What to do about Hong Kong

As a former ex-pat, I find this pretty worrisome:

http://gweilodiaries.blogspot.com/2002_09_01_gweilodiaries_archive.html#82085868

Looks like China is really determined to slowly crack down on Hong Kong and destroy the promised "One Country, Two Systems: bargain. This makes me pretty sad. Hong Kong really was starting to develop some democratic institutions and cultural ideas: now it looks like that development will be cut off at the knees.

What can/should, the international community do about things like this? Doesn’t Britian have an obligation to object to these sorts of things, considering that it negotiated the hand-over on the expectation that the people of its former territory wouldn’t be subjected to the totalitarianism of the mainland government? Is this an example of how the “War on Terrorism” is being used to justify cracking down on civil liberties? Should the U.S. be more concerned about what our rhetoric is being used to justify?

I can’t image anyone was so naive as to have believed China. One question, Apos. Who is in charge of enforcing the deal?

As far as I know, no one officially. I’m not sure it was even about naiviety but rather just political expediency and diplomacy: plus the idea that China was not so dumb as to kill the goose that laid the golden egg (which made more sense back then, but less so now when golden eggs are cropping up all over mainland China). As far as I know, the agreement was over and done with once Hong Kong was handed back. I don’t know of any enforcement mechanisms in it. But I would think that Britian would at least have cause to more forcefully object to what’s been going on, even if it doesn’t have a legal enforcement mechanism to actually do anything about it.

Where were all these bleeding heart “expats” when the British colonials did their level best to crack down on democracy, interfere with a real capitalist market by creating cartels, artifically drive up housing rates by limiting supply and all sorts of other underhanded crap? Didn’t know about all of this? Don’t read a Beijing account, any “reasonably” balanced history of HK will take you through the paces.

I liked Patton, but let’s be serious. The British colonial government tried to institute democratic reforms what in year 97 of their 99 year rule? Gimme a break. They could have done it after WW2, in the sixties, seventies or even eighties. But noooooo, they had to wait until the mid-nineties.

Let’s also be serious about “starting to develop some democratic institutions and cultural ideas.” Cite? The Hong Kongese are pretty apolitical lot. The big push for democracy was just a tiny fraction of the city, not a frickin’ ground swell. The only time in recent memory that there was a ground swell was in the aftermath of Tian’anmen when over a million people took to the streets in a peaceful demonstation. That groundswell lasted a whole day. Martin Lee aside, you’ll have to work pretty hard to back up that premise.

Britian has no grounds to say jack squat because they were an occupying foreign colonial power. And their record as an occupying colonial power was not necessarily in the best interests of Hong Kong.

I’m not a Beijing spokesman. Personally, I would have liked to see HK become a sovereign city state like Singapore. There’s plenty to criticize Beijing about, but puh-leese, let’s be honest about what the British did to HK as well. Revisionism by any government is distasteful – be it Beijing or London.

While I don’t disagree with all of what you’ve said, I’d like to point out that Hong Kong, bar a couple of thousand Hakkanese fisherpeople and villages, was a “barren rock”, and did not exist until the British grabbed the land (in a superficially ‘legal’ deal). Do not forget that the majority of the original population came voluntarily to work for the British when the colony was first set up, and the rest of the population are refugees from China, who preferred to be under British colonial rule than that of China.

I agree that Patten tried to institute reform in a too-little-too-late fashion, and one that at points appeared to threaten peaceful transition, but this came down to the individual personality of the governor, rather than a policy of the government (Patten had to fight John Major’s government to get further rights for the Hong Kong population). Of course, this is indicative of the undemocratic rule of the colony, but what would have been better? Try at the last minute to claw a bit of democracy out of the Joint Agreement to start the Chinese Government even further back from totalitatrianism, or take a laissez-faire stance and just give it to them as a fait accompli?

I do think it’s a little simplistic to say that Britain has “jack squat” to say about something that was, by and large, and for better or for worse, Britain’s creation. The Chinese population of Hong Kong was shitting itself on Handover night.

What seems to be the problem? First of all, this law is stipulated by the Basic Law, which was formulated in many sessions of long talks between London and Beijing. Secondly, are there no similar laws in other Western countries? Treason sees to be a very serious criminal offense everywhere. There are state secrets which cannot be disclosed without punishment (classified stuff in the US), and so on.

So why is Hong Kong not allowed to have similar laws? Is this some kind of double standard here?

We wait till he gets to the top of the Empire State Building and puts Ann down—then we get some planes and . . . What? Hong Kong? Oh. Never mind . . .

Standard arguement of every occupying power – the locals are much better off under our thumb than they would be otherwise.

Oh ya, and I remember sitting out at the promanade on the night of the handover with a few thousand middle class Hong Kongese as they jeered Govenor Patten and Prince Charles as their ship sailed out of Hong Kong. It was a jubilent crowd that was a bit apprehensive about their new masters but standing up with pride to watch the British leave.

My whole point is that it is not a black and white sound bite that is portrayed in the Western Press. The British record in Hong Kong is hardly untarnished. In fact, economically, the Hong Kongese today are paying a pretty high price for their British legacy.

Back to the OP, again where were all of the expats in the pre-handover years on the subject of democracy or equal rights for the Hong Kongese? I saw Britian giving out that BNO passport and massive protests against allowing the Hong Kongese into Britian.

It was a leased piece of property, the lease was up and the landlord took it over again. There is nothing to be done.

Now Taiwan is a bit of a different story (Macau (sp?) will have a similar fate). Taiwan can expect the exact same thing when it is absorbed into the Chinese Tyrannical Empire. We could recognize it as an independent country. But we won’t, cause we know where our bread is buttered.

Can it CG. Not all British people are or were of the same opinion. And I’m not even British. Yes, people in Hong Kong have been fairly apolitical… to a degree. But that apathy was born of economic success, not happiness with the prospect of tighter rule. That wasn’t any excuse not to give them a political voice then, or to slowly take it away now.

You can’t even keep your story straight: if British rule was so horrible and Chinese rule so much better, why is it such a big deal that people could only get useless BNO passports? Why would people care?

—Back to the OP, again where were all of the expats in the pre-handover years on the subject of democracy or equal rights for the Hong Kongese? I saw Britian giving out that BNO passport and massive protests against allowing the Hong Kongese into Britian.—

You can’t even keep straight the difference between democratic rights at home vs. restrictive imigration to Britian.

—Secondly, are there no similar laws in other Western countries?—

In Western countries we also have all sorts of legal protections against treason laws being used to silence political dissent, religious practice, etc. Countless Chinese citizens have been thrown in jail for decades or executed for divulging “state secrets” that boiled down to them complaining about things like abuse and torture to human rights groups.

China Guy’s points are valid to some extent in the distant (in terms of HK history) past, but honestly, what are you talking about the oppressed people and so forth? You live in the region and are knowledgeable of its current affairs, so you don’t need to give us the standard mainland Chinese speech about Hong Kong! I suspect that was a bit of a knee-jerk in response to rhetorical attacks on China, which are by no means always fair (not because China is right and just, but because the people making the attacks frequently don’t have the beginnings of a clue of what they are talking about).

Patten did a truly magnificent job with Hong Kong all things considered, and no other Governor did as much for the city and the people of Hong Kong as Patten did. As has already been mentioned, he was fighting John Major (not to mention the Chinese leadership) to develop Hong Kong in ways other than an economic powerhouse built on property and finance. He is truly a remarkable politician in a sea of mediocrity–even now that he works for the EU. He was, of course, despised by Beijing, who sought to discredit him for years, even more so because he was efficient, cunning, and capable.

Hong Kong people are not oppressed, and haven’t been probably since the days of Margaret Thatcher at the very latest. There was a bit of an issue with Hong Kong Chinese not being able to claim British nationality as they ought theoretically to have been able to, but that was hardly oppression. The UK didn’t want a few million Hong Kong Chinese claiming citizenship rights just before the Handover, which is exactly what HK citizens would have attempted to do had they been able to. Restricted immigration is a fact of every country.

I remind you that during the Handover the only people cheering were the mainland Chinese recent arrivals and communist cadres. Real Hong Kong people, those who had been there for a generation or more and were actually considered locals, were absolutely terrified of China’s coming. In fact, go to Vancouver or a number of other cities in North America and lob a brick; you’re bound to hit several ex-Hong Kongers who got there in the last 10 years. Vancouver even has the nickname “Hongcouver” today.

China, of course, propagated the lines you just mentioned, all embellished with clumsy rhetoric about “ending the humiliation of British rule”, and “accepting Hong Kong back into the mother’s bosom” and more idiotic, non-historical nonsense like that. I was there for the handover and it was a disgusting, petty affair. I am not in any way British, but I was ashamed to witness the arrangements China had made. For example, Prince Charles and other visiting dignitaries were made to stand in the pouring monsoon rain on stage at the flashy new Convention Centre, as Communist leaders harped on and on under cover from the rain. The Commies were speaking Mandarin, a language that perhaps 1% of Hong Kong residents understood at the time–so much for identifying with the local people. More HK residents could understand Prince Charles or Patten speaking than they could Jiang Semin and his cadre. There is not one positive thing I can find to say about China’s conduct in this matter. China’s always been bitter about Hong Kong for a few reasons. First, it was inconceivable that the Middle Kingdom should have its ass whipped (militarily in shows of force and diplomatically) by a distant power who wanted a barren rock in the sea as a base of operations. But even worse aggravation, and a massive loss of face that Beijing has been trying to reverse for several decades, was the job the British did with an island that didn’t even have sufficient drinking water, yet became a leading metropolis, one of the cosmopolitan centres of Asia, one of the financial capitals of the world, at one time THE place for manufacturing, and so forth.

The Hong Kong people are the ones that really got the shaft in 1997. They no longer have the freedom and rights they enjoyed under Patten and the UK. Their official languages (Cantonese and English) are deliberately being eroded away by Beijing’s insistence on Mandarin. Standards of education are dropping. The economy has plummeted, and it is only the enormous cash reserves accumulated before the Handover that keep the city going in the face of deficit (deficit was practically an unknown word in the British days). There is nothing even remotely like democracy in Hong Kong. The city is essentially run by a half dozen property tycoons and Beijing, which is why a recovery still has not materialized and probably won’t for years: there is reluctance to devalue further HK’s property prices, yet these high prices keep HK from being competitive, discourage foreign investment, encourage businesses to move away, and grind the people of the city-state into paying absolutely ridiculous living/office space sums, either in rent or in mortgages. The problem is that the HK government actually depends on revenues from property (a system that worked well until the Handover and the ensuing loss of confidence in the city, but which was essentially based on bubble economics–much as Shanghai is today). So what to do? The dollar peg is also causing no end of stress, and discussions about it dominate the media every month. Devalue, and try to kickstart the economy, or keep the peg, and continue to hold HK to higher standards than it can afford, but with the security of the US dollar?

Unless Hong Kong does something, economically and politically, the city will continue down the road to insignificance–which seems part of China’s plan as they continue to build Shanghai and other urban centres.

Now on the topic of the Law. Hong Kong has quite an elaborate and functional legal system. I would argue that it generally favours those who can afford to pay bulldog lawyers, but that’s the case everywhere these days. HK government itself isn’t a disaster by any means, and the likes of Martin Lee (leader of the Democratic Party) really do try to improve the city by working with the legislative council, etc. The poor guy Lee is constantly fighting for democratic rights, and he has the largest support from Hong Kong people out of any political party–a clear indication as to which way Hong Kong residents lean (definitely, most emphatically, not communist!).

Enter Beijing, who will never allow Lee to win this battle. Beijing has its own political party in Hong Kong, although most people wouldn’t know it. It’s called, ludicrously, the Democratic Alliance For The Betterment Of Hong Kong, and although they pose as democrats, the party is Beijing’s political tool, attempting to steal votes from the real Democratic Party.

As if that weren’t bad enough, there is something else that prevents democracy from operating in Hong Kong. As you all know, the Chief Executive is appointed by Beijing, so this is nothing different from the so-called British “foreign humiliation”-- except that the British at least put capable people in charge, not blank-brained, remote-control-lipped figureheads whose main purpose is to see Beijing’s will done in a city that is supposed to rule itself (One country, two systems).

Add to the problem that the rule in Hong Kong, such as it is, consists of the following tricameral system: Beijing, Big Business (the afore-mentioned property tycoons and a few hundred privileged rich businessmen awarded a say), and, finally, the masses of Hong Kong people. So even if Martin Lee and the Democratic Party win 100% of the popular support, they will never be able to score enough of a vote to gain meaningful power, not unless Big Business and Beijing are with him too–which is impossible to conceive.

On the topic of treason, subversion, and so forth, things are a bit muddled now, and we can only watch and see what develops. HK is still not China, and (for example) the Falun Gong have demonstrated openly here–although they are usually bundled away on some legal pretense or the other (demonstrations in HK are permitted as long as they are peaceful and conducted with a permit and the knowledge of the police, the Highways department, etc. for adequate urban planning). The new laws that are mentioned in the OP link are very troubling. The writer does not exaggerate when he says that “Ms. Ip speaks in Hong Kong and Mr. Jiang’s lips barely move in Beijing”.

But that should come as no surprise. Beijing has in the past shown the city-state who’s boss by overturning decisions made by the Court of Final Appeal–supposedly the last word on any matter in Hong Kong. It is theoretically illegal for Beijing to do this, but they rationalized it as being in the best interests of Hong Kong (the case in question was preventing the mainland families of valid HK residents from joining them in HK, something HK authorities had ruled the family members were entitled to).

What China is doing now isn’t much different from the lead shown by Washington though, in bolstering homeland security. National Security uber alles, yet it looks suspiciously like a smokescreen for less pleasant or legitimate activities–like cracking down on free speech or groups that the government need only label “subversive” if they don’t like their activities.

So what if it’s illegal? Beijing can simply reverse any decision they don’t like by Hong Kong courts. And the 800 or so paid businessmen whose sole purpose is to provide support for the Chief Executive/Beijing in return for concessions and deals on the Mainland will simply continue to display their confidence in the Chief Executive, and, by extension, in the mainland. It’s incredible to me that such an obviously crooked system could work, but it does. For China that is. Hong Kong has been drawing no benefits whatsoever from this arrangement.

To make it worse, there is a form of censorship in the media that is truly scary. It seems to be a dirty combination of self-censorship arising from fear, and of subtle influence and hints from Beijing. There is one–that’s right, ONE–published source of independent news in this region, and as far as I know in all of China: it’s the South China Morning Post (www.SCMP.com), Hong Kong’s leading English newspaper. There is nothing comparable, or with ANY kind of journalistic standards, being published in any Chinese language anywhere in all of China. The situation is truly worrying, not just on the issue of anti-subversion laws, but over the entire spectrum.

This is truly sad because Hong Kong is (still today) quite possibly the most remarkable city I have ever seen in my life, and I have seen many indeed. But who will do or say anything? The US has its nose way up China’s ass, both for support in the UN Security Council, and for trade agreements. The EU has minimal say in these matters, mainly because of influence, but also because China is still smarting from the “cruel occupation” of a European and reacts with indignant outrage whenever someone affiliated with an evil colonial power should presume to comment on Beijing’s equanimous, fair, gentle, and balanced tactics.

Having said all that, I have a friend who is a member of the Communist Party, and it seems to be primarily a business arrangement. Don’t forget the progress China has been making on the subject of human rights, freedom, equality, etc. They still have light years to go, but their progress cannot and should not be ignored. The country is opening up, and hopefully in a few more years there will be less need of communist paranoia to run things. After all, practically all senior communist members are fossils, yet they have managed to steer the nation towards reform, and even rudimentary concepts of democracy (as the will and importance of the people, that is, not any sort of functioning, truly democratic system). When the next generation of leaders take power, we can hope to see more worldly, moderate men. But what will really matter are two things: 1) the degree of freedom of action they are permitted in the complex machinery of the colossal and moribund communist party; and 2) the economic development of the country (much of China’s political reform is based on economic progress–a smart idea, considering what happened to the USSR when it tried to bring political reform before the adequate economic infrastructure existed).

As for the Falun Gong–inevitable the name should show up when discussing this topic–let’s remember we know very little about them except that they are (as China does, indeed, claim) a large and highly organized body with what could be the perfect cover. This is not an issue of hapless individual practitioners being oppressed, but of a suspiciously large group (possibly with political motivations) being kept under control. Often, I agree, with questionable methods, but I wonder if they are as innocent as they claim to be.

—Often, I agree, with questionable methods, but I wonder if they are as innocent as they claim to be.—

It’s pretty yucky bussiness to have to defend people who think that homosexuals are abominations.

But most people don’t understand the long history of religious and student movements destabilizing China and fomenting rebellion: a really important context for understanding what otherwise seems to be a pointless over-reaction to Falun-Gong’s seemingly timid demands for recognition and an end to religious oppression. In China, student and religious movements haven’t been a bunch of hippies dancing in the park: they’ve been riots, plots, and other things that would scare any people in power, regardless of whether FG really fits this mold or not (I have no idea: they ARE very secretive: sort of the Scientologists of China).

That, and they have a scary, cult-like perchance for falling out of windows to their deaths while in police custody. How crazy!

On the other hand, the sorts of things could be said about Christians in China: they too are “suspiciously” large, with “political motivations” (i.e. an end to oppression and state mandates about their proper beliefs!) and are being “kept under control” Or the Buddhists who object to China’s hamfisted manipulation of the Tibetan religious orders.

Not if Taiwan has anything to say about it. Hong Kong could never dream of giving the mainland the kind of bloody nose that Taiwan could if the mainland tried to force the issue. Remember the air raid drills they were conducting in Shanghai a few weeks ago?

I musta missed this one, although I was in the US for 2 weeks. What happend so I can check it out?

Sheesh, man, it’s not the standard mainland speech about Hong Kong. Instead of being a paradise because of enlightened British rule, I’m saying look at what it was or else give some cites about how wonderful life was in HK under British rule. Hong Kong was a British colony, the Chinese were treated as second class citizens, tax revenues were sucked out to Britan, and economically speaking Britan did a huge amount of damage and certainly earned the lion’s share of the blame for the current economic environment.

I certainly am not an apologist for Beijing. As I said in my first post, I would have much preferred HK to become an independant city state.

In the 20 years I’ve been going to Hong Kong and the 6-7 years I lived there, you had to dig long and hard to find an ex-pat that gave a toss about Hong Kong or it’s people. The ex-pats made their money, enjoyed their lifestyle and now 10 years later ruminate about the good old days, how it was all “ruined” by the handover, and dammit there’s no democracy there.

Abe, you had your own experience and I had mine. I would disagree about cheering. I witnessed the boat with Prince Charles and Gov. Patton as it sailed out past Heng Fu Chuen. A very middle class Hong Kong development. They were overwhelmingly Hong Kong citizens, and they were celebrating that the ship and the British were leaving.

Apos, the British “encouraged” the Hong Kongese to be apolitical. Maybe you are correct that a certain level of economic prosperity bought them off. However, you will probably agree that it was a deliberate policy of the British to keep the population apolitical. Furthermore, that any kind of government support for real and meaningful democracy only came in a few short years before the handover. Women in parts of the New Territories were not allowed to vote the entire time the British were promoting their colonial democracy.

You might want to look at the Macau experience as a counterpoint. Sino-Portugese relations pre and post handover were quite different than that of Sino-British.

You want to criticize China. Be my guest. It’s kinda like shooting fish in a barrel. Just get your facts right or I might call you on it.

China Guy - the worst thing to happen to HK was the property bubble. It resulted from Beijing’s insistence - Beijing’s - on a strict limit on land sales from the early/mid 80s onwards. It totally screwed up the economy and the psychology of the people.

Tax revenues were not sucked out to the UK pre-97. The UK took a few $$$ in return for posting troops here. Standard British colonial practice, even though 13 ungrateful colonies begged to differ in the mid 1770s! But otherwise, all revenues were retained. Check our reserves.

Frankly, I don’t see a major difference. We don’t subsidize the PLA based here (but they hardly are anyway). And I don’t personally detect a real difference in terms of civil liberties and so on. If you read Wall St Journal editorials, we’re doomed. But it looks the same as ever. There was self-censorship pre-97. There’s self-censorship everywhere. Look at the US mass media. There’s a serious bit of economic restructuring going on, which produces winners and losers. It seems to rain more…

Damned if I can see a meaningful change in the place as a result of the handover in 97.

I post my daily seditious reports here - http://www.geocities.com/hkhemlock/papers.html
… Still no knock on the door.

CG, I too watched Patten sail out of harbour, and all - and I repeat, all - the HK Chinese I know were very worried. They didn’t particularly like the British, but they disliked the Chinese government even more. My impression was that they wanted status quo, and damn the politics.

But I really must ask: in what manner were they treated as second-class citizens? That, I’m afraid, sounds like Beijing-speak. Particularly in comparison to the way Beijing treats its citizens. A hundred years ago, fifty years ago, they were indeed treated abominably, but as a British expat of several years I found my life to be the same as, if not somewhat worse than, those of my Chinese race peers. One minor example: the citizens of China do not enjoy free universal health care (I’ve never understood why Communist China didn’t get that ball rolling). The people of Hong Kong do.

Hemlock, I need to see a cite regarding that it was Beijing who limited the land sales. That sure isn’t the way I remember it but I could be wrong.

Second class citizens: How about equal pay for equal work as a starter. Equal or at least equivalent benefits between local and expat civil servants. Opportunities for promotion in the Hong Kong civil service or government. British could freely travel, live and work in Hong Kong, whereas the opposite was far from true. Those are some starters.

All in all, I’ve got to agree with Hemlock’s sentiment “Damned if I can see a meaningful change in the place as a result of the handover in 97.”

I would also ask Abe, since he said that “The city is essentially run by a half dozen property tycoons and Beijing”, how is that any different that the decade before the handover? Of course, you have to substitute London for Beijing, but the rest of the sentence remains the same.

Air Raid Drill to Take Place in Shanghai (People’s Daily Online)

Air Raid. I was in the US. Asked the family and none of them heard about it. Strange.

Does Taiwan still have their semi-annual air raid practices? where the entire city of Taipei stops for IIRC 5 minutes?

—However, you will probably agree that it was a deliberate policy of the British to keep the population apolitical.—

For goodness sakes, every time Hong Kong citizens looked like they were getting more political control (not that they didn’t already have a pretty western set of legal rights and such already), Beijing screamed bloody murder. The primary impediment to Hong Kong becoming more indepedent was the needs of the negotiation for the handover itself! If you are going to tell the story, at least fill in the important details.