The Persuader – Continuing HK’s fight for universal suffrage

Continuing HK’s fight for universal suffrage

ANSON CHAN was  Chief Secretary of Hong Kong at the Handover to China in 1997. Now she frets that Beijing’s Hong Kong Liaison Office is eroding what she calls “the whole foundation of Hong Kong”, separation of power between the Judiciary and the Legislature. Of Hong Kong post-2047? “Nobody knows,” she says . . .

SIXTEEN YEARS after Hong Kong was handed back to China, Anson Chan sounds relieved that some of the more dire predictions — including that Hong Kong could go down the drain — did not come to pass.
“There is no doubt that, in economic terms, the integration between Hong Kong and China is growing stronger by the day,” says Chan, who served as last Chief Secretary of Hong Kong under British rule, until June 1997. “Some people would conclude that, by and large, ‘one-country-two-systems’ works well.”
Chan in 2006 chose to come out of retirement to pursue political issues dear to her heart. She then set up the Citizens’ Commission on Constitutional Development (CCCD), since renamed Hong Kong 2020.
Below the surface, she says, there are troubling signs that all is not so well in Hong Kong. The most vexed issue, as she sees it, is the question of universal suffrage.
Some would accuse Chan of being something of an idealist to imagine that, as part of China, Hong Kong would ever have fully-fledged democracy.
She responds: “We (already) have most of the attributes that you would associate with a fully-fledged democracy — minus one-man-one-vote (universal suffrage).”
Chan has little support — or sympathy — from Hong Kong’s business elite, but a swag of Hong Kong citizens share her ideals.
She accuses the business sector of focussing on short-term vested interests and not appreciating what it is that actually makes Hong Kong tick. “They either don’t want to know or refuse to face reality,” she says.
So she continues to push the universal suffrage barrow — much to the irritation of Beijing, and vilification by the pro-Beijing camp in Hong Kong and local Chinese-language media.
So why persist?
“As somebody who grew up in Hong Kong, I feel each and every one of us has a responsibility — and we should have the courage of our convictions — to stand up and be counted,” she says. I happen to believe in one-country-two-systems, and, if I see something happening that is undermining it, I will speak up.”
There are three important milestones ahead for Hong Kong — 2016, laying a stronger foundation for more democratic election of members of the Legislative Council; 2017, the Chief Executive election; and 2020, the election of all members of the Legislative Council on the basis of one-man-one-vote.”
Beijing has agreed to universal suffrage for Hong Kong, and the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress has set 2017 and 2020 as the dates for achieving this. Under the Basic Law, it was originally envisaged that universal suffrage might take place in 2007 and 2008. “Beijing has made two promises — that is, we can elect our Chief Executive through one man one vote in 2017, and, by 2020, all members of the Legislative Council will be elected on a similar basis,” says Chan.
“We think that since Beijing has made these promises, it has to deliver. Hong Kong people are getting very impatient. We’ve waited 16 years since the Handover, and we still have to look to a future date to realise promises laid down in the Basic Law.”
Chan frets because she cannot see the Chief Executive (the unpopular Leung Chun-ying) initiating constitutional reforms to move forward on universal suffrage. “We are coming to the end of 2013 and the Government still hasn’t even started consultation,” she complains.
“The Government has indicated that consultations for reform will begin next year, although the tone of Leung’s recent public utterances on the subject do not offer much confidence.
“The reality is that, until you give political legitimacy to our Chief Executive and make sure the Government has a voice in the legislature, it is very difficult for any Government or Chief Executive to effectively govern Hong Kong.
“In our legislature of 70 members, the Government does not have a single vote. We do not encourage political affiliation since anyone who becomes Chief Executive has to severe all political connections. He has to go cap in hand when he needs support from the so-called pro-Beijing parties in Legco. So time and again, the Government finds its requests defeated in Legco. (Chan spent a brief term as a Legislative Councillor in 2007).
“Beijing is afraid of political affiliations because they might be worried about the contagion effect,” she says. “If we have political parties in Hong Kong, people in Guangzhou or elsewhere may demand the same treatment.”
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive is elected by a committee of 1,200 people, with the imprimatur of Beijing. To Hong Kong’s 3.3 million people, who could vote if there was an election, the leader has no political legitimacy.
Chan says the problem is to persuade Beijing to trust Hong Kong people to elect a Chief Executive who will work with Beijing. “We know it is not workable to have a Chief Executive who confronts Beijing all the time. Hong Kong people are pragmatic,” she says.
“We still have, by and large, a clean Government, although I think, in recent months, it is beginning to show some strain.
“To get a really good feel for Hong Kong, you need to look below the surface and see what is happening. And what is happening in recent years causes not only me, but a lot of people, increasing concern.”
Chan sees increasing interference from Beijing’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong in the internal affairs of Hong Kong. But she is unsure if the direction comes from Beijing — pro-Beijing groups in Hong Kong are also attempting to
assert their influence, she says.
“We feel there is both overt and covert erosion of one country two systems,” she says, citing as an example calls by Chinese officials and the Liaison Office for closer co-operation between the Judiciary and the Legislature.
“This is anathema to the whole foundation of Hong Kong, which is separation of power. It is only by separation that they can act as a check and balance against each other.”
She says interference has become more frequent in recent years. “Once you start down this road, you are chipping away at our core values and, ultimately, our way of life. It will start affecting the independence of the Judiciary. When that happens it affects not just the local man in the street but the overall business environment. In my view, we are then undermining Hong Kong’s strengths — the areas in which we compete with Mainland China.”
Hong Kong’s strengths are rule of law, human rights, and freedom of speech and the press – all enshrined in the Basic Law to govern Hong Kong post-1997, she says.
“Chinese leaders have to realise that the whole basis of the Basic Law and one-country-two systems is to recognise that Hong Kong has developed very differently from the rest of China,” she says, adding that the late Premier of China, Deng Xiaoping, understood this when he agreed to the Basic Law, with its provisions to preserve Hong Kong’s core values.
Although Hong Kong does not have endemic corruption, recent reports involving the former head of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), Timothy Tong — who is under investigation for lavish entertainment of his counterparts across the border — worry Hong Kong people.
“If you are wining and dining each other, what happens when there is a need to enforce Hong Kong law? We have an increasing number of Chinese businesses in Hong Kong, and we have to be mindful of this.”
She has also noticed that the long-standing trust between Hong Kong people and the police is starting to fray at the edges. “Nothing is being done to defuse tension between the police and the average man in the street. We have always prided ourselves that we have a well-disciplined and politically-neutral police force.”
Action by police in recent demonstrations created an impression that the police are not administering justice in a fair and impartial manner, she says.
She cites as an example “high-handed” police action against students during a visit by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang for the centenary of Hong Kong University.
“It doesn’t take too many incidents to destroy the favourable impression of the Hong Kong police, she told ATI.
Then, there are social issues, caused by a large influx of Chinese visitors.
“Hong Kong is a small place. When you have large numbers of people flooding into Hong Kong and they make demands on your social services and your hospitals, drive up the price of real estate and display anti-social behavior, this leads to tension and animosity.”
At the border, parallel traders from China cross four or five times a day to sweep up toilet paper and milk powder. They jack up prices for the locals, she says, adding that this is not a major issue — it can be managed by controlling the number of people crossing the border, and with education.
The visionary Deng’s one country two systems concept was designed to look after the former British Colony for the first 50 years of Chinese rule. So what will happen after 2047?
“Nobody knows,” is her frank reply. “You can seek to extend it in theory. Or you could let it come and go on the basis that the two systems have grown closer.”
Anson Chan hopes that the Mainland will increasingly adopt Hong Kong systems. “But whether that will happen nobody knows,” she says, noting, however, that China itself is changing very rapidly.
She thinks it may take one or possibly two generations to instil in the Chinese the sort of core values — independent judiciary and eradication of corruption — espoused by the people of Hong Kong. But the truth is that nobody can foresee what may or may not happen in 2047, says Anson Chan.