Hong Kong, Ten Years Later

The British lion has morphed into a Chinese dragon. What's next?

Posted on July 2, 2007
By Greg Rushford

HONG KONG---In the ten years since July 1, 1997, when the former crown jewel of the British Empire became a Special Administrative Region of mainland China, Hong Kong retains its British charm. In mellifluous English tones, the public announcer on the underground subway still reminds departing passengers to "Mind the Gap." The big double-decker English-style buses still drive on the left, Queens Road Central has not been renamed for some mainland communist hero, and the prestigious Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club on Causeway Bay is still the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club . As one British expatriate told the Hong Kong Standard over this past weekend, "Apart from the fact there's no Union Jack flying, nothing's changed."

Well, not exactly. It is true that the sign on the wall still announces the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club -- at least that's what the English letters say. But the Chinese characters immediately above have dropped the Royal: in Chinese, it's just the Yacht Club. The distinction may be subtle, and largely unnoticed by English-speaking foreigners, but it is real. This is a Chinese city. And nothing in China is ever so simple.

Ten years ago, Hong Kong was a British colony with all the colonial trappings. In more than 150 years, their colonial masters in the United Kingdom never entrusted Hong Kong people to elect their governor, who was appointed in London. Because there was no universal suffrage, the British governors never enjoyed the kind of credible mandate that only democratically elected leaders can claim. These days, the SAR's chief executive is picked by an 800-member body that is controlled by communist party authorities in Beijing. Today, Chief Executive Donald Tsang has the same problem as the last British governor, Chris Patton: neither man, however well-intentioned, was legitimately elected. Hong Kong today could be likened to a colony of China. Accordingly, there is no institutional assurance that Hong Kong's cherished freedoms will not be gradually chipped away in the next ten years.

If that's the bad news, there is considerable good news. Hong Kong remains one of the world's greatest cities. I have been coming here since 1969, and each time am impressed all over again by the energy and accomplishments of the resilient Hong Kong people. Over more than 150 years of British rule, Hong Kong became a civil and tolerant society that respected the basic institutions of democracy: the rule of law, a free press, an independent judiciary, a talented civil service, and an entrepreneurial-minded business community that turned this entrepreneurial port city into a world-class trading entrepot. And now, after ten years of Chinese sovereign rule and many gloomy predictions that it would turn out otherwise, Beijing has largely kept its word to preserve Hong Kong's traditional freedoms and autonomy under the "one country, two systems" experiment.
The Peoples Liberation Army is said to have some 2,000 soldiers garrisoned in Hong Kong. They are basically invisible to the populace. By contrast with their sometimes rowdy British predecessors who were known to engage in brawls in Wanchai's girly bars, the mainland Chinese soldiers take their pleasures on the mainland, out of public view. Ten years ago there were fears that the PLA -- the same PLA the world saw in Tienanmen Square in the 1989 bloody crackdown -- would be an intimidating presence in Hong Kong. They simply haven't materialized.

Moreover, the mainland authorities have restrained themselves from forcing through an unpopular anti-subversion law in 2003, although Hong Kong's Basic Law (unwisely) specifies that the SAR adopt such. Most observers would give the main credit for this to the intrepid Hong Kong populace, not Beijing. In 2003, aroused when a poorly crafted anti-subversion statute was presented by Beijing's first hand-picked chief executive, the politically tone deaf Tung Chee-hwa, some 500,000 Hong Kong residents protested by marching peacefully in the streets. Imagine what would have happened to half a million mainland Chinese citizens who would dare to do such a thing. Still, the mainland authorities must be given some credit, grudging or not, for permitting the Hong Kong government to put the controversial proposed legislation on the shelf, where it remains. Hong Kong's cherished civil liberties have not been torn down.

Hong Kong also maintains freedom of expression and the press. True, Hong Kong's newspapers are frequently criticized for self-censorship and timidity when it comes to reporting news that would be unpopular in Beijing. If measured against their potential, the newspapers here are disappointing. But the fact remains that news is routinely published in Hong Kong that never would see the light of day on the mainland. As for freedom of expression, consider the Falun Gong religious sect, which is outlawed on the mainland. In Hong Kong, Falun Gong members regularly hand out anti-communist pamphlets to passers-by at Star Ferry terminals, without interference from the authorities. And yesterday, tens of thousands of Hong Kong people including former Chief Secretary Anson Chan, Catholic Cardinal Joseph Zen, and other leading democracy advocates turned out for a rally for universal suffrage -- peaceful advocacy has long marked Hong Kong.
While, lamentably, only half of the Legislative Council's 60 members are directly elected, democracy advocates and Legco members like Martin Lee and Margaret Ng are respected figures here who have no fear of being jailed for their advocacy. Ten years ago, nobody knew for sure what would happen to such people in Hong Kong. It remains a crime to advocate democracy in mainland China. Here it is a badge of honor.

Rather than "The Death of Hong Kong," as Fortune Magazine famously predicted prior to the handover, Hong Kong still sparkles. And while the city took a huge financial hit ten years ago in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, Hong Kong today is more prosperous than ever. As journalist Ben Kwok observed in the South China Morning Post the other day, the Hang Seng Index is up some 43 percent since the 1997 handover. Surely, the mainland Chinese authorities deserve their share of the credit. As the new British foreign minister, David Milibund, has put it, Hong Kong as run by Chinese people has been a "remarkable success story." It really has.

Giving credit where it is rightly due doesn't mean that Hong Kong doesn't face serious issues and still-unresolved questions about the future of the "one country, two systems" experiment. The most important of these remains the lingering question of when, if ever, Hong Kong will have universal suffrage. Everyone agrees that giving Hong Kong people the vote is the "ultimate goal," which is specified in the Basic Law. But when? As U.S. Consul General James Cunningham noted in a recent speech, Hong Kong's people are obviously ready, and "the sooner this happens, the better."
Chief Executive Donald Tsang also says that he wants Hong Kong to have the vote as soon as possible. Tsang's problem is that his views are not regarded as credible by Hong Kong's democracy advocates because the chief executive has, so far, ducked every opportunity to set a date. Chinese president Hu Jintao, in a speech here this weekend as he presided over the swearing-in of Tsang to a second term of office, spoke in vaguely reassuring terms of "gradual" political development for Hong Kong. But in his remarks, Hu had this to say: "The one country means that we must uphold the power vested in the central government." The headline in the Hong Kong Standard today said it all about how Hu's assurances were received: "Hu spells it out: we hold power." This was "the second reminder in less than a month that Hong Kong does not have any residual power," Standard reporter Carrie Chan wrote.

Still, some observers believe that Beijing would be prepared to give Hong Kong the vote, but only when the SAR is unified on whether it wants it. While most of the press attention concerning universal suffrage involves the tensions between Hong Kong democracy advocates, Chief Executive Tsang, and Beijing, there is another important debate going on. This one pits the Hong Kong democracy advocates against key figures in the city's business community, which mainly likes things the way they are presently, and fears giving Hong Kong people the right to vote. The tycoons are used to getting their way, and -- given their track record in helping build such a great city -- have earned a seat at the table. It could be that the most difficult political compromises along the road to universal suffrage will be between the tycoons and the democrats, not between Hong Kong and Beijing.

At least, the report card ten years after the handover that Fortune Magazine famously predicted would lead to "The Death of Hong Kong" is far better than expected. While Hong Kong has changed under Chinese rule, the more this great city changes, the more it reflects the essential vitality of its ordinary people. That's the most important reason to justify optimism that under Chinese rule, Hong Kong's best days are in the future.