The Last Governor 1: A Democratic Time-Bomb, part 2 of 7

[EterLightwave]

Oh how i wish China would be a democratic in near future. People in Hong Kong could vote presidents in Mainland , It's good both for HK and PRC.

[chikech]

It's a big shame that the British did not establish democracy in Hong Kong in the sixties. If they did it would have been difficult to thwart the progress of democracy.

It is no longer about Hong Kong, it is about the PRC. A government cannot give what it does not have. You cannot expect an authoritarian government to grant democracy. The future of China is the future of Hong Kong and vice versa.

The fight should be about establishing democracy throughout China.

[ngai1842]

i agree with you about china, but i think the British couldn't possibly establish democracy in the 1960's...Why?

Lord Murray Mclehose once said: regarding to the events of 1967, when the cultural revolution sweated through the border into Hong Kong, it would have been a disaster for Hong Kong if there would have been democracy at that time, because the Communists could have won it, and it would have been the End of Hong Kong.

what i regret, is the hadover.

[Konig1985]

I also dont see hong kong resisting PRC integration very successfully. It will be a matter of time before PRC achieves its goal so the best thing for hong kong to do now is to take advantage of the current economic benefits and get rich asap. If they are unsatisfied with HK's eroding DNA they can migrate to hongcouver if they wish. The PRC wont stop them im very sure of that.

[therepublicofHK]

Well, you must take into account stability, The PRC can only push as far the HK people will allow, it simply would not be in their interest to destabilise HK. Indeed, many people did immigrate to Canada (and elsewhere), and China did try to stem the 'brain drain', ironically, a lot of these people returned and now insist on an identity.

[Konig1985]

Can you please elaborate on what makes up a HK identity?

Its simple to the rest of the world and only HK finds this complicated. HK is just facing an awkward dilemma. They merely want to preserve their "unique" identity which is non-PRC that is hampering PRC efforts to consolidate their rule.

[therepublicofHK]

1.) HK people are not simply PRC nationals waiting to be reborn. With only colonial history to speak of, and with most of the population of HK being descendants of people who fled China (esp. during the cultural revolution and great leap forward) there is a great suspicion of China. Rightly or wrongly this suspicion also tends to extend beyond the CCP.

[therepublicofHK]

2.) HK has always been seen as a transient place, a stepping stone to 'better' things elsewhere. Only after 4/6/89 did people really questioned how they would cope with the PRC culture after 97. And it was only after the jitters of the handover passed that people felt there was some permanency to HK, then came the question: How to define oneself and ones permanent home?

[therepublicofHK]

3.) So the HK people started taking pride in HK, undertaking environmental preservation, art, assisting minorities, civic duties, historical interest, etc. More importantly acknowledging that we, together, will make our home a better place. What is interesting is what is becoming less important, e.g. greed, opulent wealth, the sacrificing of your life for money, the things that were considered part of HK before 97, the things people do in transient places.

[therepublicofHK]

4.) But the most vocal expression of this new identity is the ongoing protest for more democracy. Central to any identity is the ability to control your own destiny, but it becomes difficult when the PRC says: "You don't control your destiny, we do.", then you define yourself through your struggle to control your own destiny. Herein lies the danger, at least as China see it. But it may be the Hong Kong people's finest moment.

[therepublicofHK]

5.) I would recommend the book "Hong Kong: Culture and the Politics of Disappearance" by Ackbar Abbas, Hong Kong University Press, 1997. Especially Chapter 7. It's a bit outdated and quite academic, but its balanced, in-depth and not one of those atrocious advocacy books.

[Konig1985]

if it is expected that the hong kong leaders should fight sorely for hong kong interest, then will you agree that the central government fight sorely for chinese interest and not hong kong interest? Will hong kong be prepared to sacrifice economic benefits to pursue the promises of democracy?

[therepublicofHK]

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. E.g. Greater autonomy for HK would lead to greater stability in HK and, hence, for China. But for HK's leaders to blindly obey Beijing and not represent the HK people to Beijing leads to massive protests. So, which is better for China and HK? It is more complex than simply one side winning at the others expense.

[therepublicofHK]

(cont'd) In any event, any leader's job is to fight for the aspirations of their people, but to answer your question, if China threatened a trade off between the economy and democracy (which is the only way that could happen) I think the HK people will react very badly to the intimidation, many would protest, a lot of people would see Beijing as the 'enemy' (not the CE) and sovereignty China has over HK would be severely eroded.

[therepublicofHK]

(final part) any thinking politician knows stability is more important than anything (even ideology), without it governments fall. China, in seeking to integrate HK into China by destroying the HK identity, risks instability. Being pragmatic and relativist they move slowly, but for every step towards integration they take they push the HK people closer towards their own burgeoning identity. Ironic and complicated, isn't it? :)

[Konig1985]

I thought you have to consider the political circumstances of hong kong in 2 very different periods.

Assuming Chris is stays in power after the handover, i seriously doubt he can do much. Please define the "democratic aspirations" of hong kong. Does spreading democracy to China part of their aspiration?

[therepublicofHK]

I agree that he would not succeed in democratising HK if he were the CE today. In fact his reforms were dismantled after 97, but the point is he fought both the UK and PRC for HK, and through his efforts the Hong Kong people now expect that their leaders should look out for their interests, not the interests of their colonial masters, be that China or the UK.

[therepublicofHK]

As for 'democratic aspirations', to some it means democracy in HK & the PRC, while others are only concerned with HK. But in this context it means what the current polls indicate, which is that the majority of people in Hong Kong want the CE and all members of LEGCO directly elected by way of universal suffrage. Many would also like to see the right to interpret the Basic Law rest with Hong Kong's court of final appeal, but one step at a time :)

[Konig1985]

donald vs chris

who wins?

[therepublicofHK]

A thoughtful and recptive leader with political experience and a drive to fulfil the democratic aspirations of the Hong Kong people? Or a closed-eared turncoat bureaucrat that makes excuses for not fighting for Hong Kong? Sorry, Chris wins hands down. To his credit I must say, Donald is a satisfactory civil servant, but that is precisely what makes him a lousy politician.