16 years onward, 1 July is still a day of mixed feelings for a lot of Hongkongese. This year under the torrential rain brought by a potential typhoon attack, around a 100 thousand people took it to the streets to voice their discontent with the current political situation. This is the 10th year for the 1 July demonstration. I personally had not participated in anyone of them as I moved overseas not long shortly after the handover. I was in need for an identity I could identify myself with. However this does not mean I care less (or couldn’t care less) about Hong Kong. I still have family and friends there and I still make regular visit to this Pearl of the Orient.
A lot of people continued to ask me whether Hong Kong has changed since the handover. My usual reply is “how could there be no change?” Hong Kong was promised with 50 years of political stability and a status of autonomy through the establishment of the Special Administrative Region, and China seems to be keeping its promise. However, there were subtle things in the past 16 years that still triggered the nerves of the Hong Kong people. One of them was the progress for democratisation. The people of Hong Kong have been fighting for greater autonomy through a more progressive movement for democratisation, especially the ability to choose its own Chief Executive. However, the pace has been lacking and the discontent against this has grown with time. The fact is Hong Kong never had democracy and was doing very well, so why fighting for it now?
Personally, I think this reflects the continued distrust of the Hong Kong people with the Chinese government. The irony is that in my opinion the Chinese government has been extremely tolerant with what is happening in Hong Kong and in fact has been pouring resources into Hong Kong to keep this place vibrant. So what cause this distrust prevailing in Hong Kong? One of the reasons I could think of was that China has never recovered from the image it established during the “June 4 Incident” in 1989. Certainly, there were already a few generations of leaders since then, but from the Hong Kong people point of view (probably also some international politicians too), it was a public display that the Chinese authority could turn hostile at any time and the only way to secure a stable and free future is to have democracy in Hong Kong.
Another reason for this fight for democracy was the incompetence of the current Hong Kong Government to present itself as autonomy. There were three Chief Executives since the handover so far and none of them was able to make the Hong Kong people feel “secure”. The first Chief Executive Tung Chee-Hwa proved to be incapable of governing despite earning the good wills of the Chinese authorities initially. Donald Tsang, an ex-government official who succeeded him was initially seen as a “Hong Kong local”. However, his background as an ex-colonial official and his position of being torn between the pro-China and pro-Hong Kong sectors exhausted his ability to govern. Further the later scandals about potential corruption had further tarnished his reputation as the Chief Executive. The latest and current Chief Executive CY Leung has long been regarded as the brown nosing kid for China who couldn’t be trusted. Further his dirty tactics during the “election” against Henry Tang and his repeated lies about his wrong doings uncovered by the media had further eroded people’s respect for him across the territory. However, in my opinion, the major concern for the Hong Kong people was that they did not exactly see these Chief Executives as their representatives to the Chinese authority. This is because they were elected by a small circle up high and the Hong Kong people never had a chance to choose.
For me being able to choose the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is a comforting move that the Chinese authority failed to see. It is not just about democracy but about the feelings that the Hong Kong people have. Simply able to choose who represents could them could make them feel that at least they were being heard. However, from the Chinese authorities’ point of view, they do not want to see anyone from the democratic camp to win the general election and become a sore in the eye for them. But what the Chinese authority failed to see is the great pacifying effect that a general election could bring to Hong Kong. The fact is once this aspect is being satisfied, Hong Kong would be a lot more stable and this could only work to the advantage of the Chinese government both economically and politically. This is not about ideology but practicality. At the end of the day, quality golden eggs could only be laid by a goose that is happily satisfied with life.
