When Hong Kong reverted to
China in 1997, western pundits predicted doom and gloom for the future of Hong
Kong and they couldn’t be more off target. The same gaggle of pundits and
analysts are now attempting to make sense of Occupy Central movement taking
place in Hong Kong and their interpretations are again suspect.
There are western observers that
are quick to draw the analogy of Tiananmen in 1989 to Occupy Central in Hong
Kong and attribute to both movements as a cry for democracy, demand for
government reform, and even overthrow of the ruling elite. These are views
reflecting their western bias and not grounded in reality.
There are similarities, of
course. Students led both movements and both demanded democratic reform. However,
the students at Tiananmen did not really understand the meaning of democracy.
They wanted to replace the authoritarian government of Zhongnanhai with one to
be run by the leaders of the movement. Idealistic yes, realistic no.
The students of Hong Kong
also demand democratic reform. They are too young to competently compare the
relative freedom they now enjoy to no voice on how they were governed when
their parents lived under the British rule. They thought they saw an
opportunity to rewrite the Basic Laws and make a grab for complete universal
suffrage. They are being naïve.
Since the handover in 1997,
Beijing has hewed to the line of “one country, two systems” and honored every
term and condition as outlined in the Basic Law. The people of Hong Kong will
be able to vote for their next chief executive in the 2017 election, just not
the right to nominate the candidates who will run for the highest office. The
voters will choose from among the candidates vetted by a nominating committee.
It’s a limited form of democracy but that is the Basic Law.
The student leaders at
Tiananmen overstepped the legitimacy of their complaints when they publicly
insulted the Premier of China, which then escalated tragically to bloodshed.
The western media unintentionally contributed to the incendiary circumstances.
They followed Gorbachev on his State visit to Beijing and noticed the ragtag
bunch congregating at Tiananmen. Their attention to the students rekindled a
movement running out of steam, thus leading to disastrous consequences.
The students of Hong Kong are
demanding the immediate resignation of chief executive C.Y. Leung, an ultimatum
impossible to be met. The Hong Kong police have shown professional restraint
and keeping a delicate balance between maintaining order and minimizing
violence. They have been doing their utmost to keep the disturbance civil and,
unlike Occupy Wall Street in New York City, have not resorted to cracking heads
with swinging batons.
If anything, there are now
loud demands for law and order from ordinary citizens weary of the blockage by
protestors and a desire to resume their daily lives. Such confrontations
between civilians and students have potential tragic consequences. So do
continue disruption of traffic and normal daily business activity.
Fortunately, the situation
seems to be calming down. Office workers are being allowed to go back to work.
Protesters and government representatives are having a conversation. Hopefully,
this is the beginning of negotiations that will lead to a mutually acceptable
resolution.
I have been a regular visitor
to Hong Kong since 1978 and I believe there are genuine issues to consider that
might lead to accommodations both sides can live with.
Until recently, people of
Hong Kong have not been overly concerned about their freedom to vote and much
more concerned over the freedom to make money. That was true under British rule
and carried over after the handover. China’s own economic success, especially
after Tiananmen and then after the handover, created enormous opportunities for
the folks in Hong Kong that wanted to achieve financial success.
After China began their
reform under Deng Xiaoping’s exhortation that “to get rich is glorious,” Hong
Kong business people became wealthy by moving their factories into China and
transferring their management and business knowhow to the mainland. Then Hong
Kong real estate magnates moved into Chinese cities and showed China how to
make money in property development.
Entrepreneurs inside China
were quick learners. As they became wealthy, they in turn invested in Hong Kong
property, raised money via the Hong Kong stock exchange and used Hong Kong as
their business conduit to the rest of the world. It has been a symbiotic
relationship. Instead of the “preordained” gloom and doom, Hong Kong prospered
like never before. As some wise observers have counseled the protesters, Hong
Kong’s future rides on coattails of China’s future.
The young protesters need to think
about the heavy cost if the symbiosis with the mainland is damaged or
destroyed. If they think having a truly democratic form of government will be
ample compensation for an estranged relationship with Beijing, they need to
think again.
They need to ask themselves,
“What form of democracy is likely to provide them with a future superior to
riding on the coattails of China’s economy?” Certainly not the U.K., former
masters of Hong Kong. Theirs is a deficit economy tittering on the brink of
insolvency and desperate for China investments and fees from renminbi-based
transactions to keep the country afloat.
What about the United States,
the paragon of all democracies? Which part of this democracy would the Hong Kong
protesters like to emulate? The grid-locked dysfunction of Washington as a
model of good governance? The right to vote completely quashed by the politics
of money where deeper the pockets, louder the voices behind the checkbook? May
be they would like to help pay the mounting national debt, currently close to
$60,000 per person?
I respectfully suggest to the
young people of Hong Kong that they value the qualities of Hong Kong that make
the city special. Rather than tearing it down, they need to work with the
government on improving the conditions for all the people. And, there are some
significant issues that need the urgent attention of the SAR government headed
by CY Leung.
The most obvious has been the
tension created by the flood of mainland visitors to Hong Kong. Their lack of
civil behavior such as spitting or urinating in public places are visible
irritants and generators of ill will. Even worse when the visitors game the
system in order to give birth in Hong Kong and then clean the store shelves of baby
formula when they go home leaving the local consumers to deal with shortages.
How to deal with the tourists
from China, obviously a two-edged issue, is a matter the SAR government needs
to take up with Beijing. The solution has to somehow discourage the abusers
that take advantage of Hong Kong but encourage those genuinely interested in
Hong Kong as an interesting place to visit.
The internal issues are
perhaps more serious but well within the purview of the SAR government. One is
to continue to upgrade the quality of education so that young graduates would
qualify for well paying jobs and embark on their own paths to prosperity. Give
them hope of upwardly mobile careers and they are less likely to barricade the
streets.
Second issue has been the lack
of reasonable and affordable housing for the large pool of population that have
not fully participated in the per capita income growth that Hong Kong has
enjoyed. Given that Hong Kong has the world’s highest per capita of
billionaires and most of them derive at least in part their wealth from real
estate, it would seem that this is an easy matter to resolve by the public and
private sector working together.
As
is frequently the case, public unrest hints at underlying causes. The student
protest at Tiananmen began because of resentment of official corruption and
favoritism that ballooned out of control. So it is pertinent to look at causes
that lie beneath Occupy Central.