The Last Governor 1: A Democratic Time-Bomb, part 5 of 7

BBC documentary (Part one of a five part 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 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

[prokkets]

are you from Hong Kong? also if the British wanted more democracy in Hong Kong they could have done it a long time ago, do you agree?

[therepublicofHK]

The point is the UK was committed primarily to stability but also to a slow democratisation, whereas China is committed to integrating HK into greater China and that does not involve democracy unless it enhances stability (which it does). Mind you 'democracy' as far as China is concerned is one where the results are a foregone conclusion, this is not possible as the HK identity is not one that is compatible with China's.

[therepublicofHK]

4.) While I believe the federalist model and even the Union model, bears greater consideration, I understand China's position. But I am a Hong Konger and strongly believe that the destiny of HK should rest with the HK people. This belief is incompatible with the one China policy, as is genuine (not sham) democracy in HK.

[therepublicofHK]

3.) One need only look to Tibet to find evidence of this. I am not suggesting that form of repression will occur in HK, but does explain the fear that people have. To have introduced significant democracy before 97 would have given the HK people a taste of self-determination, which to China would have been seen as an effort by a former colonial power to divide and conquer once again.

[therepublicofHK]

2.) China has had only on consistent policy since the 1949 revolution and that is the One-China policy (even communism was effectively dismantled). The policy states that only a strongly unified China can protect against the exploitation and internal strife that marked the 19th & 20th century. In reality China has followed a de facto federalist model, while aggressively pursuing a culturally & politically hegemonic China.

[therepublicofHK]

1.) Not at all, glad I could help. China could have effected a hypothetical vote in several ways; a.) Intimidation; threats to business interests, shutting off the water, even direct military action. b.) Utilising pro-China HK trade unions to vote for pro-China candidates c.) Intimidation of pro-democratic activists and politicians through criminal elements. Unfortunately, as fantastic as it sounds, China has resorted to all three of these methods in the past and will likely do so again.

[therepublicofHK]

(con't 2) Yes, Britain could have and should have, but to do so would have angered China at a very dangerous time (under Mao) and allowed China to gain access to the political system by influencing the vote. Also important to remember was the fact that a HK identity really didn't exist until at least the 70s and this is critical to democracy.

[therepublicofHK]

(con't) But one cannot effectively govern without listening to the people. The solution was the urban council and functional constituencies. Gradual democratisation was occurring in HK right up until the handover, but once the joint declaration was signed China had final say.

[therepublicofHK]

Indeed I am, as my name might suggest. Ideologically speaking the UK supports democracy, however, it was not until the 70s the majority of HK people were born in HK, also with the Cultural Revolution inspired terrorism of the 60s, there was a real concern that China would use its leverage to influence any election held in HK.

[therepublicofHK]

Notwithstanding my previous post, the tycoons that make up HKs oligarchy are a loathsome lot of sycophantic turncoats who hide their knighthoods and OBEs in a draw when their new masters from Beijing come calling. Eloquent or not they're a despicable blight on HK which they bury with money in the hopes no one notices their cowardice... Thank god for Jimmy Lai.