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.