| Front Page | In This Week's Issue | Subscribe | Special | Archive | About AsianWeek |
July 4-10, 1997
| Front
Page | In This Week's Issue | Subscribe | Special | Archive | About
AsianWeek |
July 4-10, 1997
Second in a three-part series
 |
Photo by Larry Chan/AP New Era: Chinese Prime Minister Li Peng (right), congratulates Tung Chee-hwa after his inauguration as chief executive of the Hong Kong government on Tuesday. |
BY WILLIAM WEI
Editor's Note: In last week's issue, Asian/Asian American scholar William Wei wrote on the history of Hong Kong and the prospects for transfer of the colony from British rule to Chinese sovereignty. This week, he reports from Hong Kong on the events and the mood surrounding the historic moment. Next week, he examines scenarios for the future of Hong Kong as part of the People's Republic of China.
Coming to Hong Kong has always been a matter of faith, that somehow you will make money as long as the wing of your plane misses the laundry hanging from the clothes lines that stretch from window to window across the tenements in Kowloon while landing at Kai Tak. Presumably, with the new Chek Lap Kok airport, business will be better than ever, though flying in will be less hazardous.
They say that Hong Kong has a distinctive odor, the smell of money. Being a history professor must have stunted my olfactory sense, because all I smell is human sweat mixed with mildew. That saying reflects the belief that Hong Kongers were purely economic entities, without any interests outside of making money. It reminds me of the distorted images that people have of Asian Americans.
Undeniably, entrepreneurialism is one of the salient characteristics of Hong Kongers, but to argue that they are indifferent to politics offends my common sense. Their recent participation in political protests as well as the 1991 and 1995 Legislative Council elections belies that stereotype. They are hardly apathetic, though a case can be made for their political style being a comparatively low key one. Anyway, it will be worthwhile to learn what their political issues are.
After receiving my press credentials, I went over to the Press and Broadcast Centre to see what was happening. It is apparent that the Government Information Service has arranged a program that emphasizes the economy, with media briefings on trade and industry, transport, planning, infrastructure, housing, law and order, and the legal system. The Hong Kong government is trying to get the word out that everything is going to be all right after July 1, 1997. As one person remarked, what we have here is a "conspiracy of smiles."
There were two demonstrations today. The large one was outside the Legislative Council building (Legco), where an estimated 200 pro-democracy activists protested plans to change civil liberties laws in order to curtail public protests such as the one they were holding. They chanted slogans and carried signs condemning the proposed Public Order Ordinance, which will be enacted by the appointed Provisional Legislature. The ordinance will reverse the British policy of allowing rallies and marches as long as the police are given advance notice and substitute a system requiring prior approval.
The smaller one was in front of the Citibank Building where Tung Chee-hwa, the new chief executive, has his temporary offices. There are a handful of pro-democracy activists protesting the curtailment of civil liberties. In addition, they symbolically enrolled Elsie Leung Oi Sie, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) secretary of justice (designate), which is the equivalent of the U.S. attorney general, into an introductory law course at Hong Kong University.
Meanwhile, the campaign to influence the international press and local media was being waged by the Better Hong Kong Foundation through a series of forums on Hong Kong's future. The foundation is unabashedly pro-PRC and was established by leading local business people to express and encourage confidence in Hong Kong during its transition from British to Chinese control. At the first forum it held, Nellie Wong, chair of its Executive Committee and moderator of the meeting, told the journalists in attendance that the press needs to get out the word that the rule of law will prevail in Hong Kong after the reunification.
Today's sessions with Elsie Leung and members of the Hong Kong SAR Executive Council who are responsible for making recommendations to Tung Chee-hwa on aspects of livelihood, indicates that the foundation has its work cut out for it. At the Leung session, she was asked what Fong called "unfriendly" questions, and replied with technical and narrow answers.
Afterward, I left with the feeling that there will be the rule of law, but there may be no justice, especially for pro-democracy demonstrators. Though Leung clearly knows the law thoroughly and was ostensibly chosen by Tung Chee-hwa for that reason, I found her answers chilling because they were those of a technocrat who would simply follow orders. She would follow the letter of the law regardless of whether it was just or not. If there are any ambiguities in the law, she will probably interpret them in favor of the government. In ancient China, she would have been one of the Legalists who buried the Confucian scholars alive.
Essentially, it comes down to how Leung will interpret the actions of alleged violators, whether she thinks that their intentions were seditious or not. A case in point was whether future demonstrations against Li Peng for his sordid role in the Tiananmen massacre would be judged illegal or not. According to Leung, protesting his decision to violently suppress the student demonstrators would be legitimate but using the demonstration to incite the overthrow of the Chinese government would be illegitimate. The problem, of course, is how do you know when it is one or the other.
Another problem is whether that decision will be influenced by the powers that be. I am skeptical of Leung's claims to judicial independence where even Tung Chee-hwa cannot interfere with the administration of the law. It flies in the face of the PRC's recent history of a politicized judiciary.
Because of the participation of Martin Lee Chu-ming, chairman of the Democratic Party and acclaimed "conscience of Hong Kong," it was standing-room-only at today's Better Hong Kong Foundation forum on the views of the chairmen of the major political parties on Hong Kong's future. From the beginning, two things were evident: As Allen Lee Peng-fei, chairman of the Liberal Party, humorously noted everything that they were going to say had been said countless times before, and the public expressions of friendship by the panelists notwithstanding, Martin Lee was friendless on that stage.
If Lee is ever arrested by the authorities, it is doubtful that any of the other party chairmen on that stage will speak out on his behalf. Indeed, one gets the impression that they will feel that he deserved it. When Martin Lee asked his "friend," Allen Lee, whether demonstrators will be prosecuted, Allen Lee replied that it will happen only if they break the law.
Everyone, including Martin Lee, will have to wait for the early hours of July 1, 1997, to learn whether Martin Lee has broken the "law" when he publicly protests the disbandment of the elected Legislature, reading a pro-democracy statement from the balcony of the Legislative Council building. He has no plans to apply for permission to hold this protest, ensuring that he breaks the anticipated laws that will be enacted and applied retroactively to violators.
Perhaps the authorities will avoid a confrontation with Martin Lee and his Democratic Party and employ another approach. Earlier that day, the Associated Press carried a story about Lee Kuan-yew, the senior minister of Singapore and de facto ruler of that city-state, who said that, "Those in charge of Hong Kong's economy can ensure that Martin Lee will not get much money, business, or backers." To paraphrase the kids back home, Lee Kuan-yew is one scary dude.
Martin Lee set the tone for the evening with his opening remarks about the need for freedom that can only be maintained with "good laws" that must be made by legislators accountable to the people who elect them. He pointed out that the appointed Provisional Legislature was by definition illegitimate. So it was hardly surprising that it intended to pass laws ending civil liberties. His colleagues were visibly irked by his remarks even though they have heard them before. So much for Asian inscrutability.
Perhaps Lee's most unsettling comments were his comparison of the Chinese Communist to the Nazis. While he was quick to note that they were not as "bad" as the Nazis, they shared some of the same characteristics, specifically their domination of the judiciary. Lee was matter of fact about how the Nazis executed judges who failed to comply with their wishes.
Lee's comparison may be more apt than he realizes. The Nazis were aided and abetted by the German capitalists just like the Chinese Communists are being supported by Hong Kong capitalists and pro-PRC businessmen today.
It has become clear to me that one of the stories of the handover is the battle for the "hearts and minds" of the international press and local media. Hong Kong boosters have been critical of foreign journalists for their negative assessments of Hong Kong's future after the PRC takes control and have been trying to counter it.
It is a David and Goliath story. On one side are the pro-democracy forces, disorganized and poorly funded, emphasizing political issues. On the other side are the Hong Kong government and business community, well organized and funded, emphasizing economic issues.
The latest effort to influence the international media was at a cocktail reception held by the pro-PRC Hong Kong Federation of Journalists. Among literature that they were handing out was, "Some Thoughts on the Freedom of the Press in Hong Kong," which seeks to allay doubts that some journalists have about the continuation of press freedom after the handover of the Hong Kong administration.
Most of the journalists came to see Tung Chee-hwa and Zhou Nan, the head of the New China News Agency and de facto representative of the PRC, so they were keenly disappointed when neither of them showed up. A no show is no way to win the press over.
They say that Tung has been neither friendly toward the foreign press nor savvy about dealing with them. But they thought that he was getting better, noting that his interviews with CNN and others have been smooth, overcoming some of the negative impressions that they have had of him as a Chinese Rodney Dangerfield.
At the reception I ran into Frank Ching, who is now a columnist for the Far Eastern Economic Review. Years earlier I had interviewed him for my book on the Asian American movement. Some of the local journalists are miffed with him for his criticism of Gov. Chris Patten's reforms, though everyone agrees that those reforms provoked the Chinese.
The significant question is whether in the long run those reforms did the people of Hong Kong any good or simply made things worse for them by angering mainland Chinese leaders. It may sound trite but I would like to believe that having raised Hong Kongers "political consciousness" and giving them a taste of "political freedom," Patten has planted the seeds of democracy that will eventually sprout in Hong Kong and perhaps even in China, which is, of course, what Beijing leaders are most afraid of. As we say back home, Patten did good and will probably be treated well by history.
I saw Patten this evening at Hong Kong Stadium where he, along with thousands of others, went to listen to music played by the departing British Garrison. From my vantage point three rows below his box, I could see that it was an emotional moment for him. When the military bands played "Auld Lang Syne," he and the people stood up, linked arms, and sang.
Once again, the Chinese have lost the Opium War, though this time in the movie theaters. Few places are showing it now, so I had to go in the pouring rain to Kowloon to see a Mandarin version in a multiplex Harvest Theater. It is not doing well, ranking ninth in the local top-10 movie listings.
For a propaganda film, it has a Hollywood/Hong Kong flair, with high production values, some implicit sex, and ample graphic violence. It has an operatic quality to it as well, with the highly moral and patriotic Commissioner Lin trying to save his country from the perfidious British, especially the adulterous Denton (no family man he) and duplicitous Captain Elliott. The latter is the real villain of the piece for knowingly instigating a war with China by guaranteeing that the British government would pay for the destroyed opium. What the movie reminded me of was John Wayne's The Alamo, especially the last battle scene where the courageous Chinese general (Davy Crockett) takes a lot of Royal Marines (Mexican soldiers) with him by igniting a pile of powder kegs.
I had dinner with Peter Tung, my old housemate and friend from graduate-school days at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. He returned home to work as an educator. These days he is on leave from his teaching post at the City University, doing research for the Education and Manpower Branch of the Government Secretariat on what the medium of instruction should be and the problem of language acquisition.
His assessment of the problems that Hong Kong students are having in learning English and Cantonese, and the adverse effect it has had on learning in general belies the remarks made by the university presidents earlier in the week at a session of the Better Hong Kong Foundation forum. According to the university presidents, it is onward and upward for Hong Kong.
Tung shared some observations about the unique identity of Hong Kongers. Perhaps more than anything else, it is their "can do" attitude within the framework of the law that is in marked contrast to other enterprising people. Mainland Chinese, with their backdoor approach, come to mind. In addition, because of their history, Hong Kongers have successfully blended East and West, creating an original culture that they can call their own. It remains to be seen whether the dominant mainland Chinese culture will change it and change it for the worse.
I went to see the border. What can I say, it is still there. Perhaps the most informative part of the trip was talking to Capt. Colin Brown of the Black Watch. He observed that the attitude of the local population made the British troops feel "uncomfortable." I think he wanted to say "unwelcome" but could not bring himself to do it.
Unfortunately for the British, their departure from Hong Kong will be considerably less glorious than their earlier exit from India. Though the fond farewells by the Asian Indians may have been simply a matter of "dancing on the graves" of the departing British, it allowed the British to leave with dignity. Ironically, the British were forced out of India by Gandhi and Indian nationalists, but are leaving Hong Kong more or less voluntarily and peacefully through a relatively smooth transition process. Moreover, the British left India in disarray, facing partition, and are leaving Hong Kong a prosperous place.
Contrary to what some Chinese have argued, it is doubtful that Hong Kong would have become the place it is today without the British. All you have to do is visit the less prosperous Macao to see the difference in colonial administrations.
Woke up to the following headline in the South China Morning Post, "4,000 troops set for dawn deployment." Instead of arriving gradually and in small numbers, large numbers of People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops will be moving into Hong Kong six hours after the handover ceremony at dawn on July 1, 1997, crossing the border in 400 vehicles, including 21 armored personnel carriers designed to quell riots. Riots? So far, there have only been small demonstrations.
Hong Kongers are anxious and the British are outraged. Patten is trying to reverse this decision, arguing that so many troops are unnecessary and inappropriate since the Hong Kong community is stable and harmonious. Besides, the agreement they made was that internal security was a Hong Kong police matter. Unless the mainland Chinese actually plan to use them against the Hong Kong people, their "insensitive" action seemed designed to show who was boss.
The first question asked of Emily Lau Wai-hing at her talk at the Foreign Correspondents' Club (FCC) was about the arrival of the PLA. She considered their deployment in such a high profile manner to be a provocative action designed to humiliate the British, one that will engender "bad feelings." I would have said "fear" instead.
Speaking of provocative, some of Lau's replies to the questions put to her were just that: Lau said that Frontier, a human rights organization that she heads, was prepared to engage in a dialogue with the Beijing government or any of its "puppets" and characterized the transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese control as exchanging one colonial master for another. She is clearly for the people of Hong Kong and a caustic critic of the transition process.
At Lau's talk there was proof positive that the local press was engaging in self-censorship. Even though Lau has been reported in the Hong Kong Economic Times before, one of its reporters admitted that his editor had pulled her speech, offering the specious excuse that she was too emotional and that other legislators would demand equal space. When she asked whether she was banned, the reporter said he would like to know the answer to the question as well.
Tagged along with Chris Slaughter, a former student of mine and now a well-known correspondent for Asia Business News. Chris is a fount of information about Hong Kong and its people. One of his humorous observations is that because they have a refugee/survivor's mentality, Hong Kongers think in terms of the present rather than the past. When Tung Chee-hwa told people to put the Tiananmen massacre behind them, he was speaking to the Hong Kong ethos. For the same reason, the pro-democracy forces are constantly bringing it to their attention lest they forget it.
Chris and an ABN crew are covering the Asian Extravaganza 1997 at Kowloon Park organized by the Bayanihan Trust. Name notwithstanding, the Extravaganza is a predominantly Filipino event. In some ways, it is an elaborate extension of the weekly Sunday holiday for the 150,000 Filipino contract workers in Hong Kong who gather together weekly with their friends, usually those from the same region and speaking the same dialect. They are Hong Kong's largest minority. Everywhere in Wan Chai, Central or Kowloon, I saw them gathered together in small groups, sitting on tarps, eating lunch, and chatting with their friends.
Practically all of the Filipinos here are women who have come to work as maids (a term they prefer over Amahs), sending remittances back to their families in the Philippines. Abused by their employers, they suffer silently. Their low wages and wretched working conditions are considered disgraceful, yet the Hong Kong government has chosen to ignore them as a matter of laissez-faire capitalism.
Some folks have interpreted the plight of the Filipino workers (and other minority groups such as the Vietnamese boat people) as an example of "Chinese racism." While Hong Kongers are as racist as anyone and contemptuous of other Asian cultures, the situation here may be more an issue of class than race. They are equal opportunity exploiters, fully prepared to take advantage of anyone weaker than themselves to make a profit, which is, after all, Hong Kong's raison d'être.
One of the concerns that the Filipinos have is that after the handover, they may be displaced by a flood of mainland Chinese peasants who will work for even less than they do. They are not alone. Chinese Americans who have come to Hong Kong in search of opportunities, taking advantage of their bicultural heritage (or at least their Chinese appearance), are also afraid that they will be displaced by educated mainland Chinese who have the requisite language and cultural skills necessary to serve as an interface between China and the West.
On my way home, I ran into another demonstration. It was being held in front of the New World Harbour View Hotel next to the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Center where the handover ceremony will take place tomorrow.
Tsang Kin-shing, an elected legislator belonging to the Democratic Party, was much in evidence. Apparently, his strategy is to make visitors to the handover ceremony aware of his group's opposition to the Provisional Legislature, which for him represents the overthrow of democracy in Hong Kong. To ensure that people get the point, he has a large banner of the Goddess of Democracy in the center. Some folks consider Tsang to be a professional activist who will support any progressive cause.
Started out the day with a cup of coffee in the Crown Colony of Hong Kong and ended it drinking a glass of beer in the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China. In between, there were two series of events competing for people's attention. There was, of course, the formal handover ceremony, with a lot of pomp and circumstance at the H.M.S. Tamar, headquarters for the British forces, a spectacular fireworks display in Victoria Harbor, and a solemn lowering of the British and raising of the Chinese flags in the Convention and Exhibition Hall.
All the speeches were calculated to put people at ease about the handover: Prince Charles said that they would take a keen interest in what happens afterward, and President Jiang Zemin said that nothing would happen. From where I sat, neither of them were particularly convincing, though Jiang delivered his speech with a degree of enthusiasm.
Not a dry eye among the audience at Tamar, but a torrential downpour will do that to you. Prince Charles looked uncomfortable and Gov. Chris Patten looked sullen, eliciting guffaws from some journalists in the press center. When the flag ceremony took place, there was scattered applause, presumably by mainland Chinese journalists. I overheard one of them make a remark about the hostility of the Westerners and his colleague replied, "It's because of 6-4"--June 4, 1989, the date of the Tiananmen Square uprising.
Outside the Convention and Exhibition Hall, there were small demonstrations, including one sponsored by the April 5 Action Group demanding that Beijing leaders step down and another by an anti-abortion group decrying atrocities committed by "Red China." More importantly, at the nearby Legislative Council building there were large protest rallies held by the Democratic Party in the front of it and by the Coalition for the Alternative Handover on the right side of it in Statue Square.
Fortunately, it was unnecessary for Martin Lee to climb a ladder to reach the Legco balcony. Although the police had earlier said that he and his group were forbidden to use the balcony, they allowed him to do so anyway. Presumably they permitted him to break the "law" rather than make a martyr out of him. During an earlier talk at the FCC that day (technically the day before), Lee had jokingly remarked that the press would probably prefer that he climb the ladder.
From the balcony, Lee and his colleagues made what they called their July 1 Declaration, protesting the seating of the Provisional Legislature and calling for its dismissal. Meanwhile, Emily Lau's Frontier organization wrapped a yellow ribbon around the Legislative Council building to symbolize the peoples' loss of freedom and marched to the Central Government Offices with lighted candles. At an earlier talk I attended, Lau called the Provisional Legislature an abomination and told us pointedly that Americans knew what yellow ribbons meant--waiting for loved ones being held hostage. Adding a surreal quality to it all was a variety show celebrating the reunification on the left side of the Legislative Council building in Chater Garden.
Upon returning from these pro-democracy rallies, who do I see on the screen in the press center but Li Peng entering the building downstairs. The gods have a warped sense of humor.
After it was all said and done, I was curiously devoid of emotions. Naturally, as a Chinese American, I was glad to see the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty. As a scholar of modern China, I certainly appreciated its historical significance. But when one of the Hong Kong journalists asked me how I felt, my reply was, "tired." Perhaps the fact that Hong Kong and its people were now under the control of Beijing made it less than a joyous occasion.
 |
Franki Chan/AP Photo Wearing a mask with handover written on it, a protester stands outside the Legislative Council building in Hong Kong, Monday June 30. The protesters oppose Hong Kong's handover to China. |
By HEATHER HARLAN
Most Americans believe that Hong Kong will be worse off under Chinese rule than under British rule, while most Hong Kong residents are far more optimistic of prospects after the July 1 takeover, a new poll shows.
The poll, conducted earlier in June, found that 73 percent of Americans feel that the future will be worse for Hong Kong after the transfer. In contrast, 42 percent of Hong Kongers feel the future of the British colony will be better after China takes over on July 1. Thirty-seven percent feel that things will be the same, and only 16 percent feel it will be worse.
The data revealed a dramatic gap between Americans' perceptions of the attitudes of Hong Kong residents toward the changeover. Americans mistakenly believe that Hong Kong residents share their negative view of the political changes taking place there, the poll revealed. Fifty-seven percent of Americans think Hong Kongers would rather become independent, and only 5 percent said they assumed Hong Kongers wished to reunite with China. In comparison, 46 percent of the Hong Kong residents polled said they wanted Hong Kong to join China and only 27 percent said they favored an independent Hong Kong.
Two-thirds of those who live in Hong Kong approved of the job Tung Chee-hwa was doing prior to the handover and his inauguration as chief executive, while nearly half of the Americans polled who were able to rate Tung believe that Hong Kongers disapprove of how he is handling his job.
A similar gap was reflected in views toward the Provisional Legislature. While 62 percent of Hong Kong residents believe it is a legitimate legislative body for the people of Hong Kong, less than a quarter of Americans polled think that Hong Kongers approve of the Provisional Legislature.
Hong Kong residents are also much less concerned about the fate of personal freedom after the transition than Americans are. Nearly half of the Americans polled said they were very or fairly worried about personal freedom in Hong Kong, while only 18 percent of Hong Kong residents were concerned they would lose personal freedom.
The poll was commissioned by the New York-based Asia Society, a nonprofit institution dedicated to educating Americans about Asia, and the Committee of 100, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of prominent Chinese Americans.
Robert Radtke, assistant director for NorthEast Asia programs at Asia Society, attributed the gap in opinion to negative reporting by the U.S. media. "I think most Americans get their information about the transfer from the U.S. media and the media has decided to report the transition as a negative event," he said. "But people who are closer to the actual event see this as a positive development."
©1998 AsianWeek. The information you receive on-line from AsianWeek is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright protected material.