30 June 1997
Handing back Hong Kong
As Prince Charles' speech signalled the end of another era in Britain's
colonial past, he issued a stern reminder to the Chinese authorities about
their commitments to Hong Kong. However, as Sheila Parker outlines, the
people of Hong Kong are greeting the arrival of their new masters with
either indifference and optimism - and not the fear represented in the
British media
The final days of British rule over Hong Kong were filled with wrangles
about the timing of troop movements, attendance (or otherwise) at official
engagements and the alleged threats to freedom of speech and assembly. What
we were actually witnessing was a game of cat and mouse. As the British
flag was replaced by the Chinese one and the old Hong Kong flag by the new
one, it became obvious that all the pomp and ceremony disguised an attitude
of business as usual. The 4,000 troops the Chinese moved in represented
less than half the original British garrison that was withdrawn. And the
timid bleatings that made up the opposition by Robin Cook, Labour's Foreign
Secretary, reveal how much the balance of forces have swung from the old
imperial order to the new power.
Hong Kong is in fact gripped by a carnival mood and a recent survey in the
Far Eastern Economic Review revealed that 62 per cent of Hong Kong people
would vote for China if given a choice about the future - which the British
denied them. The British media has been full of stories that Hong Kong will
be turned into a police state under Beijing rule - something few, apart
from Hong Kong's dissidents - appear to be worried about.
Hong Kong serves as an embarrassing reminder of Britain's colonial record,
and its racial degradation of the Chinese in the last century. Many within
the British establishment will be grateful that they can now absolve
themselves of past sins. At the same time, there is a sense of loss and
nostalgia about Britain's imperial past. We have witnessed a stark reminder
that Britain is not what it used to be and never will be again. In fact, a
Foreign Office official working in the British administration in Hong Kong
had to admit to me that they could do nothing should China choose not to
honour the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984. Britain has lost
its grip, and is having a hard time coming to terms with it - made harder
still by the obvious relish with which the Chinese regime has humbled its
old masters at every turn.
Having lost their political power in Asia, the British authorities are
attempting to reassert their moral authority over the East. The message is
that we are still one of the few civilised and democratic nations on Earth,
while the Chinese barbarians remain a 'yellow peril' that will destroy
liberty and freedom in Hong Kong. Whatever happens in the future, 'It
wasn't our fault' will be the cry from Whitehall, where the different
factions are already trying to pin the blame on somebody else and wash
their hands of responsibility for anything.
To listen to some of them talk, you would think that Britain had run Hong
Kong as a model citizens' republic. In fact Hong Kong has been run under
direct British rule as a Crown colony-and often run with a rod of iron. It
was the place where the British authorities first introduced baton rounds
to control public protests, and where thousands of Vietnamese boat people
who fled to Hong Kong in search of Western-style freedom have spent years
under armed guard, caged in camps, awaiting deportation.
Britain only began liberalising its regime in Hong Kong in the run-up to
the handover, as a cynical exercise in displaying the superiority of the
British system. Governor Patten's reforms introduced the first direct
elections to a Legislative Council (Legco) in September 1995. Although this
has been heralded as democratic reform, the Legco is not the ruling body.
Hong Kong has been run by the Executive Council (Exco) headed by the
Governor. All members of the Exco are appointed, not elected. Any future
problems due to the lack of democracy, which will undoubtedly be blamed on
the Chinese, will in fact be the legacy of British rule.
Hong Kong has in practice been part of China for years. Hong Kong's
population is 98 per cent Chinese. Business links are also well
established; Hong Kong capitalists did much to create the conditions in
which a market economy could mushroom in the neighbouring Chinese province
of Guangdong. As early as 1993, 80 per cent of local manufacturing firms in
Hong Kong had transferred some or all of their production to mainland
China; about 60 000 Hong Kong people were managing factories or other
investments in China, while as many as four million workers in southern
China were directly or indirectly employed by Hong Kong firms. In the other
direction, China has been a net lender to Hong Kong since 1982. Hong Kong
and China are already joined at the hip.
The view from Hong Kong itself of the handback has largely been squeezed
out of the public debate in Britain. The only opinions heard from Hong Kong
are those of dissidents who have every reason to fear Chinese rule, or the
minority of stateless individuals who by now should have been issued with
British passports. The voices of the majority of ordinary Hong Kong working
people have not been reported. Among them there is a widespread mood of
indifference-'A new government? So what? Life is hard and will carry on
being hard'. But at the same time there is an air of optimism about the
return to their increasingly powerful Chinese homeland. The British press
may not like to report it, but the fact is that the majority of Hong Kong
people do not like the British. They see them as arrogant, elitist
foreigners. They may not be warmly embracing the Beijing bureaucracy, but
they certainly will not shed a tear when the British finally leave.
The newly emerging elites in the East are every bit as authoritarian minded
as their Western predecessors. They might not use the same racially-loaded
language when they talk about the Chinese masses, but their message is
similar. Providing for the natives, rather than giving them any say in
running their own affairs, is an approach which unites Western governments
and corporations with Hong Kong officials and every ruling bureaucrat in
China. All the panics about the unfree future of Hong Kong are no more than
British bombast, empty attempts to cover up the fact that Britain's
anti-democratic record in Hong Kong, is, if anything, something the Chinese
government would love to emulate. Hong Kong is probably the best example of
how the market has thrived in the East, not in spite of, but because of the
absence of liberal democracy.
Join a discussion on this commentary