[page 26]
Tory 'democracy'
in Hong Kong
in dispute over Hong Kong
Why are Britain and Chris Patten's 'democracy package'? Mike Waddington
China in dispute over Hong Kong Governor "acy package'? Mike Waddington explains.
ONG KONG MEANS fragrant harbour. A
fragrant exit is what Chris Pattern, the
twenty-eighth unelected Governor, wants to achieve when Hong Kong is handed over to China in June 1997. The handover takes place under a deal cynically struck between Thatcher and Deng Xiaping in December 1984. Under the Sino- British Joint Declaration the two powers decided the future of Hong Kong without reference to its people.
Ten years on, and the handover date bearing down fast, Patten has announced some very limited 'democratic reforms' to the way the colony's parliament, the Legislative Council (LegCo) is constituted. Suddenly, after 150 years of absolute rule as a colonial outpost, the ruling class have become 'democrats'! But Patten's proposals are not democratic. Real democracy is when the people of Hong Kong themselves decide.
Presently the LegCo is made up of 60 seats. Until 1985 these were appointed by the Governor, himself appointed by London. Then 12 seats were elected by an electoral college of appointed local councillors and 12 by functional constituencies' through associations like the Chamber of Commerce. The total electorate was 110,000. In 1991 Britain and China agreed that 18 of the 60 seats were to be directly elected.
Then in October 1992 Patten proposed his 'democracy package' whereby 20 seats would be directly elected by all 2.7 million voters and 21 by the old 'functional constituencies'. Nine new functional constituency seats would be elected by all people at work and ten seats by local councillors, who would themselves be elected directly for the first time. But this would not be majority rule. In total the parliament would have less than half its members elected by the mass of people, with
One million protest at the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Hong Kong • 25
[page 27]
Hong Kong Governor, Chris Patten.
a built-in bias towards the representation of big business.
Nonetheless, Beijing reacted furiously and has gathered support from the biggest of big business in Hong Kong, known as the Hongs', who do not want anything to complicate their profits from China. In recent elections to the Chamber of Commerce, five of the six seats were won by pro-Beijing business people.
been set up by China A parallel body has comprising the foreign minister, 27 Chinese officials and 30 Hong Kong business people. The chief executive of one bank was moved to say, it is ironic to see the millionaire politicians, high priests of capitalism, bowing before the altar of communism'. Of course, the Hongs have a lot in common with the upper layers of the Chinese bureaucracy, in lifestyle, standard of living and aspiration. They also share a great desire not to change anything in Hong Kong. But the banker overstates his case; there is a lot of bowing taking place but the altar is a capitalist one. Hong Kong and the "special economic zone, the Pearl River Delta area of south China, grew by 26.7% last year, the fastest on the planet. Neither China nor the Hongs want to disrupt the unrestricted operation of capitalist economic relations in this area including Hong Kong.
RITAIN FIRST COLONISED Hong Kong in Beat Opiar was grow into China. When 'traded', that is smuggled, into China. When the Chinese government took action against the traders and burnt the opium, British imperialism seized Hong Kong as a base for future policing operations. Kowloon was seized in 1862 and the Chinese were compelled to 'grant' a lease on the New Territories in 1898. It is this lease that expires in 1997. At no stage have the people of Hong Kong been given the opportunity to voice their own views in genuine democratic elections. 26 • Hong Kong After the storm of protest from the privileged on both sides of the Hong Kong border, Chris Patten came to London in April this year to 'seek advice'. Although portraying himself as 'the Dennis Skinner of the Orient, Patten's objectives remain the same as when he was Tory party chairman: to advance the interests of British capitalism. This did not stop Jeremy Bray, Labour MP and spokesperson on Hong Kong, leading the all-party cheerleading for Patten: "Somebody like him should have been appointed ten ten years ago, years ago". In fact, when it came to the ratification of Thatcher's 1984 deal, as Denis Healey, spokesman, adforeign affairs then mitted in his autobiography, "I did my best to help the government, since it was doing what Labour would have done".
The 1984 Declaration was hailed as a great diplomatic achievement. It was agreed that Hong Kong would be re-incorporated back into China but as a 'special autonomous region', under the formula 'one country, two systems', spelt out in a special annex to the Declaration from the Chinese government: "Hong Kong shall maintain the capitalist economic and trade systems previously practised... (It) shall decide its economic and trade policies on its own". The Hong Kong LegCo would be able to run the territory in all but foreign policy. In the immediate aftermath of the deal Hong Kong stock market reached a record the high.
Patten's objectives remain the same as when he was Tory party chairman.
There was every reason to believe that China would uphold its end of the bargain as China •as a useful had always tolerated Hong Kong • to the capitalist world. The rise of connection Deng Xiaping and his grouping to become the dominant layer of the bureaucracy in 1977 brought with it the promotion of capitalist economic methods, paradoxically called 'socialism with Chinese characteristics'. Taiwan and Hong Kong were viewed by China as routes to the supply of capital, 'expertise' and a trading and financial infrastructure. The Tories were delighted that capitalism was to be preserved in Hong Kong. Democracy' was just part of the small talk. In 1983, for example, Thatcher, during a particularly trying time in the negotiations, actually suggested that a referendum be held in Hong Kong. But this was only another bargaining ploy which was hastily withdrawn. It
[page 28]
has been the only mention of a referendum.
A recent book by Robert Cottrell, The End of Hong Kong: the secret diplomacy of imperial retreat,* goes into great detail about the negotiations. He deals particularly well with the diplomatic camoflauge. Thus paragraph 3 (4) of the Declaration says that there will be "elections or consultations to be held locally". Cottrell comments that, "it was understood by the British negotiators and by their Chinese counterparts, that it need not mean a legislature elected in its entirety by universal suffrage. The British acoepted that 'elections' might include indirect elections and elections through a restricted franchise".
why
Patten rocking
the boat!
There had in fact been an informal deal between China and Britain in 1955 that democracy would not be introduced into Hong Kong. One official from the Hong Kong government said, "Throughout the 30 years that I was an official myself, from 1951 to 1981, 'democracy was a dirty word. Officials were convinced that the introduction of democratic politics into Hong Kong would be the quickest and surest way to ruin Hong Kong's economy and create social and political instability... Pressure groups advocating political reform... were carefully monitored by the government and the Special Branch of the Hong Kong police, and where possible their activities were discreetly obstructed or frustrated, sometimes by the use of highly questionable tactics". (The End of Hong Kong, pp178-179).
A 1987 government green paper on democracy was issued and invited 'responses from Hong Kong. One proposal hidden within the fourth _Landau enllad fan dinnot alantinna
chapter called for direct elections. The written responses were 265,078 to 94,565 in favour. However, as some of these were petitions, and therefore discounted, the government brazenly announced, "among submissions to the survey office from individuals, groups and associations,
more were against than in favour of the introduction of direct elections"! The Joint Declaration itself was eventually submitted for the 'comments' of the people of Hong Kong, producing an 84% majority in support... from 2,494 submissions, 679 of them from organisations!
LEARLY BRITISH CAPITAL
c ISM wants to be able to operate
on a privileged basis in the boom taking place within China. Trade between Britain and China is worth
around £1.4bn, but around £1bn is exports from China to Britain. Although many companies like ICI, BTR, GEC, Glaxo, Pilkingtons and Slumberland, have opened operations in China, Britain is a long way behind. Of the 72,000 joint ventures agreed last year, only 36 were from Britain.
Hong Kong, however, has contributed massively to the economic growth within China. Sixty per cent of all trade with China passes through Hong Kong; some 18,000 trucks a day cross the border, carrying 8m containers a year. A new development will expand this capacity by nearly 2m. This makes this border area the tenth largest trading entity in the world.
Twenty-five thousand Hong Kong factories have been set up in the special economic zone, employing three million workers. Wages are only one-sixth of wages in Hong Kong and much Hong Kong industry has been transferred to China. Hong Kong's role as a financial centre is also key: 70% of all investment in China goes through Hong Kong and half of China's foreign exchange reserves - some US$20bn - are held in fong Kong. Hong Kong's stock market turns over HK$2.8bn a day. The Joint Declaration specifically preserves these features.
Clearly, Thatcher, Deng and the Hongs' want to maintain all this. Lord Rees-Mogg says that "Hong Kong is the last and in some ways the greatest single achievement of the British Empire*. So why is Patten rocking the boat? Some Tories, like Ted Heath, worry that Patten is unnecessarily irritating China.
China, influenced by events in the former USSR and Eastern Europe, fears 'chaos'; while economically liberalising it is determined to maintain a harsh political regime. Clearly they are concerned that any 'democracy in Hong Kong could raise political expectations elsewhere, causing turbulence and unrest.
China is a developing super-power. It combines
Hong Kong • 27
[page 29]
| diplomacy with military muscle, with an army of more than three milion. There have already been clashes with its traditional adversary, Vietnam, over islands in the China sea. North Korea's recent repudiation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty with the threat to develop nuclear weapons is as much aimed at China as it is against South Korea and the US.
Patten's behaviour could therefore be seen as an attempt to bolster Britain's prestige, to win 'respect' from China for British capitalism's interests in the region. Moreover the British ruling class also has to consider the future for Hong Kong from the point of view of what may develop within the territory itself.
The British government are afraid of the prospect of mass immigration from Hong Kong as the handover date nears. Although the law has been changed many times from 1962 onwards to deprive Hong Kong citizens of the right to enter Britain, the Tories had to agree to let 50,000 Hong Kong heads of families have the right of entry, with places to be allocated on a points system which favours civil servants and 'entrepreneurs'. In total this would amount to 200,000 people. By portraying itself as a 'champion' of Hong Kong stand-up to China, Britain hopes to allay the fears of this business and professional elite. Patten's behaviour could be seen as an attempt to bolster Britain's prestige.
Another consideration is the need to widen the social base of a future Hong Kong government. If Hong Kong is to govern itself, the government needs some kind of authority • to do so. The current oligarchy, the Hongs, lack a real base amongst broad layers of the population. There are also up and coming members of the ruling class who want a seat at the table, such as Martin Lee, leader of the pro-capitalist United Democrats, which won 16 of the 18 directly elected LegCo seats.
Yet, by raising the slogan of democracy and then not delivering, Patten is playing a dangerous game from the point of view of British imperialism. are tom the so he da often explosive outbursts from the working class. In 1966-67, for example, there were riots and uprisings which resulted in 51 people killed and over 800 injured.
In January 1984 taxi drivers went on strike when fees they had to pay to the government went up. In Mongkok in Kowloon, a taxi blockade resulted in a riot involving at least 10,000 people 28 • Hong Kong and 172 arrests. During the events in Tiananmen Square in 1989 one million people took part in each of the three demonstrations called in support of the democracy movement. Up to 250,000 demonstrated on the anniversary in 1990. Currently, unemployment is around 1.8% because of the boom inside Hong Kong. Cheaper labour is actually being imported into Hong Kong from China. But this situation of tight labour markets' strengthens the working class, giving more confidence to the workers. Wages are generally rising but in the last ten years, whereas output has risen by 150%, wages have increased only by 16%. A movement of the working class similar to that taking place in South Korea, Hong Kong's fellow tiger' economy, could develop. This will bring into question what the Financial Times described as "labour laws... very much out of the 19th century". Censorship of books and newspapers and other repressive laws also exist: for example, six people were charged in 1990 with the illegal use of a megaphone on a demonstration! Real democracy in Hong Kong would include the right to vote and representation but would also establish other rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to join unions and organise strikes.
In January of this year the Flight Attendants Union at Cathay Pacific organised a 17-day strike. The strikers picketted Patten expecting support from the 'democratic Governor. This was not forthcoming. From such experiences the lesson will be drawn that the working class have their own class interests, separate from the interests of the capitalists of all hues, in fighting to advance democracy. Real democracy in Hong Kong would mean a constituent assembly elected by all the people to prepare a constitution, including the question of links with the Chinese mainland, with all proposals to be approved in a referendum. No doubt there are many workers within China and Hong Kong who look forward to the re-uniting of Hong Kong and China, to remove the manifestation of the wounds inflicted by nineteenth century imperialism. Some believe this will lead to an improvement in their lives. However, this does not over-ride the democratic right to selfdetermination - literally the right for the people of Hong Kong to determine for themselves their own future. The working class of Hong Kong especially, must reach out to the three million workers within China who are employed by the very same bosses who employ and exploit them too. A unity of struggle in united workers organisations, for the improvement of the livelihoods of all, can be achieved.
The working class has yet to raise its voice but conditions are being prepared for it be heard loud and clear.
*The End Of Hong Kong: the Secret Diplomacy of Imperial Retreat, by Robert Cottrell. Published by John Murray, 1993, £19-99.
[page 30]