HONG KONG -
Today's Hong Kong is reminiscent of what befell Taiwan
some 57 years ago when the then Republic of China ruled
by the Kuomintang (KMT) reclaimed Taiwan from Japan.
Anson Chan, Hong Kong's former chief secretary
for administration, early this month published in Time
magazine a critique of Beijing's policy toward the
special administrative region (SAR). After her June 7
commentary "Trust us" appeared, the Chinese government's
Liaison Office in Hong Kong lashed out, calling Chan's
remarks "irresponsible", "factually untenable", and
against the stability of Hong Kong.
There were
indeed tough words in Chan's piece, which depicted the
manner in which Beijing handles the pursuit of democracy
in Hong Kong as "reminiscent of the Cultural
Revolution". Still, this was the first time the mainland
authorities had openly denounced this paramount former
official who had contributed greatly to the transition
of Hong Kong after its handover to China by the British
in 1997.
On June 9, Chan defended herself,
saying the Liaison Office was misinterpreting the word
"reminiscent" - she never said that Beijing was
reverting to the techniques of the Cultural Revolution
to address the Hong Kong issue.
Misunderstanding
or not, a truth emerges: mutual distrust undeniably
exists between Beijing's power corridors and Hong Kong's
elite politicians who once served in the British
colonial administration when they are facing the
difficulties that Hong Kong has encountered since its
reversion to China. In this sense, post-handover Hong
Kong resembles Taiwan after its handover by the Japanese
colonialists to KMT-ruled China in 1945.
Lee
Shiao-feng, a renowned scholar in Taiwan, says the
Chinese government of the day behaved like a conqueror
and instituted a unique administrative system in the
newly recovered territory, whereby the "Office of Taiwan
Provincial Chief Executive" held supremacy in
administration, legislation, justice and military
affairs. It was merely a duplicate of the previous
Japanese Viceroy's Office, and a continuation of
colonial rule.
Hong Kong today is proclaimed to
be run by Hong Kong people themselves. Yet its Chief
Executive Tung Chee-hwa was the only candidate running
for the post in 2002 and was elected by a small group of
800 people hand-picked by Beijing.
In his first
term, Tung launched a series of breakthrough-making
policies on housing and industry, which however proved
stark failures later on. Still, he secured a second term
at Beijing's behest. As Beijing - the regent commander
behind the scenes - becomes more dominant in Hong Kong
affairs, the so-called special administrative region,
which is supposed to enjoy a high degree of autonomy,
more and more resembles a colony.
Similarly, 57
years ago, local elites and intellectuals in Taiwan
found Chen Yi, chief executive and head of the armed
forces of the newly liberated island, not much different
from the deposed Japanese viceroy. Power was wrested
from the aboriginals and monopolized by mainland
Chinese. Soon officialdom in Taiwan was rife with
corruption and nepotism.
As a result, Taiwan's
economy slumped quickly: the production index fell by
over half, the rice price in Taipei skyrocketed
400-fold, and unemployment soared. By 1946, Taiwanese
society was already in upheaval with violent clashes,
and criminal cases increased 28-fold. Local elites stood
up against the new government.
Fast-forward to
Hong Kong in the 21st century. Tung strove to introduce
an accountability system and build a stronger government
in his second term to boost public confidence. Under the
new system, all principal officials are politically
appointed and under contract to the government.
Yet things have not always gone as planned. The
credibility of Tung's administration was severely
damaged by a series of events. Tung mishandled the case
of former financial secretary Antony Leung, who
purchased a luxury automobile before raising taxes on
such vehicles one month later; the government failed to
make a prompt response to the severe acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS) epidemic, which killed 299 of the 1,755
infected. Tung pushed for the legislation of an
unpopular anti-subversion law - Article 23 - against the
majority will. Eventually, faced with mass protest, the
legislation was shelved, but it was too late for Tung:
his image was broken in the eyes of the community.
If the distrust between the authorities and
grassroots escalates, violent conflicts like the one in
Taiwan in 1947 could be replayed. After the "February 28
Incident", a bloody clash between the police and
citizenry in that year, tension in Taiwan quickly
intensified. The local community elected representatives
who negotiated with Chinese General Chen Yi for the
establishment of a committee to handle the fallout of
the incident.
However, KMT troops landed at
Chilung in northern Taiwan on March 8, 1947, and the
government outlawed the committee. The troops undertook
an islandwide program of arrest and slaughter. Soon
those involved in the committee suffered retaliation and
even death, although they never took part in the
so-called "riots" or resorted to violent protests
against the authorities. As a result, the elite of
Taiwanese society were almost entirely sacrificed, with
a death toll ranging from 10,000-20,000.
In
addition, the administration doubled its efforts in
gagging the media. Outspoken independent newspapers such
as Taiwan People's News and People's Guide News were
abolished.
Fast-forward to the present once
more. Beijing has adopted an iron fist to Hong Kong
since the massive rally last July when half a million
people took to the streets, protesting against the
legislation of Article 23 and the unpopular Tung
administration. On April 6, the National People's
Congress interpreted the Basic Law's clauses concerning
the territory's constitutional development, and decided
to rule out the possibility of universal suffrage in the
elections of the chief executive in 2007 and the
Legislative Council in 2008.
The ruling soon
sparked public concern about Beijing's promise of "a
high degree of autonomy" made when the territory
reverted to China in 1997. Even Chan, who retains
significant popularity in Hong Kong, departed from her
usual composure. "The decision undermines public
confidence in Beijing's promise - guaranteeing at least
50 years of autonomy in Hong Kong - and the SAR has to
re-embellish the cracked image of [the] 'one country,
two systems' policy. Of course, the sooner the better,"
she proclaimed on April 28.
In May, three radio
hosts famous for frequently airing pro-democracy voices
quit in quick succession, citing pressure and
intimidation from Beijing, thereby igniting a wide
discussion on the erosion of freedom of speech (see Hong Kong free
speech signs off the air, May 27).
Certainly there are many differences between the
situations in Hong Kong today and in Taiwan in 1947. But
in both cases, the will of the majority was overruled by
the central Chinese government. Opinion polls in Hong
Kong show large majorities in favor of direct elections
and greater democracy, but Beijing has the final say,
disappointing many Hong Kongers, especially the elites.
Of course, today's Hong Kong and 1947's Taiwan
have rulers with quite different governing philosophies.
In Taiwan, the KMT government deprived many
well-educated youths of opportunities to enter the
political circle. In Hong Kong, the central government
has not only embraced the principle of "Hong Kong people
ruling Hong Kong", but has also unveiled a package of
measures to pull the territory out of an economic
morass.
Clearly then, comparisons of Hong Kong
with KMT-ruled Taiwan of yesteryear can go only so far,
and to do so too strongly would be unfair to Beijing.
But learning from history is conducive to solving
problems. The central government can muffle Hong Kong's
democratic voices by labeling local democrats
"separatists" and suppressing them, but that would
inevitably set a negative example of "one country, two
systems" policy for Taiwan, an independence-seeker in
Beijing's eyes, and ultimately stultify Beijing's
unification effort.
In the final analysis, the
central government can choose to talk to Hong Kong
people. By increasing mutual understanding, both can
solve the problem gradually. But Beijing is in the
driver's seat.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times
Online, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
