People power (Hong Kong and China)

The Economist ^ | Jul 11th 2003 | From The Economist Global Agenda

[DeuceTraveler]

Huge demonstrations in Hong Kong have forced its chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, to delay implementation of a controversial anti-subversion law. This has raised questions about Mr Tung’s position, about whether Beijing can prevent a move to fuller democracy in Hong Kong, and about the effect that the crisis will have on the mainland

WHEN the former British colony of Hong Kong was handed back to China six years ago, the government in Beijing insisted that the territory would retain its traditional freedoms under the “one country, two systems” doctrine. That claim, though, has always been treated with a dose of scepticism, and never more so than this year, when Tung Chee-hwa, Hong Kong’s chief executive, and Beijing’s puppet, tried to railroad through a repressive “anti-subversion” law. Last week, as many as half a million people took to the streets of the territory to protest against this legislation. And on Wednesday July 9th, tens of thousands converged on Hong Kong's legislature to denounce the government in a candlelit vigil. Their success in forcing Mr Tung to rethink has sparked the biggest political crisis in Hong Kong since its reversion to China.

But even more important than the law itself, or Mr Tung’s future, is what the crisis means for democracy in Hong Kong. Under the territory’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, the chief executive and ruling Legislative Council could be chosen in open elections from 2007 and 2008 respectively. So far, Mr Tung has avoided any discussion of fuller democracy, but after their resounding success in recent days, Hong Kong’s democrats may be tempted to push their luck. And this has the mandarins in Beijing very worried indeed. The Chinese government has sent a delegation, including representatives from the security and intelligence agencies, the foreign ministry and the Hong Kong and Macao Office, to assess the situation in Hong Kong and to help it work out its response to the crisis.

Almost until the last minute, it looked as if Mr Tung would go ahead and push through the controversial anti-subversion measures on Wednesday July 9th. Critics had said that the measures would threaten freedom of speech and assembly, curbing the rights enjoyed by the press and religious groups, among others. Following last week’s massive rally, Mr Tung at the weekend removed or amended three of the provisions most offensive to democrats: police power to search without a warrant; the ability to ban groups already outlawed in mainland China (such as the Falun Gong spiritual movement); and penalties for “theft of state secrets”. Democrats still were not satisfied, but Mr Tung insisted he was pushing ahead. However, he was stopped in his tracks by the resignation from the cabinet of James Tien, chairman of the pro-business Liberal Party and, up to that point, a supporter of Mr Tung. Without the backing of the eight Liberal members of the ruling council, the bill’s passage was in doubt, and Mr Tung had no choice but to delay it.

For now, the futures of both the bill and Mr Tung are unclear. The authorities in Beijing have long lost confidence in their man. His problems have been compounded by the fact that Hong Kong is facing a dramatic economic slowdown. Unemployment is now at a record 8.3%, and shows no sign of falling, in part due to Hong Kong’s lack of competitiveness compared with mainland business centres like Shenzhen and Shanghai. The government now faces a record budget deficit; in March, it was forced to raise taxes for the first time in 20 years. Mr Tung has also been widely criticised for his handling of the recent SARS outbreak, which killed around 300 people in the territory. And he is seen as weak: he failed to sack his finance minister, Anthony Leung, after Mr Leung was revealed to have bought an expensive car just before announcing a big increase in car duty.

All this puts Beijing in a bind. Its official line is that Hong Kong is free to decide its own future. If China’s leaders forced Mr Tung out, they would be open to charges of interference. Worse, such a move would set an unwelcome precedent: that people-power works. Moreover, if Mr Tung were to go, Hong Kong’s democrats would be likely to push harder for full democracy. Neither Mr Tung nor his masters in Beijing are remotely keen on this.

The crisis also has ramifications outside of Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland. The government in Beijing is trying to use Hong Kong as a role model to show the Taiwanese that they could retain their freedoms were Taiwan, seen by China as a breakaway province, to rejoin the “motherland”. However, the brouhaha over the anti-subversion law appears to have had the reverse effect. After ten years in limbo, a bill in Taiwan that would allow public referendums (seen by China as the precursor to a vote on Taiwanese independence) has now secured the support of opposition parties who had previously seen it as unnecessarily provocative towards China.

Reform-minded folk in China will no doubt be hoping that any increase in democracy in Hong Kong might lead to more openness on the mainland. However, southern China has been very exposed to Hong Kong for some 20 years, picking up its television, and reading Hong Kong newspapers, without becoming a hotbed of democratic agitation. So the authorities in Beijing will be hoping that those Chinese who get to hear about events in Hong Kong will continue to consider the territory a place apart, with no real bearing on their own lives. Still, it is sufficiently troublesome for the mandarins that even one small, already largely free part of China could escape their control.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

Gray Davis is worried about the same affect 'people power' will have upon HIS future.

[Support Free Republic]

DON'T MEAN TO BUG YOU.....
BUT CAN YOU HELP? PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to

FreeRepublic
LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO
CA 93794
Or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
It's on the Breaking News Sidebar

[PhilDragoo]

~CHINA'S WAY: TIANANMEN JUNE 4, 1989~

[InvisibleChurch]

makes you wonder what happened to this guy

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Ping

[HighRoadToChina]

I am told by a very reliable source that this brave soul is still alive and possibly free in Communist China.

[HighRoadToChina]

"Every communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Mao Zedong

[HighRoadToChina]

PING!!!!

[FreepForever]

My open letter to Mr. Tung. I have printed 5,000 of this to be distributed to the protesters tomorrow.

Mr. Tung Chee-Hwa:

It has been two weeks since the July 1 march and your only response to our demand is the deferment of the Article 23. We know your "infinite delay" strategy. You hope that time will bail you out so that you can reintroduce Article 23 at a better opportunity. You hope that giving out commercial interest can buy you back the support you have lost. You hope that time will wear the People's Power out so that we will let you escape unscathed in this crisis. You are so wrong because, thanks to you, we have learned that the current crisis is the fruit of an undemocratic and corrupt system. This time, we are determined to change it, once and for all.

Article 23 can only be enacted under a truly democratic government. The people will not allow the legislators to even talk about it without the discussion of our long overdue democratic reform process in the Legco. We demand popular election of Chief Executive in 2007 and 60 seats direct election in Legco by 2008. If you delay the democratic reform process, Article 23 will never be enacted in your remaining term. This we can assure you.

Don't give us that "Article 23 is our constitutional responsibility" nonsense any more. The Basic Law promises us democratic reform too. Why don't you fulfill your constitutional responsibility and give us that? Why don't you push the political reform as fervently as you have pushed Article 23?

You want to drag on? You think time is on your side? Never mind, we can wait. It only gives us more time to organize bigger protests against you. And you can forget about enacting Article 23 in your life. If you want to solve the crisis, act, don't wait. We may not be able to change you but we can certainly change Hong Kong. You want to drag? We can drag too. No democratic reform means no Article 23. Just wait and see.

FreepForever

[David Isaac]

Taiwan, a "breakaway" province? Sort of like Tibet, I would imagine.

When Kuomingtang (Nationalist Chinese) were forced to retreat to Taiwan in 1949, they were not quite greeted as brothers by the native Taiwanese. There has been friction between the two groups since that time. But it has eased of late. The election of the last President being the first time an indiginous person has held that postion.

Now, assuming that the Nationlist Chinese could be considered to be members of mainland China's population (not too much of a stretch, I hope) and were considered to be foreigners by the Taiwanese, how can the ChiComs call Taiwan a part of China?

The only plausible answer is "Communist Logic" (the big lie). The Russians used it for decades, it being their version of diplomacy, and nobody ever called them on it. (Hell hath no fury like what I feel when I think of what has passed for "diplomacy" in recent history.)

It sounds as if possession of Taiwan is a foregone conclusion in the minds of PRC leaders. I am assuming that we will allow these freaks to bully us for a few decades, as we allowed their Bolshevik brothers to do. Perhaps Colon will figure out the answer.

[HighRoadToChina]

Hi FreepForever,

Great letter! Just one small advice, please call the China of today "Communist China" to distinguish its totalitarian regime from a free China. Just as there was once a "Nazi Germany" and now there is a free Germany, the same will apply to China. It's just a matter of time.

This is in reference to your tag line: "Communist China is the hub of all evil"!

[BJungNan]

Never forget it was an earlier student movement that was at the root of many personal tragedies brought on during the Cultural Revolution. When you view pictures of the student standing in front of the tank, keep in mind that many ordinary Chinese while welcoming the opening up policy of the government are at the same time still very leery of student movements and protests.

[DeuceTraveler]

Got to admire a man with steel balls.

[DeuceTraveler]

Good job with the subtle threat, but you should write to your other audience, too. The people of Hong Kong will need to be given something that makes them want to fight against Article 23, something that speaks to the average person like Thomas Paine's Common Sense. You should write something to motivate the people of Hong Kong, too.

[DeuceTraveler]

In reading Chinese history and folk lore there is a common theme of China breaking up into small fiefdoms, just to be reunited down the road by a strong, able leader. The Chinese government's inability to fully control Hong Kong and the Chinese population in neighboring Taiwan is a blemish on its supposed perfect system that cannot be ignored in Chinese culture.

"The Empire, long divided, must unite
long united, must divide.
Thus it has ever been."

-- Three Kingdoms, by Luo Guanzhong

[tallhappy]

In reading Chinese history and folk lore there is a common theme of China breaking up into small fiefdoms, just to be reunited down the road by a strong, able leader. The Chinese government's inability to fully control Hong Kong and the Chinese population in neighboring Taiwan is a blemish on its supposed perfect system that cannot be ignored in Chinese culture.

So many people regurgitate communist propaganda without knowing it.

It's not your fault.

[tallhappy]

Never forget it was an earlier student movement that was at the root of many personal tragedies brought on during the Cultural Revolution.

You are just a big distorting lying person.

[tallhappy]

Your post is right -- I agree. But you have a number of factual errors.

[BJungNan]

Hello Tall&Happy. Everytime I want to find you I only need print a factual observation about China and there you are. Best Regards my disagreeable friend.

[tallhappy]

Not factual.

It is apologia for the Mao regime that started and carried out the Cultural Revoution.

That you try to blame it on students it is pure lying propaganda.

And then your attmpt to smear the people in Hong Kong with the brush of Cultural Revolutionists is as nasty and slanderous as it comes.

[David Isaac]

Sorry, I had to be gone for some time. Which parts are incorrect? I wrote it in a hurry, without any reference. Any illucidation would be greatly appreciated.

[David Isaac]

I lost track of History after the Han Dynasty, but it seems like the record went something like: Shia; Shang; Western Chou; Eastern Chou; Spring and Autumn Period; Period of Warring States: First Empire (Chin Shih Huang Ti); Han Dynasty.

The period of Warring States was a time of fragmentation and perhaps the Spring and Autumm Period. Other than those and the disorder following the deposiing of the Last Emperor and Rise of Sun Yat Sen, I do not recall too many periods of destablilization.

The Chinese are extremely fond of order, which would explain the predominance of Confucianism since its inception. I am not sure whether Old Master Kung established something new or merely masterfully encapsulated the old.

Either way, there is no arguing that Communism is an abomination and fouls any country that embraces that idiotic system/philosophy.

[BJungNan]

Not factual. It is apologia for the Mao regime that started and carried out the Cultural Revoution. That you try to blame it on students it is pure lying propaganda. And then your attmpt to smear the people in Hong Kong with the brush of Cultural Revolutionists is as nasty and slanderous as it comes.

First, my reply was directly to the person that put up the picture of the protester standing in front of the tank. I was not speaking to the demonstations in Hong Kong - which I happen to agree with.

Second, I can see how my comments would have been interpreted as a commentary - and as you say a comparison - between the students during the cultural revolution and those demonstrating in Hong Kong. I meant no such comparison.

Third, it was students that came into our family's house, took our belongings out into the street and burned them.

[The Pheonix]

Communism is an "Alien Ideology" and anti-thesis to trditional Chinese culture

We suspect that the great majority of ordinary Chinese today, has lost faith in Communism, and don't believe any of its "crap"

[tallhappy]

the protester standing in front of the tank.

That person waas not even "a student". He was a shopper going home, likley an army veteran.

[tallhappy]

it was students that came into our family's house

No, it was Red Guards.

The attempt on the part of many to somehow equate the Cultural Revolution with democracy and freedom is strange.

[FreepForever]

Hi, HRTC, tag line chnaged.

Thanks, DeuceTraveler, the aim of this letter is to encourage all HK citizen behind the same line. I have used my own money to print 5,000 leaflets to be distributed in today's rally. It's proven to be a stupid move, I underestimated the weight of paper. Haha!

This message will also be circulated among HK's internet users too. Any better ideas to publicize this? I'm off to the rally now. Back to you later, guys.

[HighRoadToChina]

Welcome back, BJungNan!

As usual your interpretation of Chinese history is a bit off the beaten track.

First of all, the "student" standing in front of the tank is not a student but a worker. In fact, more workers and ordinary people were killed during the Tiananmen Square Massacre than students. Most of the students left long before the tanks arrived.

The Cultural Revolution was instigated by Chairman Mao to wipe out the remaining vestige of the old Chinese traditions and take care of his rivals in the process. He used students because he knew young people are easily manipulated.

Red your history. Try "The Private Life of Chairman Mao" by his personal physician that is if you are able to read such truths.

[BJungNan]

My point was this and only this, that many people in China - not referring to Hong Kong - are leery of student movements, young people movements, worker's movements - whatever you want to call them. They see it as possibly leading to the type of problems experienced during the cultural revolution.

If you can dispute this fact, go ahead. But don't read into my comments positions I did not take.

[David Isaac]

Perhaps not totally alien. Individualism is not a highly prized tradition in China. Centuries of too many people on too little arable land has produced a tendency to be quite group-conscious, the good of the many over the good of the few or the individual.

Individual responsibility is a point of divergence, however. Where the Communists preach about such a thing, the system discourage the practice of same. The Chinese do practice individual responsibility, almost to a fault (having to do with "face" and the gaining or losing thereof).

Tis a very complicated and contentious subject.

[tallhappy]

When Kuomingtang (Nationalist Chinese) were forced to retreat to Taiwan in 1949, they were not quite greeted as brothers by the native Taiwanese.

Most accounts say that intially they were well received. The idea of taiwan as a province in a free democratic China that would elect its own government for Taiwan and elect representatives to send to the national government in Nanjing was greeted well. It wasn't until none of those things were done and the KMT began a largescale looting followed up a massive massacre of the Taiwanese after they finally stood up to the KMT that the animosity began.

The election of the last President being the first time an indiginous person has held that postion.

This is the factually incorrect line. The president prior to Chen, Lee Teng-hui, who became President in 1988 and was the first elected by direct vote in 1996 was also "indigenous" as you put it.

And, in Taiwan, indogenous would be the wrong term because there is an indigenous population called aborigines that pre-date by centuries or millenia the emigration from China that began in the 1600's.

[DeuceTraveler]

"I lost track of History after the Han Dynasty, but it seems like the record went something like: Shia; Shang; Western Chou; Eastern Chou; Spring and Autumn Period; Period of Warring States: First Empire (Chin Shih Huang Ti); Han Dynasty.

The period of Warring States was a time of fragmentation and perhaps the Spring and Autumm Period. Other than those and the disorder following the deposiing of the Last Emperor and Rise of Sun Yat Sen, I do not recall too many periods of destablilization.

The Chinese are extremely fond of order, which would explain the predominance of Confucianism since its inception. I am not sure whether Old Master Kung established something new or merely masterfully encapsulated the old.

Either way, there is no arguing that Communism is an abomination and fouls any country that embraces that idiotic system/philosophy."

Well put. I have to brush up on my own history of China, to be completely honest. I'm focused on early American right now and then hope to move on to Greek and Roman before looking into Chinese.

[DeuceTraveler]

Good to hear. Let us know how it went. Did you meet any resitance?

[David Isaac]

Thank you for the info. Your knowledge of Taiwan is surely much better than mine. But the main question remains, does the PRC have any legitimacy in claiming Taiwan is actually part of China?

[tallhappy]

does the PRC have any legitimacy in claiming Taiwan is actually part of China?

Oh no. None at all. Your post was excellent. I was simply pointing out specifics.