MCLC: interview with Anson Chan

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: kirk (denton.2 at osu.edu)
Subject: interview with Anson Chan
***********************************************************

Source: Sinosphere blog, NYT (6/12/14):
http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/is-now-the-time-for-hong-kon
g-to-stand-up-to-beijing/

Q. and A.: Anson Chan on Beijing’s Pressure Tactics in Hong Kong
By MICHAEL FORSYTHE

Anson Chan served as the No. 2 official in Hong Kong in the last years of
the British colonial administration as well as in the first four years of
the government following the territory’s return to China in 1997. During
her time in office she was often referred to as Hong Kong’s “Iron Lady”
and regarded as one of Asia’s most powerful women.

Now her focus is on ensuring that the terms of Hong Kong’s return to
Chinese rule are honored, and that the people of Hong Kong will be able to
freely choose the region’s chief executive by 2017 under the terms of the
governing “Basic Law.”

Ms. Chan, 74, has been increasingly critical of the current Hong Kong
leaders and what she sees as growing interference from Beijing. Several
months ago, she heard that the British banks HSBC and Standard Chartered
had pulled advertisements from one of Hong Kong’s most popular newspapers,
Apple Daily. The paper alleged that the decision was a result of pressure
from Beijing, which was angry at the newspaper’s critical coverage.

In an interview, Ms. Chan talked about letters she exchanged with top
executives of the banks, and what she sees as increasing control from
Beijing, which had guaranteed Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy until
2047 under the “One Country, Two Systems” formula. Edited excerpts follow:

Q. On the pulling of advertisements, hasn’t this been going on before with
Chinese state-owned enterprises and local companies that do business with
China?

A. In a way I don’t condone it, but I understand that local Chinese
enterprises, particularly those that want to do business in China, feel
they have to acquiesce. But an international bank like HSBC and Standard
Chartered, if you act this way, it is the first step down a very slippery
slope. What happens the next time they call up and say we don’t like you
doing business with certain clients? Are you also going to cave in?

If an international bank with a huge presence in most parts of the world
behaves like this, what sort of message are you giving to people in Hong
Kong, who are desperately fighting for faithful implementation of “One
Country, Two Systems” protection of our core values, maintenance of the
rule of law and all the rights and freedoms that we currently enjoy? What
chance is there for the average man on the street in Hong Kong? And what
sort of message are you sending to other countries where you operate?

Q. The banks are saying that these are based on commercial considerations,
are you satisfied with their answers to your letter?

A. They did not deny that they had withdrawn advertisements from Apple
Daily, did they? And they certainly did not provide the assurances that I
was seeking.

You have to ask a bank like HSBC, ‘Why do you withdraw advertisements from
one of the most popular newspapers in town? What would prompt you to do
that?’

I think it’s very telling. You have not, first of all, denied that this
has happened. I asked you to provide an absolute assurance. You did not.
What conclusion am I to draw from this?

Q. Why is the Chinese government focusing on Apple Daily?

A. Apple Daily is about the only still fairly independent newspaper that
dares to speak its mind in criticizing Beijing, in criticizing the S.A.R.
government. There are not all that many newspapers now that dare to do
this. You see increasing self-censorship on the part of the printed media,
even television.

In the past at least they did it behind the scene and very quietly. Now,
one of the things that worries us is that they so blatantly interfere and
they don’t even bother to disguise the fact that they are interfering.

Q. Why is this?

A. That is because they are intent on showing who is the master. And they
don’t think that there is very much we can do about it because you can see
this not only in the way they deal with Hong Kong, but in the way that
they deal with a lot of other issues. They are becoming more and more
assertive because everybody gives them the impression we badly want to
trade with you and have investments with you. Unfortunately, money talks.

If you roll over and you pull your punches, you’re just going to encourage
them to demand more the next time around. At what point are you going to
say, enough and enough?

If the bank really thought this through, surely from the bank’s point of
view, you need an unfettered press. You need up-to-the-minute accurate
information to make informed business decisions. But if you have a press
that can be easily gagged, it doesn’t serve HSBC’s interest, and it
certainly doesn’t serve shareholders’ interests.
As China grows economically stronger and it feels increasing economic
muscle, and they think they can get away with flexing this economic
muscle, then that is what they will do.

Q. Where does this go, does it have something to do with the Occupy
Central movement, which has threatened a sit-in protest in Hong Kong’s
central business district should new rules for the election of the next
chief executive fail to meet international standards?

A. No, it has been going on for a while, and Occupy Central is just the
latest thorn in their side. [The White Paper issued by Beijing
<http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/beijings-white-paper-sets-o
ff-a-firestorm-in-hong-kong/> this week] is the clearest sign yet that
they intend to tighten their grip over Hong Kong, that they are redefining
what is meant by a high degree of autonomy and Hong Kong people ruling
Hong Kong. If they can, they will rewrite the Basic Law.

Q. But polls show the Beijing government is losing support of the populace
in Hong Kong, especially among young people. Aren’t they concerned?

A. They don’t seem particularly concerned as yet. They think that, in the
end, because we look to them for economic largesse and whatnot, that we
will just as usual say, ‘Well, what can we do, we’ll just have to accept
it.’ But if they do this, they have badly miscalculated, because, as you
say, the younger generation are not nearly so tolerant. They are very
worried about what they see going on now, this chipping away at Two
Systems, eroding our core values. Because if this continues, even the rule
of law and the independence of the judiciary will be compromised and, when
that goes, what else remains for Hong Kong? How can we continue to play a
role in sustainable economic growth in mainland China and in helping our
country modernize? We’re only able to perform this role because there is
this concept of One Country, Two Systems.

Q. Do you think Occupy Central movement is exacerbating the tensions?

A. Occupy Central undoubtedly has touched a raw nerve. Some in Beijing,
egged on by people here, see that as a direct challenge to their absolute
authority over Hong Kong. Ever since the Occupy Central idea was mooted,
they have done everything they possibly can to demonize Occupy Central, to
roll out opposing forces, to exaggerate the so-called economic
consequences.

Q. Are you going to be out there supporting Occupy Central?

A. The architects of Occupy Central have made it quite clear. It is a last
resort, only to be invoked if the government forces us to accept a set of
proposals that are clearly not genuine universal suffrage — in other
words, the outcome is preordained. Only and only if that happens, will
there be Occupy Central.

If the government says they are so concerned about Occupy Central, it is
very easy to avoid it. You just do what you are supposed to be doing,
which is deliver genuine universal suffrage, which is a solemn promise
that Beijing has made to the people of Hong Kong and which is in our Basic
Law. No more, no less.

I am personally extremely disappointed and in many ways very pained to see
what is happening to Hong Kong barely 17 years after the handover. There
are still 30-odd years to go before the 50 years is up. But if we continue
down this road, then I don’t think you have to wait until 2047, because
One Country, Two Systems will be long gone before 2047.

We have to think about people here who have no alternatives. They are not
rich like some people in Hong Kong who, if things go wrong, can just up
and go elsewhere. For many people they don’t have this choice. I think it
is incumbent upon every one of us who can do something to at least arrest
the rate of deterioration, to continue to do our best.

Q. Will you participate in Occupy Central?

A. My sincere hope is that there will be no need for Occupy Central. I
will say this: If, at the end of the day, the S.A.R. government and
Beijing force the people of Hong Kong to accept a set of universal
suffrage proposals that are patently false, where there is 100 percent
certainty for mainland China as to who is going to be elected, then
Beijing cannot blame the Hong Kong people if there is mass mobilization.