by Sr Betty Ann Maheu, China Bridge

Hong Kong (AsiaNews) – On July 1 the people of Hong Kong will demonstrate once more their commitment to democracy. The occasion will mark the seventh anniversary of the momentous night of June 30 1997 when the Union Jack, which had flown over the Hong Kong colony since 1841, came down and China's Five-Star Red Flag was hoisted and began fluttering in the wind, a wind that promised great changes to the thriving city. On that night, President Jiang Zemin solemnly shook hands with Prince Charles and then tried to dispel any fear people might have about what he called "Hong Kong's brighter future", based on the commitment to "one country, two systems." To better understand the changes in the country, Sister Betty Ann Maheu spoke with Father Gianni Criveller, researcher at the Holy Spirit Study Centre and, for the last few years, a keen observer of events in Hong Kong. Here is the interview for AsiaNews.

 

Father Gianni, in your opinion what was the most important thing on the night of July 1 1997?

I think it was the solemnity of the occasion. The peaceful return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty is certainly unique in the history of colonialism.

 

What do you remember of the key figures present at the ceremony?

I think that of all the players the most difficult role fell to Anson Chan, the colony's Chief Secretary. She was principal advisor to the last British governor, Chris Patten, and was expected to carry on in the same function under Tung Chee-hwa's new administration. To me, she and Martin Lee Chu-ming (president of the Democratic Party, a pro-Democracy party) were the guarantors of Hong Kong's civil liberties and represented the best hope for the development of democracy.

 

Where was Martin Lee that night?

Mr Lee was not invited to the official ceremony. But at midnight he spoke to a crowd from the balcony of the Legislative Council Building and made a strong appeal: "The greatest danger," he said, "would come from Hong Kong people's own self-censorship and from confusing patriotism with support for the Communist regime."

 

How would you describe the situation in Hong Kong today, seven years later?

On the one hand, there is the pro-China faction. It includes the pro-government parties, various political and financial lobbies (to which Tung belongs), the powerful representatives of the People's Republic in Hong Kong, officials of Buddhist and Taoist organisations, groups organised in Beijing, pro-China trade unions, sectors of the press and the entertainment world. All these groups support the government and always have the last word in every political decision. They favour closer ties between the former colony and China stressing the first part of the formula "One country, two systems." To this end, they play the patriotic card, sometimes with great success as in the case of the triumphant visit of Yang Liwei, the first Chinese astronaut in November 2003. On the other hand, there is the pro-democracy camp made up of the democratic parties, the liberal trade unions, non-governmental organisations, judges, lawyers, some sectors of the press, the Catholic Church and many Protestants. These groups emphasise both Hong Kong's diversity and the "two systems" part of the formula. They seek political reform hoping not only that it will help the development of democracy in Hong Kong but on Mainland China as well.

 

In your opinion, what have been the most significant changes in Hong Kong in the past seven years?

The situation in Hong Kong is so complex that even those who know the place well are sometimes taken aback by some unexpected event. For this reason, 2003 and 2004 were traumatic. Between 1997 and 2003 things remained relatively calm. The city seemed to be going through a slow but inexorable decline. Then the unexpected happened on July 1, 2003.

 

You are referring to the protest that brought more than half a million people into the streets?

Yes! The government and the pro-China groups did not anticipate any problems associated with the protest. They assumed that no more than 50,000 people would take to the streets. Of course, we now know that on that day more than ten times that number marched. What followed was a political earthquake without precedent in Hong Kong history. More demonstrations followed. The government modified the legislation implementing Article 23 of the Basic Law and sacked key ministers. And the whole thing led to the withdrawal of the National Security Bill. This was a great victory and it demonstrated the power of public opinion, the strength of "people power", in a way hitherto unknown in Hong Kong.

 

Were there other events that adversely affected the mood of the people of Hong Kong?

Undoubtedly SARS was one such event. No one was left untouched for it was totally unexpected and Hong Kong residents faced the grim reality of daily losses while trying their best to help doctors and nurses in their tireless work. For three long months, from March till mid-June, the SARS epidemic played havoc with Hong Kong, sapping its spirit and weakening its economy and its very lifeline.

 

Undoubtedly, SARS had a terrible effect on the territory, but were there no other sources of discord?

It would take too much time to draw the list of all the political and bureaucratic errors that fed popular frustration. I think that much of the resentment stems from the present administration's style of government. Hong Kong is highly developed and a very sophisticated city. Under the circumstances, a "Father knows best" approach is inappropriate. People are citizens, not unruly children.

 

If I remember correctly, you were quite involved in the struggle over who had the right-of-abode? Wasn't the city split over this issue?

Yes! Before the political storm of July 1, 2003, the most serious issue since the handover had been the right of abode. For the first time, the Hong Kong government submitted a request to Beijing that it reinterpret the Basic Law to settle this issue, this despite the fact that the matter had been settled by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Beijing's decision treated unfairly the children of Hong Kong citizens who were born in Mainland China. They were now denied the right to have the same citizenship as their parents. Mass protests followed this decision so much so that it ended up involving the Church as well. Even the late cardinal John Baptist Wu Cheng-chung, a man rarely involved in political matters, felt the need to make a public statement on the issue. Bishop Zen Ze-kiun intervened many times as well. Unfortunately, the tragic episode at the Immigration Tower on August 2, 2000, when a group of protesters started a fire, cast a shadow on the whole affair. It caused the death of a public servant and a protester as well as injuring many other people.

 

Let's go back for a moment to the question of democracy in Hong Kong. What do you see happening here?

In my opinion, the pro-Democracy movement seems to be increasingly and systematically marginalised from political life. Despite the fact that the pro-Democracy parties have received the majority of the popular vote they are still in a minority position in the Legislative Council. The latter has been set up in such a way to guarantee a pro-Beijing majority. Hence, proposals tabled by the democratic parties are regularly voted down. The fact that the pro-Democracy politicians are supported by the majority of voters but lack political power is a source of frustration and dissatisfaction that, among other factors, explains the July 1, 2003 demonstration.

 

Do you think that the Catholic Church was sufficiently prepared to meet the challenges of the handover?

I think so. It was neither alarmist, nor did it harbour any illusions. Our three bishops carefully guided the ship on an even keel. Cardinal Wu, so dearly loved by the people, made sure that the handover occurred with as little disruption as possible. In fact, he left the diocese in the hands of his coadjutor, Bishop Joseph Zen, and his auxiliary, Bishop John Tong.

In terms of personality and style the latter two are different from one another, yet they complement each other. Bishop Zen is a forceful man, a hands-on kind of guy. He soon made his views known on national and local issues to all, and for this reason was soon dubbed "the conscience of Hong Kong." In the last few years, he has taken a stand on the right of abode, on how schools should be managed, on national security issues, on the canonisation of the 120 Chinese martyrs and religious freedom in China, among others. By contrast, Bishop Tong has been more reserved whenever possible. He has kept open the channels of communication to everyone while always backing Bishop Zen's positions. When cardinal Wu died in 2002, Bishop Zen replaced him at the helm of the diocese. At first, there were moments of uncertainty. His combative style even caused ripples within the Church. But after the spectacular victory over Article 23, his prestige rose both at home and abroad. The clergy and the faithful now seem united in their support of the bishop.

Finally, what do you think of the most recent political events that have caused concern not only here but also around the world?

The momentum generated by "people power" on July 1, 2003 has carried through into 2004 with people seeking a faster process of democratisation. On January 1 of this year more than 100,000 people marched to demand direct elections to the Office of the Chief Executive (expected in 2007) and to the Legislative Council (expected in 2008). The demand is within the purview of the Basic Law, whose aims are the full democratisation of Hong Kong. Unfortunately, Beijing stepped in with a second re-interpretation of the Basic Law, dashing all hopes for early democracy and setting no timetable for future political reform. This coming July 1, another demonstration is expected and it should indicate the extent of public dissatisfaction with both local and central governments.

 

 

• HONG
• KONG
• CHINA
• ECONOMY
• DEMOCRACY