by the Central People\u2019s Government.\u201d After the drafting of the Basic Law began in 1985, various proposals regarding the method for selecting the Chief Executive\u2014including universal suffrage\u2014were discussed both within the Drafting Committee and throughout Hong Kong society. After thorough comparison and incorporation of reasonable suggestions from all sides, Article 45, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, promulgated in 1990, stipulated as follows: \u201cThe method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be prescribed in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress, with the ultimate aim of achieving election by universal suffrage following nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.\u201d \u201c This provision not only established the goal of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive but also defined the basic model for the universal suffrage system\u2014nominations by a Nominating Committee followed by a \u201done person, one vote\u201c election involving the entire population\u2014and set forth the fundamental principle that must be followed in formulating the universal suffrage system: it must be formulated in accordance with the actual circumstances of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In 2007, as Hong Kong entered its 10th year since the handover, the Standing Committee of the National People\u2019s Congress adopted the \u201dDecision on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive and for Electing the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 2012 and on Issues Relating to Universal Suffrage,\u201c which clearly stipulated that universal suffrage for the Chief Executive could be implemented in 2017, and that once the Chief Executive is elected by universal suffrage, all members of the Legislative Council may be elected by universal suffrage. On August 31, 2014, the Standing Committee of the National People\u2019s Congress adopted the \u201dDecision on the Issue of Universal Suffrage for the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Methods for Forming the Legislative Council in 2016,\u201d which further defined the basic framework and core elements of the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive, marking the establishment of the basic system for universal suffrage for the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. These two decisions by the Standing Committee of the National People\u2019s Congress have transformed the goal of universal suffrage\u2014which the Basic Law stipulates should be \u201cultimately achieved\u201d\u2014into something \u201cboth hopeful and attainable\u201d on the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong\u2019s return. This not only responds to the democratic aspirations of Hong Kong society but also demonstrates the sincerity of the Central Government and the SAR Government in advancing Hong Kong\u2019s democratic development; it represents a milestone and a new highlight in the successful practice of \u201cOne Country, Two Systems.\u201d<\/div>\n

The system for electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage has Hong Kong characteristics <\/strong><\/p>\n

In accordance with the Basic Law and relevant decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People\u2019s Congress, the basic elements of the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive include three aspects: First, the nomination procedure. For the universal suffrage election of the Chief Executive, a broadly representative Nominating Committee is first formed. The Nominating Committee consists of 1,200 members, composed proportionally from four major sectors: 300 from the business, industry, and finance sectors; 300 from the professional sector; 300 from the labor, social services, and religious sectors; 300 representatives from Legislative Council members, District Council members, the Heung Yee Kuk, and representatives of Hong Kong deputies to the National People\u2019s Congress and members of the National Committee of the Chinese People\u2019s Political Consultative Conference. Once the Nominating Committee is formed, it will, through democratic procedures, nominate two to three Chief Executive candidates from among the eligible candidates. Each candidate must secure the support of more than half of all members of the Nominating Committee. Second is the universal suffrage process. More than 5 million eligible voters in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will elect one Chief Executive candidate from among those nominated by the Nominating Committee through a \u201cone person, one vote\u201d system. Third, the appointment process. After the Chief Executive is elected through universal suffrage in Hong Kong, the result is reported to the Central People\u2019s Government for appointment. These three aspects together constitute a comprehensive system for the universal suffrage election of the Chief Executive.<\/div>\n
The nomination of Chief Executive candidates by the Nomination Committee is a key feature of the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The first Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was elected by a 400-member Selection Committee, while the second through fourth Chief Executives were elected by an Election Committee comprising between 800 and 1,200 members. These electoral practices have all demonstrated that the composition of the Election Committee serves as a microcosm of Hong Kong society, covering all sectors, possessing broad representativeness, and functioning effectively. Forming the Nomination Committee for universal suffrage based on the Election Committee model reflects historical developments and represents a relatively natural institutional evolution. Another important feature of the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive is that the elected candidate is reported to the Central People\u2019s Government for appointment. This is determined by the constitutional status of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Combined with nominations by the Nominating Committee and a \u201cone person, one vote\u201d election involving the entire society, this creates a mechanism whereby the Chief Executive must obtain \u201cdual recognition\u201d from both Hong Kong society and the Central Government. By integrating elements of both the election and appointment systems, it also represents an institutional innovation.<\/div>\n
Following extensive public consultation, the SAR Government, based on the Basic Law and relevant decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People\u2019s Congress, proposed a specific plan for the universal suffrage election of the Chief Executive in 2017. Many of the provisions in the plan\u2014including dividing the nomination process into two stages (recommendation by members and nomination by the committee), requiring only 120 recommendations from nominating members to qualify as a candidate, setting a cap of no more than 240 recommendations to ensure a sufficient pool of candidates for the Nominating Committee to choose from; allowing each nominating committee member to cast between 2 and N votes when making nominations; and conducting nominations by secret ballot\u2014further refine the universal suffrage system and embody the principles of democracy, openness, fairness, and impartiality to the greatest extent possible.<\/div>\n

The universal suffrage system for electing the Chief Executive is suited to Hong Kong\u2019s actual circumstances <\/strong><\/p>\n

The most important criterion for evaluating the merits of a political system\u2014including a universal suffrage system\u2014is whether it is suited to the actual conditions of the country or region in question. As the saying goes, \u201cOnly the wearer knows whether a shoe fits.\u201d The \u201cactual conditions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region\u201d upon which the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive is based are multifaceted. They encompass the overall implementation of \u201cOne Country, Two Systems,\u201d \u201cHong Kong people governing Hong Kong,\u201d and a high degree of autonomy, as well as the following aspects that warrant particular attention:<\/div>\n
First, Hong Kong\u2019s specific constitutional status. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is not an independent or semi-independent political entity, but rather a local administrative region of the People\u2019s Republic of China that enjoys a high degree of autonomy. The establishment of the Special Administrative Region, the high degree of autonomy it enjoys, the social system it implements, and the political system it has established\u2014including its universal suffrage arrangements\u2014are all determined by the central government through the national Constitution and the Basic Law of Hong Kong. The relationship between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the central government is that of a local-central relationship within a unitary state. The universal suffrage system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a local electoral system within a single country. These two factors determine the fundamental nature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region\u2019s universal suffrage system.<\/div>\n
Second, the unique context of Hong Kong\u2019s democratic development. As is well known, for more than a century prior to the Sino-British negotiations on Hong Kong\u2019s future, there was no democracy to speak of in Hong Kong. Even the Governor himself claimed that \u201cthe Governor\u2019s power is second only to God.\u201d The origins of Hong Kong\u2019s democratization process differ from those of some other countries and regions; it did not arise from the anti-colonial or independence movements that emerged after World War II or during the 1960s and 1970s. Rather, it was the result of the combined effects of the British government\u2019s planned withdrawal against the historical backdrop of the Chinese government\u2019s resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong, and the Chinese government\u2019s implementation of the \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d policy in Hong Kong. The history of Hong Kong\u2019s democratic development is relatively short. Even if we count from 1985, when indirect elections were introduced to the Legislative Council\u2014which served as an advisory body to the Governor\u2014the history of elections spans only 30 years; and if we count from 1997, when a Hong Kong resident first assumed the office of Chief Executive, it has been merely 18 years. In contrast, looking at the history of Western democracy, it took nearly 300 years for the United Kingdom to transition from the establishment of a constitutional monarchy following the \u201cGlorious Revolution\u201d of 1688 to the granting of suffrage to citizens aged 18 and older in 1969; in the United States, it took nearly 200 years from the 1787 Constitution\u2014which explicitly stipulated that Congress and the President would be elected democratically\u2014to 1971, when the right to vote was extended to citizens aged 18 and older. By comparison, Hong Kong\u2019s democratic development has been remarkably rapid. Viewed through the lens of history, Hong Kong\u2019s democratic development\u2014including its electoral system\u2014is still in the process of gradual cultivation and maturation.<\/div>\n
Third, Hong Kong\u2019s complex sociopolitical landscape. The vast majority of our compatriots in Hong Kong love their country and their city; those who advocate confrontation with the Central Government or even promote \u201cHong Kong independence\u201d are only a tiny minority. However, as Mr. Deng Xiaoping warned long ago, there are indeed those who attempt to \u201cturn Hong Kong into a base for opposing the mainland under the guise of democracy.\u201d A prominent local scholar in Hong Kong has also pointed out in his writings that some members of the opposition in Hong Kong are not like the \u201cloyal opposition\u201d found in the West; they fundamentally reject the country\u2019s constitutional system and even seek to overthrow the ruling status of the Communist Party of China and the socialist system implemented on the mainland, inciting public opinion to oppose the Central Government and vie for control over Hong Kong. The problems exposed by last year\u2019s illegal \u201cOccupy Central\u201d movement\u2014including the collusion between some Hong Kong opposition figures and external forces\u2014cannot fail to serve as a wake-up call. This situation represents the other side of the socio-political reality that must be faced when implementing universal suffrage in Hong Kong.<\/div>\n
Fourth, the diverse range of interests in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has long operated under a capitalist system, and the interests of different social classes and sectors are diverse; there is a clear desire to influence policies on the economy and people\u2019s livelihoods through political participation. For example, although the business and professional sectors do not represent a numerical majority, they exert a decisive influence on Hong Kong\u2019s economic prosperity and social development; they are relatively concerned about the populist and welfarist tendencies that universal suffrage might bring about. In the electoral system, only by establishing appropriate mechanisms to balance the interests of all sectors of society and ensure equitable participation can we maintain economic prosperity and development while safeguarding social harmony and stability.<\/div>\n

The system for the universal suffrage election of the Chief Executive is constitutional, democratic, legitimate, and sound <\/strong><\/p>\n

If the fundamental basis for the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive is that it is suited to the actual conditions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, then the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive itself also has many advantages and distinctive features:<\/div>\n
1. Constitutionality. The Basic Law and the Constitution of the People\u2019s Republic of China together form the constitutional foundation of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Universal suffrage in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is derived from the Basic Law, and implementing universal suffrage in strict accordance with the Basic Law is a requirement of the rule of law. Proposals such as \u201ccitizen nomination\u201d and \u201cpolitical party nomination\u201d all share a common flaw: they disregard the Basic Law and deviate from it to establish a separate system. The universal suffrage system established by the relevant decision of the Standing Committee of the National People\u2019s Congress fully complies with the provisions of the Basic Law and has a solid legal foundation.<\/div>\n
2. Democracy. The system of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive is a democratic rule established through democratic procedures. The Nominating Committee consists of 1,200 members drawn from four major sectors, encompassing elite figures from all walks of life. It enjoys broad representativeness, with a public mandate far exceeding that of any single political party, political faction, or a certain number of \u201ccitizen nominations.\u201d Based on past experience, the vast majority of these representatives have exercised their powers in a responsible manner; Becoming a candidate requires the support of a majority of Nominating Committee members, which reflects the institutional nature of the Nominating Committee\u2019s nomination process and its collective will, in accordance with the democratic principle that the minority must yield to the majority; the nomination process produces two to three candidates, ensuring the competitiveness of the election; All eligible voters elect the Chief Executive on a \u201cone person, one vote\u201d basis, embodying the most essential tenets of universal suffrage\u2014\u201cuniversality and equality.\u201d Viewed from the perspective of the entire universal suffrage process, the Nominating Committee serves as a gatekeeper, but it is the 5 million voters who ultimately determine the election outcome.<\/div>\n
3. Legitimacy. The core issue in the debate over the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive is whether to insist that the Chief Executive be a person who loves the country and Hong Kong, or whether to allow someone who opposes the Central Government to serve as Chief Executive. This is not only a matter of political standards, but also a matter of legal standards and political ethics. Throughout history, no central government in any country has ever allowed individuals who oppose it to serve as the head of a local administration. It is only natural to require the Chief Executive to love the country and Hong Kong; it is indeed necessary to prevent those who oppose the Central Government from serving as the Chief Executive of a Special Administrative Region that enjoys a high degree of autonomy; It is only natural, therefore, that the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive provides the corresponding legal safeguards. Ensuring that the Chief Executive elected is supported by the people of Hong Kong and trusted by the Central Government is also a necessary condition for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to maintain good relations with the Central Government and achieve sound governance, and it serves the fundamental interests and well-being of the people of Hong Kong.<\/div>\n
4. Prudence. Historical experience and lessons have taught us that the implementation of universal suffrage constitutes a major transformation of the socio-political system, involving significant adjustments to social relationships and the balance of interests. We must therefore prioritize prudence and strive to avoid reckless advances that are detached from our actual conditions or exceed our current stage of development, or the pursuit of extreme democracy that seeks to achieve everything overnight. The system of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive embodies the principle of seeking progress while maintaining stability. In particular, institutional arrangements such as nominations by the Nominating Committee help facilitate communication and consultation among representatives of different interests and individuals with diverse political backgrounds, focus on the overall interests of society, and leverage the role of collective rationality as a safeguard, thereby mitigating the various risks that universal suffrage may entail.<\/div>\n

There is no international standard for universal suffrage. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Looking back at the historical development of political systems around the world, there is no single political system\u2014including no universal model for universal suffrage\u2014that applies universally, given the differences in history, culture, religious beliefs, political traditions, and levels of economic and social development among countries and regions. Even among countries that practice universal suffrage, their electoral systems vary. In the United Kingdom, voters cannot directly elect the prime minister; instead, they elect members of the House of Commons. The Cabinet is formed by the party holding a parliamentary majority, and the head of state remains hereditary. In the United States, the president is elected indirectly by the Electoral College. Because the vast majority of states adopt a \u201cwinner-takes-all\u201d system for electing electors, there have been four instances in history where a candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote and was therefore not elected. There is no international convention in the world that regulates the political systems of various countries and regions; the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is, in fact, an international convention concerning human rights rather than universal suffrage. The core requirements of the Covenant are to ensure that the rights enjoyed by the people of the States Parties are not distinguished on the basis of \u201crace, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status\u201d; to ensure that these rights are \u201cnot subject to unreasonable restrictions\u201d; and to ensure the \u201cfree expression of the will of the electors.\u201d Looking at universal suffrage worldwide, the \u201cuniversal and equal\u201d nature of the right to vote is not absolute; reasonable restrictions on the right to vote\u2014and particularly the right to stand for election\u2014are common and necessary. As stated in the United Nations Human Rights Center\u2019s *Human Rights and Elections: A Handbook on the Legal, Technical, and Human Rights Aspects of Elections*, \u201cWe recognize that no single political system or electoral method is suitable for all people and all countries.\u201d Therefore, the so-called \u201cinternational standards\u201d for universal suffrage are, in fact, a false proposition designed to mislead the public.<\/div>\n
During the drafting of the Basic Law, debates over the design of Hong Kong\u2019s political system were at one point extremely intense. On April 16, 1987, when Mr. Deng Xiaoping met with members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee, he said earnestly, \u201cHong Kong\u2019s system cannot be completely Westernized; we cannot simply copy the Western model. Hong Kong has not been operating under the British or American systems\u2014and it has been this way for over a century and a half. If we were to adopt them wholesale now\u2014for example, by implementing the separation of powers or adopting the British or American parliamentary systems\u2014and use these as the sole criteria for judging whether a system is democratic, I fear that would be inappropriate.\u201d On June 3, 1988, Mr. Deng Xiaoping reiterated this view while meeting with all participants of the international conference \u201cChina and the World in the 1990s,\u201d emphasizing that \u201cif we insist on a direct transplant and it leads to turmoil, that would be very detrimental. This is a very practical and serious issue.\u201d This important insight from Mr. Deng Xiaoping also provides strong guidance for the design of the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive. An objective analysis of Hong Kong\u2019s past successes reveals that, at the level of the political system, a key factor has been the implementation of an executive-led system\u2014renowned for its efficiency and flexibility\u2014rather than the \u201cseparation of powers.\u201d This is also a fundamental principle from which the design and operation of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region\u2019s political system must not deviate.<\/div>\n

The universal suffrage system should be considered within the framework of \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n

It is crucial to adopt the right perspective when addressing issues. President Xi Jinping has clearly pointed out that the key to successfully managing Hong Kong\u2019s affairs lies in comprehensively and accurately understanding and implementing the \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d principle, and in earnestly respecting and upholding the authority of the Basic Law. This statement is far-sighted and hits the nail on the head; it also provides the most important guidance for correctly understanding the issue of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive. When evaluating the universal suffrage system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, we cannot simply draw comparisons with foreign systems; rather, we must consider it within the broader institutional framework established by \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d and the Basic Law. We must view this not only from Hong Kong\u2019s perspective but also from that of the Central Government; we must consider not only its impact on various internal interests within Hong Kong and on the city\u2019s prosperity and stability, but also its implications for the relationship between Hong Kong and the Central Government, as well as for national security; and we must not only strive to enhance democratic elements but also adhere to principles and red lines. Only by comprehensively and accurately establishing the universal suffrage system for the Chief Executive in accordance with the \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d principle and the provisions of the Basic Law\u2014and by properly establishing the relevant rules\u2014can we ensure that the universal suffrage to be implemented in Hong Kong in the future will not veer off course, thereby safeguarding the long-term stability and security of both Hong Kong and the nation. Only then will certain political forces and figures in Hong Kong know what to pursue and what to avoid, gradually adjust their political stances, and seek political mutual trust and constructive interaction with the Central Government through concrete actions, thereby securing greater room for their own development.<\/div>\n

Building Institutional Confidence in the Universal Suffrage System for the Chief Executive of Hong Kong with Its Distinctive Characteristics <\/strong><\/p>\n

Recent remarks by President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Keqiang, National People\u2019s Congress Chairman Zhang Dejiang, and other central leaders, as well as heads of relevant central government departments, have conveyed one crucial message: the central government sincerely hopes that Hong Kong will achieve universal suffrage for the Chief Executive in 2017. This determination and sincerity are now clear to the world. Fundamentally, this resolve and sincerity stem from the Central Government\u2019s long-standing and unwavering commitment to implementing the \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d policy; from its firm belief that our compatriots in Hong Kong are certainly capable of governing Hong Kong well; and from its confidence in the nation\u2019s development toward prosperity and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The tremendous achievements China has made today, the prosperity it has demonstrated, and its bright future have eloquently proven the superiority of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics. As an integral part of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics, \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d has, through its successful implementation, dispelled many of the pessimistic predictions that once existed. We have every reason to believe that a universal suffrage system with Hong Kong characteristics will certainly work. The successful implementation of this system will undoubtedly make new contributions to the world\u2019s political systems and even to human political civilization, adding new luster to them. For people from all walks of life in Hong Kong, the most important thing now is to cultivate a sense of confidence: to firmly believe that the universal suffrage system for electing the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is not only the most democratic system in Hong Kong\u2019s history, but also the system best suited to Hong Kong\u2019s current realities, a system that fully conforms to the \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d principle and the Basic Law, and a sound and practicable system.<\/div>\n
We should view the debates and even the setbacks that inevitably arise when a new system is introduced with a level-headed attitude. However, when defending this system\u2014especially when responding to various malicious attacks against it\u2014we should do so with greater confidence and conviction.<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u4ee5\u5236\u5ea6\u81ea\u4fe1\u63a8\u8fdb\u6709\u9999\u6e2f\u7279\u8272\u7684\u666e\u9009 5\u67084\u65e5\uff0c\u9999\u6e2f\u4e2d\u8054\u529e [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":10,"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3388","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3388\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.yzzks.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}