Will there be another mass exodus?

Frank Ching (Commentator)

(Originally appeared in the April 14, 2004 issue of South China Morning Post in Hong Kong and is reproduced here with permission from the publisher)

Sunday's protest against Beijing's interpretation of the Basic Law's provisions marks the first large-scale demonstration against the central government since the handover almost seven years ago. It will not be the last. While the interpretation has successfully removed from Hong Kong people any right to move towards full democracy, it has also ensured a prolonged confrontation between the special administrative region and the central government.

This is something that most people in Hong Kong had wanted to avoid. Organisers of the massive demonstrations last July 1 and on New Year's Day had carefully avoided slogans that were critical of Beijing. Instead, they praised Beijing's wisdom and concentrated their fire on Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and his administration.

However, Beijing clearly was not interested in maintaining a facade of goodwill with the Hong Kong public. It moved decisively to strip the SAR of the guarantees in the Basic Law that provided for its right to initiate moves towards full democracy, including the direct election of the chief executive and the election of the entire legislature through universal suffrage.

The 10,000-strong demonstration on Easter Sunday shows that many in Hong Kong now believe that there is no alternative to confrontation. The larger protest planned for July 1 will not simply target the Tung administration, but will focus its anger on Beijing. That being the case, sooner or later, a crackdown can be expected.

Although China's then top official in charge of Hong Kong policy, Lu Ping, said in 1993 that the future development of democracy "is a matter entirely within Hong Kong's autonomy", officials now say that regardless of what anyone said, the interpretation is the law.

Foreign businesspeople have long said that the really hard negotiations begin only after a contract with China has been signed, meaning that China does not honour its commitments. Hong Kong has now learned that this is true not only of business contracts, but of their constitutional document as well. Beijing gives itself the right to change the constitution at any time, in any way that it wants.

Of course, the Basic Law was meant to implement the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed by China and Britain in 1984. The Basic Law itself was negotiated between the central government and segments of the Hong Kong public. Now, however, China tells Britain that it must not interfere, even though London, as a signatory of the Joint Declaration, is party to an international agreement that will not expire until 2047.

Furthermore, Beijing is telling the Hong Kong people that having accepted the Basic Law, they have to accept its right to interpret it. But if the mini-constitution means whatever Beijing says, then it means nothing. It was meant to reassure Hong Kong; now its provisions are much less reassuring than before.

Twenty years ago, almost 10 per cent of Hong Kong's population decided to emigrate rather than live under a communist government. Many eventually came back, armed with foreign passports.

Today, with strengthened international familial networks, many more people in Hong Kong can emigrate if they wish. If Beijing continues its heavy-handed ways, many will leave again. And those who leave will be the people who are most essential to Hong Kong; the best educated, the most highly skilled and those with tangible assets.

If Beijing wants to end the estrangement between itself and Hong Kong, now is the time to show its goodwill. If full democracy in 2007 and 2008 is out of the question, it should show what steps can be taken in those years and lay out a timetable to show people that they have a future worth waiting for. If not, Beijing should realise it may trigger another exodus. And the world will see how the Communist Party ruined a great metropolis in less than a decade, one that had thrived for a century and a half under British rule.