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

BBC documentary (five parts in the entire series) about Chris Patten, the popular last Governor of Hong Kong, and his democratic reforms which were undone by China.

He was quite possibly the first and only leader Hong Kong ever had (with the possible exception of Sir Murray Maclehose) that put Hong Kong's interests above that of her colonial masters, be that China, Japan or Britain.

Since then the Hong Kong people have become more embolden, with 500,000 people marching in 2003 calling for full universal suffrage for the Chief Executive and the resignation of Patten's successor Tung Chee-Wah after a series of spectacular policy failures.

Today, Mr. Patten (who left Hong Kong with and %80 approval rating), is welcomed back to Hong Kong with great enthusiasm by the people whenever he returns to visit.



Note: I would like to apologise to everyone for allowing comments to be added to this video only after I have approved them. Unfortunately, videos of Hong Kong politics tend to arouse the passions of various small individuals who find it necessary to leave offensive flames posts, quite often of a pathetically nationalistic or blatantly racist nature. I'm afraid that such irresponsible posts will not be entertained and communications from such people will be ignored - threats will be reported. I will, however, be delighted to post messages of an intelligent and constructive nature, especially those that encourages enlightened debate.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Hong
• Kong
• Hongkong
• democratic
• democracy
• Chris
• Patten
• reform
• HKSAR
• free
• Basic
• law
• handover
• politics
• 香港
• 政治
• 歷史
• 民主
• 97

[e53e54]

interesting documentary film that i can see in here. thanks.

[dirtywashedupsparkle]

cont'd - I'm sure the Hong Kong perspective would be more divided as to whether he was a good or a merely troublesome politician. There will always be scepticism as to a person's motives in Chris Patten's position. But at least he put up a fight for something.

[ripcurl456]

weird coincidence...i'm from bath, conservative are useless now, we have don foster liberal for years..

[therepublicofHK]

1.9.) Finally, I apologise for so lengthy a reply, unfortunately youtube gives me little other choice. If you made it this far I thank you kindly for reading and your discussion. I look forward to more. If I may I would like to suggest a book: DE FACTO FEDERALISM IN CHINA: REFORMS AND DYNAMICS OF CENTRAL-LOCAL RELATIONS by Zheng Yongnian

[therepublicofHK]

1.8.) On the LEGCO election; Anson Chan's victory was a thankfully foregone conclusion, but HK's former No.2 on side with the Pan-demos is a greater upset to China than a Trotskyist (Long hair) as it lends legitimacy to the cause. On the Dist. Council elections, commentators agree there were many factors for the pro-Beijing victory, but a change in ideology was not one of them. Ultimately, LEGCO's importance is more than the Dist Council as it is the law making body of HK

[therepublicofHK]

1.7.) I feel we must know our strengths & articulate the consequences to Beijing of imposing the unacceptable. We, not China, should be responsible in determining our future. Then, from a position of strength, a truly lasting future can be negotiated that can suit us both. Provided we give China opportunity to rationalise our new position, I'm sure they would agree. After all, it would be the pragmatic thing to do and any mistakes made would be our burden, not theirs.

[therepublicofHK]

1.6.) At worst, should we be truly threatened by China, our power lies in our ability to severely dent China's growth (hence the CCPs power base), the instability our collective anger can cause and the effect that could inspire on other regions in China, and international trade & relations. Compared to other regions in China, here reprisals against opposition have consequences. I do not advocate this, but it is a collective 'panic button' we can press.

[therepublicofHK]

1.5.) I fear that if we remain passive, China, seeking cultural hegemony over us (which, in their eyes equals stability), will simply take that as our acceptance (or apathy) and implement through local channels whatever they want. Likely a facade of democracy that will always favour China rather than Hong Kong. Such a scenario is hardly democracy and is not worth the effort of even keeping quite.

[therepublicofHK]

1.4.) Your point about Long Hair is well taken (I prefer Emily Lau!), but his election is immaterial if half of LEGCO is appointed, China can ignore him if every motion he proposes is defeated by appointees. So if our modest democratic institutions fail to deliver reform were else could we turn but to the streets, as we so successfully did in 2003? There is no evidence to warrant the faith so many put in China's benevolence towards democratic progress in HK.

[therepublicofHK]

1.3.) As pragmatists covets stability above all else, the CCP and local cronies would unlikely impose upon us something that we would angrily reject. The 2003 protest was a clear example of that, as it firmly stopped article 23 when our lawmakers didn't. But Beijing must always have the appearance of legitimacy, hence Tung was blamed, even though he was essentially appointed by Jiang

[therepublicofHK]

1.2.)The CCP can justify such contradictions provided 1.) It is conducive to long term prosperity 2.) There is a face-saving explanation for such policy, even if it is a form of doublethink. Today the CCP's power no longer grows not only out the barrel of a gun but also in its ability to provide growth, and hence hope to many millions that are sadly still poor and upon whose backs ride revolution. Therefore, stability is the coveted prize, as it is the environment where economic growth occurs

[therepublicofHK]

1.1.) Indeed an excellent point and the standard view in HK. But allow me to present another POV: Since the Pragmatists, headed by Deng, won the power struggle over the Maoists, we have seen the successive leaderships of China become more relativist in the approach to problems. e.g. De facto but not de jure Taiwan independence, socialist market economy alongside nationalism, & other contradictions.