|
Critical comments on demonstration against Article 23 in Hong Kong
Laugk Updated: 2004-02-29 14:48
It is now seven months when the demo against article 23 erupted, much to the surprise of the leaders in Beijing. On looking back, we just wonder what PRO (Public Relations Organisation) was laid out to explain the finer points of article 23. It did seem that the people of Hong Kong were taken for granted, and failure to woo the hoi polloi and assuage any of their fears were glaringly found wanting. It was like the good old British colonial time, when the rulers in White Hall issued edicts, and British subjects in Hong Kong just docilely accepted the legislature.
But the people of Hong Kong, being Chinese, expect more consideration from the Motherland. You just cannot pass an anti-subversion legislature, however vital and innocuous insofar as those who are not seditious.
Beijing has to explain with patience and understanding, and mollify their feedbacks.
The whole fiasco became apparent because the people responsible for enacting Article 23 did it the British way without the usual Chinese characteristics of seeking a consensus.
Simply put, it was rammed down their throats.
The demonstration on July 1 in Hong Kong would fall into the plot engineered by Taiwan's Chen Shui-bian and his separatist cohorts to debunk the concept of 1C2S (one country two systems). Taiwan's Realpolitik is this 1C2S should not succeed, as the rationale of Chen Shui-bian was the ultimate declaration of Taiwan's independence based on 2C2S (two countries two systems).
If one scrutinises closely, the date chosen was the Sixth Anniversary Celebration of Hong Kong's handover to China. This gave away the real agenda of the organisers, and one that is ill-timed and rather malign in intent.
The large turnout was also to impress China's PM Wen Jiabao when he visited HK to celebrate the Sixth Anniversary of Hong Kong's handover to China.
But here was a view that caught my attention:
"I'm for free people, free markets and free information and I feel this may lead people around the world to say that Hong Kong has lost its freedom. There are perceptions that you are importing Chinese law and Chinese security law into Hong Kong."
The comments came from David Li, Chairman and CEO Bank of East Asia, a member of Hon Kong's Legislative Council.
I saw these comments from a report by Peter S. Goodman writing from Washington Post Foreign Service Monday, June 30, 2003.
Let us scrutinise this phrase: "There are perceptions that you are importing Chinese law and Chinese security law into Hong Kong,"
What struck me dumbfounded was why the distinction between Chinese and Hong Kongers?
Is not Hong Kong a part of China? And the Hong Kong people, are they not Chinese?
So why is it 'Chinese law' so undesirable when Hong Kong is Chinese territory?
The Freudian slip here is showing, that the Chinese in Hong Kong regard themselves a class higher than the Mainland Chinese.
Hence the distinction Hong Kong from China, as if Hong Kong is an independent state.
About nine years back, a French professor who supervised my daughter's PhD thesis paid my family a visit. He asked a question: "Do you think Shanghai will replace Hong Kong in the not too distant future? From what I could see, the importance of Hong Kong will be diminished if there are too many problems there."
I shared that view. The people who made Hong Kong what is today were mainly from the rich and industrial class in Shanghai and elsewhere in China, fleeing from what they at that time thought was an alien ideology and the threat of being singled out as prosperous Chinese.
Time since has eroded that misconception, and many Shanghainese would rather go back to Shanghai where they and their fathers came from.
As the saying goes, the pigeons came back to roost.
The days of Hong Kong as the Prima Donna of China's region are gone. If the type of demonstration and agitation that we saw on July 1 last year, then people of Hong Kong have put an indelible seal to the eventual erosion of its importance.
China, as the owner of Hong Kong, naturally would not like to see it a hotbed of seditious elements such as the FLG and other sectarian groups whose main objective is to weaken China, to find safe haven in that former British colony.
That means the people with no interest in FLG's agenda, and no outside-influenced politics, need not fear Article 23 of the Basic Law.
Only those who seek to dismember and destabilise China shall have sleepless nights.
But we must view this against what the US is enacting laws under its current Iraq War. They are more draconian in infringement of human rights than the bogeyman they make out of China.
So it is with tongue-in-cheek that the US condemns Hong Kong and China for Article 23.
As for Britain, it does it much more brazenly when it was the colonial master of Malaysia and Singapore. Its version of Article 23 is the existing "Internal Security Act" in its former Southeast Asian colonies. The Act is among the most repressive and draconian, and often misused by the politicians in power to eliminate or clamp down on opposition leaders.
In Singapore we have people put away because they were suspected of being communists.
Many viewed these political prisoners as being victims of abuse of the Internal Security Act which Britain introduced. It could be seen as a tool use by the ruling power to stifle and eliminate political opposition.
A number in Singapore and Malaysia migrated to Western countries on account of this. Surprisingly, these people chose Britain and Australia.
Also, even more surprising, Britain, Australia, and the US gave sanctuaries to several activists who escaped Singapore's wrath. We see examples of these in Tan Wah Piow (Student leader) in Britain, Tan Liang Hong (opposition politician) in Australia, and Francis Seow (a challenger to Lee Kuan Yew) in the US.
These countries are to be commended for the humanitarian role they play in protecting Singapore dissidents.
But one is rather surprised that Britain protests against Article 23. This is similar to its clumsy manipulation to introduce democracy to Hong Kong just before it's handling over to China on July 1, 1997.
It was not lost on many why Britain did not have democracy in Hong Kong when it was the colonial master?
How many of those 500,000 (350,000 according to Washington Post) really knew what they were protesting?
We recognise their genuine fear that Article 23 may be used indiscriminately to stifle genuine vox populi (voice of the people).
If only a little more PRO was done actively, many of those in the streets would have stayed home to watch their favourite TV programmes.
Again, we note that these people came out in force against the economic failures and handling of SARS in Hong Kong.
But we must address the genuine fears of the Hong Kong's hoi polloi. It is this understandable fear, rather than opposition to Article 23, that Szeto Wah and Martin Lee, long suspected working for external sectarian groups, exploited to the hilt.
Both Martin Lee and Szeto Wah have more to fear Article 23 as they have some motives to work against China. Martin Lee sought private audience with Clinton when the latter was the US President, and also his tours of Western countries to drum up support against the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997.
Szeto Wah might have been motivated by his Christian faith, one that does not necessarily view communism and PRC with charity.
We can believe the suspicion that Martin Lee and Szeto Wah have special British passports different from other lesser people of Hong Kong, where they will be given a permanent abode in UK, or even citizenships when matters get too hot for them in Hong Kong.
Article 23 is tailor-made for the ilk of Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, and other fellow bandwagon passengers like the FLG and foreigners that chose to stage raucous demonstrations and agitations against China in the safe haven of Hong Kong.
So people like Martin Lee, Szeto Wah, and Falungong have a self-interest and survival to shoot down Article 23.
Those criminal elements and seditious dissidents from China are now denied an active platform where they in the past sullied the honour and dignity of China with impunity on China's territory.
Most telling about the demonstration in Hong Kong was the handling of the situation and a bad team that sits more on its power than on persuasion by active PRO. Had this been pursued right from the beginning, the numbers would have been much reduced.
There is a seething dissatisfaction lurking beneath. Clearly Tung Chee Wah was seen as an inept and ineffective leader.
Now comes a suggestion the CEO post should be offered to Mrs. Anson Chan from a Black Cat and White Cat Club, a non-existent society that invokes the pragmatism of Deng Xiaoping by suggesting Anson Chan's recall. It is a bitter pill as Beijing still remembers that she escorted Prince Charles and Chris Patten on their departure to the royal ship on the night of the handing over of Hong Kong to China.
Here Anson Chan could not be faulted, as she was observing diplomatic protocol as the head of the. HK government. The leadership in Beijing did not understand the diplomatic nicety of the sending off.
And the important task ahead is not to buckle under this blackmail engineered by Martin Lee, Szeto Wah, the FLG and those who fear the rise of a powerful China. There must be resoluteness in safeguarding the security of China
In the months ahead, steps must be taken to reassure the hoi polloi in Hong Kong they have nothing to fear if they do not engage in seditious and traitorous activities against China.
Most importantly, a citizen of Hong Kong is not a separate entity, a cut above or below Mainland Chinese. It must be made clear that Hong Kong Chinese is the same as a Mainland Chinese.
They are Chinese.
Lau Guan Kim
[End]
| The above content represents the view of the author only. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
