MCLC: Emily Lau on HK's summer of discontent

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: Kevin Carrico <kjc83 at cornell.edu>
Subject: Emily Lau on HK's summer of discontent
***********************************************************

Source: NYT/IHT (6/30/13):
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/opinion/01iht-edlau01.html

Hong Kong's Summer of Discontent
By EMILY LAU

HONG KONG — Hong Kong, so often trapped under the shadow of a rising
China, was suddenly thrown into the spotlight when Edward J. Snowden
sought refuge from the U.S. government in our city. The speculation
over the 30-year-old whistleblower’s fate, and Beijing’s role in the
matter, stirred curiosity over how this territory of seven million has
fared in the 16 years since it was returned to China by Britain.

Curious outsiders will have their answer on Monday. While the city’s
pro-Beijing elite are celebrating the anniversary of the handover,
thousands of people will take to the streets to protest their
frustrations with the government, and its eroding autonomy from the
mainland.

While many Hong Kongers have some degree of pride in being part of the
China success story, the territory’s relationship with the mainland
has become more strained in recent years. More than ever, Hong Kongers
fear that their personal freedoms and the rule of law are in a
precarious state, as a more confident and assertive Beijing hesitates
less in interfering with the development of Hong Kong’s democracy.

Tensions between local people and the hordes of mainland visitors
flaunting their newfound wealth only add to the increasing sense of
disillusionment. Lots of Hong Kong people, particularly the younger
generation, blame mainlanders for taking lucrative jobs in the
financial sector and for inflating the local property market through
their purchases of second and third homes here.

Many Hong Kongers themselves fled from the mainland when the Chinese
Communist Party took power in 1949. Much later, in 1989, Hong Kong
watched in horror as Beijing cracked down on protesters in Tiananmen
Square. Given this history, its not hard to understand why people were
nervous in the run-up to the handover in 1997.

Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese leader at the time, eager to preserve Hong
Kong as a stable, prosperous and vibrant city, offered a solution for
governing the territory, summed up with the catchphrase “one country,
two systems.”

This vague idea implied that the mainland would not interfere in local
affairs, a concept that was enshrined in the Hong Kong
miniconstitution, known as the Basic Law. Apart from defense and
foreign affairs, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, as it
became known, would enjoy “a high degree of autonomy.” Beijing would
not send Communist cadres to run the city. Hong Kong’s capitalist and
free lifestyle would continue unabated, and most important, the people
were promised that the political system would evolve to a
democratically elected government.

That process of democratic development is now imperiled. The sticking
point is universal suffrage, or, one-person, one-vote.

In the current system, a holdover from colonial times when the British
wanted to limit input from the local population, Hong Kong’s political
leader, known as the chief executive, is selected by a 1,200-member
committee of the business and political elite that is rigged to favor
of pro-Beijing candidates. Only 40 of the 70 members of the
legislative council are elected by one-person, one-vote, the rest are
selected by so-called functional constituencies, professional groups
that represent industries like banking, law and teaching.

Mainland leaders have said they would allow a system of universal
suffrage for the 2017 chief executive election and the 2020
legislative council vote, giving hope that this otherwise modern city
would finally catch up with the democratic world.

But since the pro-Beijing Leung Chun-ying became chief executive a
year ago, the pro-democracy camp has had one setback after another.

A system of universal suffrage doesn’t appear overnight. The
pro-democracy camp has urged Leung to begin a public consultation
process on how to carry out the direct election of the chief executive
in 2017. But he has refused to do that or much of anything.

Meanwhile, people from the pro-Beijing camp have been dropping hints
that the government should ban certain people from the pro-democracy
camp from running for chief executive.

In mid-March, the chairman of the law committee of the National
People’s Congress, Qiao Xiaoyang, summoned pro-Beijing legislative
council members to Shenzhen and told them that direct election of the
chief executive would be held in 2017, but the person must “love the
country, love Hong Kong” and cannot “confront” Beijing,” according to
widely circulated media reports.

Qiao’s remarks were a clear signal that the election Beijing has in
mind would be neither free nor fair.

Some pro-Beijing politicians have proposed measures to control the
nomination process for chief executive candidates, which would make
our system about as free as Iran’s “democracy.” And pro-Beijing
politicians have also repeatedly stressed that the so-called
functional constituencies are important to Hong Kong’s economic
development and should kept in place. This lessens the chance that all
legislative council members will be elected by universal suffrage in
2020. The result of this tinkering only further divides Hong Kong from
the mainland.

Many Hong Kong people have waited for democracy for a generation — and
we’re running out of patience. Unfortunately, in an underdeveloped
democracy, taking to the streets is one of the few ways that the
people can be heard.

Emily Lau is a member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and chair
of the Democratic Party.