[The Standard/27.7.1989] Life after Tiananmen Square

Life after Tiananmen Square 

By JACKIE SAM, Features Editor, The Hongkong Standard on 27 July 1989

(Hong Kong Economic Journal)

THE ARTIST laid out four chamber pots in Victoria Park, Hongkong’s largest urban park, and invited Sunday strollers to defecate into them. As the large crowd laughed and giggled away, he dropped his pants and accepted his own invitation.

The chamber pots represented China’s four cardinal principles of socialism, Communist Party leadership, dictatorship of the proletariat and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thought.

The artist would have gone all the way had a policeman not ordered him to put his pants on. He was not arrested and will probably try some other stunt another weekend.

Hardly a week goes by without the lunatic fringe pulling off a political stunt. No day passes without someone publicly demanding “Democracy now!”

This is Hongkong politicking at a frantic pace – without any sense of direction and no vision of the future. Worse, there is no sensible leadership in sight. The problem is compounded by a rising political consciousness among the six million people.

Hardly a week goes by without the lunatic fringe pulling off a political stunt. No day passes without someone publicly demanding “Democracy now!”. This is Hongkong politicking at a frantic pace – without any sense of direction, and no vision of the future.

The rude awakening came just before the tanks clattered into Tiananmen Square in Beijing in the early hours of June 4.

But for over 150 years under benign colonial rule, local leadership was neither needed nor encouraged. Only compradores were co-opted, both to give legitimacy to the system and to advise British bureaucrats on the ways of the Chinese. At most, they represented local business, largely Shanghainese interests.

Senior Executive Councillor (Exco) Dame Lydia Dunn and Senior Legislative Councillor Allen Lee Peng-fei, who is also an Exco member, are the largest inductees into this colonial order. Both have extensive business interests and both have family roots in Shanghai.

Dame Lydia is too closely identified with British interests to be able to offer credible leadership to a population imbued with a new-found sense of Chineseness. In any case, she does not seem interested in any significant role beyond the early 1990s.

(Books4you, 52nd edition via krislcc.wordpress.com)

Mr Lee, still harbouring some post-1997 ambitions in spite of the Tiananmen massacre, is also identified with British interests. Once touted as “the Lee Kuan Yew of Hongkong”, he has not tried to distance himself from Whitehall’s interests, though more statesmanlike in Sino-Hongkong affairs.

As Hongkong moves inexorably into China’s fold, the Whitehall luggage will be a liability. But this late in the day, politics remains at the parish-pump level, horizons remain narrow and naivete prevails. So the so-called liberals or democrats and the lunatic fringe who make the most noise have a field day.

This feature of Hongkong’s political landscape dominates the media, is the most exciting for recent tertiary institution graduates and is both the hope and bane of the Westernised elite. It is dominated by two men, Queen’s Counsel Martin Lee Chu-ming and trade unionist-school principal Szeto Wah.

(Mad Dog Daily)

Martin Lee is a very successful barrister, an articulate member of the Legislative Council, staunchly anti-communist, and idealistic to the point of arrogance. Like Dame Lydia, hs is a darling of the Western media. But his definition of democracy has not gone beyond the immediate introduction of universal franchise, and his disdain for the rough and tumble of grassroots politics makes him a poor leader.

Szeto Wah was previously suspect in the eyes of the expatriate community and the local Westernised elite. A good organiser, politically more astute than Martin Lee but with a limited knowledge of English, he was regarded as part of China’s united front on the colony. Until the student demonstrations and the June 4 massacre, he was more accommodating towards China than Martin Lee was.

Both men have spent months trying, without success, to set up a political party embracing all liberal and vested interest group.

In the past two years, these “liberals’ or “democrats” have etched out certain characteristics which will be very hard for them to eradicate in the coming years. First, no one wants to follow; everyone claims to be leader or spokesman. The result is endless squabbling, both in private and in public. They are divided by personal traits, social standing, wealth or lack of it, attitudes towards China and Britain, and education.

Secondly, this part of the political landscape is littered with pressure groups representing minority interests and mostly started for apolitical reasons. Except for a handful, they ate single-issue groups concerned with problems such as pollution, recovery of payments from bankrupt travel agencies, leaky roofs in public housing of conservancy. Their umbrella organisation, the Joint Committee for the Promotion of Democratic Government (JCPDG), embraces 101 groups.

The great majority represent only a handful of non-paying members, usually a dozen people. Most groups want to retain their separate identities while demanding an equal voice in the bigger issues. Most have about 200 members on whom little or no discipline can be imposed.

As the demand for greater political participation grows, the weaknesses of these pressure groups become more evident. They are locked into a pressure group mentally, devoting all their energies to one issue and lapsing into total inactivity till the next issue crops up.

The umbrella organisation, JCPDG, and the newly-established Hongkong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement in China cannot focus on anything beyond two weeks. As one academic puts it: “Anything beyond a fortnight means trouble. They start to argue, split hairs and disintegrate. So they plan rallies, seminars, pop shows and get everyone to focus on the immediate task to create an illusion of unity.” But on the vital issue of creating a party, unity of purpose and resolve continues to elude them.

Just before the student demonstrations in China, these groups, including Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, were being dismissed as irrelevant to the whole political process.

When the protests broke out, Martin Lee and Szeto Wah seized the issue to revive their “democratic” movement.

For about a month, they wallowed in unrivalled poplarity [sic]. They got carries away. Szeto Wah and some of his close associates called for the overthrow of the Chinese leadership, publicly exulting in financial aid they had given to students in China and the “underground” groups set up to whisk to safety student leaders on China’s wanted list.

Worrying

Emotions over those demonstrations have died down and many people are now accusing these democrats, especially Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, of putting Hongkong in danger. More internal squabbling, more public rallies and provocative stunts must be expected.

All these activities are worrying to the local business community. That is why they have been quietly applauding a recent People’s Daily editorial denouncing Martin Lee and Szeto Wah as “counter-revolutionaries” and warning Hongkong people against meddling in China’s internal affairs if they want their “one country, two systems” after June 1997.

While emotions ran high in the aftermath of the Tiananmen massacre and Martin Lee and Szeto Wah hogged the limelight, conservative elements kept a low profile. They are beginning to speak out again. Some observers believe these conservatives were behind the People’s Daily editorial.

The conservatives are as divided as the democrats or liberals are. But at least they have a vision of the future and are less inclined to quarrel in public. What they seek is simply a stable Hongkong, a timid, obedient and hard-working population, and a free hand to make as much money as possible – with China as a full partner in a Hongkong Inc.

The Tiananmen massacre has given an impetus to faster political reforms before 1997. The democrats or liberals say that a quickened pace will lead to the setting up of a representative government before sovereignty returns to China. This, they insist, will stop Beijing from interfering in Hongkong’s affairs.

China’s united front network, built up over the past 50 years, is intact, though its propaganda arms, the Wen Wei Po and the Ta Kung Pao, faltered during the month-long demonstrations and immediately after the massacre. Both newspapers are now being brought back into line.

But the little publicised parts of this united front have always been more important and are now an integral part of Hongkong’s political landscape. The key player here is the New China News Agency (Xinhua), China’s unofficial representative office in Hongkong.

The agency operates on many fronts at all levels. It has been successful in winning over a few Legco members and a large section of the local business community with complete dominance of the local chamber of commerce. It also has a strong hold on the retail trade through the handful of agency houses for foodstuff and consumer goods from China. The influence exerted on a tradition-minded, Chinese-speaking community is immense.

Network

Apart from above-ground operations, there is the underground network of the Chinese Communist Party itself. Operatives have been sent into Hongkong since the 1930s. The Kuomintang claims there are between 60,000 and 80,000 underground agents. Government sources say there are 20,000 to 25,000. The media and academics accept the lower figure.

These agents live among the people, work as lowly-paid employees in the private sector or run retail businesses. According to one police source, many have moved into the lower echelons of the public service, especially the immigration service. Their role is widely believed to be to influence grassroots thinking and to keep Beijing informed of developments.

In the coming weeks, this network and the united front will be activated to give Hongkong a propaganda blitz it has never seen before. The aim is to assure the people of their future.

It will be a Herculean task. But Beijing is not overly worried if the effort fails. Since the 1970s, it has been grooming a corps of believers to run the territory. That is something that many Hongkong people fear as well.

The best hope for Hongkong as a financial and trading centre remains a combination of British-trained administrators and local business interests, with Beijing’s hand operating discreetly behind the scenes, supported by a hardworking, apolitical population.

But with the liberals and the lunatic fringe allow this? Would the newfound nationalism of Hongkong people who fear communism allow them to remain bystanders while a big chill sweeps across the mainland?

Whatever the answers, it promises to be very interesting into the year ahead.

Yu Jie: “One Country, Two Systems” Lover and “Father of Democracy” Reveal Oxymoron

“One Country, Two Systems” Lover and “Father of Democracy” Reveal Oxymoron

Translated by Karen L, written by Yu Jie 余杰
Original: https://hk.thenewslens.com/article/112981 

When Martin Lee, “father of democracy” in Hong Kong, was interviewed in Taiwan, he commented that CCP shall consider reverting to the original blueprint for “One Country, Two Systems” as its tightening control over Hong Kong is costing Hongkongers’ sense of belonging and has slowed down the advancement of the system in Taiwan.

For a veteran politician and barrister, Martin Lee’s behind-the-times remark was so embarrassing that it cannot even level with those pseudo-reformists in mainland China. Trapped in a Sinocentrism/democratic-reunification ideology, he has lost touch on the pulse of China, Taiwan and his home Hong Kong. His time must have been frozen either before 1997 or 1989 to have granted him untainted confidence to such lovely speech. His past contributions and achievements are respected, but his speeches and actions preventing the new generation to move forward have made him an unjustifiable “father of democracy”.

Asking a Tiger for Its Skin

It is in Marin Lee’s ideal that “Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong”, “a high degree of autonomy” and “maintaining Hong Kong’s way of life largely unaltered for 50 years” are duteously embodied in Deng Xiaoping’s “One Country, Two Systems”. He added that Hong Kong people is losing faith in today’s central government as it goes back on its words and changes everything in Hong Kong. Living under the “great purge” in Xi Jinping’s regime, many, Martin Lee included, shows the very picture of missing the good old days, seemingly undisturbed by Deng Xiaoping’s doing in the Tian'anmen Massacre 30 years ago.

The true nature of Deng Xiaoping is somehow embellished in Martin Lee’s thought. Xi Jinping’s leadership is despotism; so does Deng Xiaoping’s. Taking stock of the situation, the two paramount leaders have strategies employed differently from each other. In times of Deng Xiaoping, China was not yet one of the world’s most powerful countries, and it was still busying befriending everyone there was. He would be willing to sugarcoat the country’s ultimate goal just to wheedle Hongkongers into embracing the idea of Handover. Today, in the era of Xi Jinping, a would-be rise of power, the leader could not care less about throwing down the gauntlet to Hong Kong and the rest of the world. Xi Jinping was in fact going full steam ahead, not backward, to what Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping have planned for the future of China.

On 4 June 1989, it was by Deng Xiaoping’s direct order that the tanks and machine guns were brought in the Square to suppress the protests. He can be called a killer, murderer or butcher, causing the death of thousands of people on the spot without batting an eyelash. If he was to be trusted and given full recognition, holding the memorials year by year would be shooting the participants themselves in the foot.

Xi, Proud of Being a Dictator

“I believe Xi Jinping is wise enough to tell that violence is not the way out,” Martin Lee optimistically said as he appealed to the central government for implementing genuine democracy in Hong Kong. This could showcase, as Martin Lee suggested, Xi Jinping as an open-minded reformist leader. A fine line between being naïve/innocent and over-confident/narcissistic catches Martin Lee off guard, making him switch back and forth from a “patriotic remonstrator” to an “animal trainer”, and vice versa.

Similar examples are found throughout the history. There was Qu Yuan during the Warring States period of ancient China who felt extreme despair to the then political situation and took his own life as a form of expostulation. It was his point-blank refusal to admitting tyrant in authority that led to his “sacrifice”.

On an ancient Chinese text Han Feizi’s account, a man named Bian He found an invaluable piece of jade in Chu’s mountains, and made his offer to King Li of Chu. The King thought it was a mere stone, so he punished Bian He by having his left foot cut off. When Wu came to the throne, Bian He once again offered his jade to the King and ended up having his right foot cut off. Years later, Wu’s heir Wen was informed of Bian He’s grieving with tears for three days and three nights, and he sent his man to question Bien He. “I’m not grieving for my feet. I’m grieving for the wrongs that a precious jade is called a regular stone, as a loyal subject is called a liar,” Bian He replied. Possibly moved by his words, King Wen of Chu had his jeweler cut open the stone and surprisingly found a piece of pure jade inside. Upon seeing it, the King named the jade He Shi in honour of Bian He.

Yet from my years of study, the Xi Jinping Martin Lee has hoped for has come too far to being another King Wen of Chu. Gambling a pair of feet on such a leader does not have much chance to secure a promising future.

Hong Kong Independence Represents a Bright Time to Come

On the issue of Hong Kong independence, Martin Lee deviated from the spirit of rule of law to separate independence as a major part of democracy. The rise of such idea, in his understanding, can be explained by the lack of belief in “a handful of people” to strive for democracy in the democrats’ discipline. Without the central government’s approval and support, independence is “impossible to attain” and “not an option for Hong Kong”. All these get one to wonder what the “father of democracy” or his preferred “grandfather of democracy” is made of when he is convinced that the fruits of democracy can grow without the tree.

In Martin Lee’s theory, independence is like a pillow that disappointed Hongkongers fall on and shed tears on; if not under CCP’s oppression, there will be no need for the negativity-soaked pillow. More and more people beg to disagree as independence mirrors the entitled self-determination of any district plainly stated in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The awakening of the independence movement in Hong Kong shares the noble values with the rest of the world. It will be best for Hong Kong if and only if Hong Kong cuts ties with China.

Culturally and politically speaking, waves of hardships are to be encountered head-on and we shall stay strong. And there is still a long way to go before the campaign of Hong Kong independence surpasses theoretical grounds and propagation. Active exertions from our own kind are sufficient, while the realization of independence does not come easily unless big changes in the international environment (e.g. China’s disintegration) are involved.

If Martin Lee still feels that independence in Hong Kong stands without a chance, he might want to take a look at Edmund Burke’s speech on the Thirteen Colonies. When the Proclamation of Rebellion was issued to order officials “to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress the colonial revolt”, the then member of the British Parliament criticized, “What advances have we made towards our object, by the sending of a force, which, by land and sea, is no contemptible strength? Has the disorder abated? Nothing less.” Burke was aware that “the removal of the causes of this Spirit of American Liberty be, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable.” And he added, “I should hold myself obliged to conform to the temper I found universally prevalent in my own day, and to govern two million of men, impatient of Servitude, on the principles of Freedom.” These are what a “father of democracy” should have said to Xi Jinping.

Someday when most of Hong Kong is equipped with the “prevalent temper” that is “impatient of Servitude”, our home will make impressive strides in resisting China’s tyranny. By then, Hong Kong independence will be a feasible vision.

Lewis Loud: “HK's Father of Democracy” Not So Democratic After All

“HK's Father of Democracy” Not So Democratic After All

Translated by Karen L, written by Lewis Loud
Original: https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=57126&fbclid=IwAR3XxwdJyEAopOcVAJpkUF0NrKCo3vBGoyHrqnwQpoTlcyHPD5xhW6Bki-o 

[Summary, not full translation]

(Photo courtesy: Citizen News/Ho Kwan-kin)

The deep-seated scholar-official tradition sanctifying “impress the emperor for practising the scholar's ideals” (dejun xingdao) is in another dimension where the populace of a country is given trust to contribute oneself to examining the political reality. To this day, the pro-democracy camp is more of incompetent yet loyal courtiers in imperial China; they give advice but know their place enough not to get “over the line”. The “democracy” they have been pursuing is a bestowment from the holy CCP rather than a common effort people would assume. Denying self-determination and separation, they are insulting the spirit of democracy, making themselves peers to the Pro-Beijing camp.

Martin Lee Chu-ming, the “Father of Democracy”, too, expressed his presumption on many occasions that the Hong Kong Independence bandwagon would calm so long as Xi Jinping returned to Deng Xiaoping’s leadership style and restored the democracy under “One Country, Two Systems”, though it never seems to occur to Lee that CCP would be more welcomed to flash its winning card to Hong Kong people than handing over real power and acting as a titular head. Considering that missile tests were launched by CCP at the time when Taiwan had its first direct presidential election in the history, it goes without saying that they are aware that democracy in real terms IS independence. 

Imagining that there is a directly elected HKSAR government which is genuinely responsible to Hong Kong people, certain policies (e.g. dealing with the population overload) will be regulated so as to protect the benefits of the citizens. Fair decisions as such will compromise China’s interest for its part; granting Hong Kong democracy, therefore, remains to be a far-fetched hope.

It is the self-proclaimed democrats’ superficial knowledge over Chinese culture that leads them to believe Deng Xiaoping’s “relatively moderate” leadership is the way out. Not knowing that China’s political philosophy has long been an infinite loop—the means of winning is not necessarily about being just and honourable, but ironically enough, those are employed as counter-argument when one loses—democrats conveniently take the old practice of Deng Xiaoping for the solution. However undogmatic he might seem to be, Deng Xiaoping did what he had to sustain CCP’s power. The illusional freedom and open social environment that followed were by-products after all for he had decided to settle them by violence. Even though being high up in the rank, the leaders in China are merely pawns under the development of the country. Someone assertive has to follow up what Deng Xiaoping has left behind, and the person can be others if not Xi Jinping.

“One Country, Two Systems”, by the same token, does not exist to preserve Hong Kong’s special status, but as a buffer to gradual assimilation (Basic Law provides that the current system will remain unchanged for 50 years and the details stay ambiguous). The democrats could let out a spate of nonsense and mislead us the policy is entitled to autonomy, but it still does not change the fact that the failure of the policy in our eyes is what it is meant to be.

Embracing the unification of the country, these “democrats” centre on moral judgment, but no practical problems like resource allocation. Martin Lee is no difference, and he would advise Hong Kong people in earnest not to exclude people from mainland China in discussions. But then again, isn’t it the people from mainland China who are the ones occupying our limited living space? Really, do we ever have a say in this?

Even the “liberal” politicians would call for Deng Xiaoping’s leadership, from which you can tell what is referred to as “liberal” is not liberal, and what is called “democracy” is a fake one. Sinocentrism had prevailed during the development of ancient China, and now, modern China is going backward to hail despotism as the ultimate solution. Nothing changes.