BEIJING, 14 January 2004 — Minutes after Hong Kong’s chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, finished his annual policy address Wednesday, mentioning in passing that he had postponed setting a timetable for democratic reform, the Chinese government made certain everyone understood what had just happened.
In a statement issued by the official New China News Agency, a government spokesman said China had told Tung it wanted him to “conduct thorough consultations with relevant departments of the central government” and “only afterward finalize relevant work arrangements on this issue.”
In other words, for the first time since more than 500,000 people participated in a huge anti-government rally in Hong Kong on July 1, China’s Communist leaders stepped out of the background and made clear that they intended to control the pace of political change in Hong Kong.
By going public, China’s leaders confirmed what many already suspected: Beijing is making key decisions in Hong Kong now, despite its promise of maximum autonomy for the former British colony. They have opened a new chapter in the mainland’s relationship with the territory, one that makes them direct participants, and potential targets, in the decades-old fight over whether the people of Hong Kong should be able to elect their own leaders.
China’s move has already forced Hong Kong’s pro-democracy opposition to consider a change in tactics in its campaign for direct elections to select the chief executive in 2007 and the entire legislature in 2008.
Until now, pro-democracy activists have directed their anger at Tung, the unpopular shipping tycoon appointed by Beijing to run the city after its handover to Chinese rule 1997. But now that China’s leaders have made it clear Tung is following their orders, the opposition must decide whether to attack Beijing.
Leaders of the pro-democracy movement have been reluctant to do so in the past, seeking to assure the Chinese leadership they are demanding elections only for Hong Kong, not the rest of the country. During the July 1 demonstration, the largest in China since the 1989 student protests in Tiananmen Square, and in subsequent rallies, the crowds chanted for Tung and his ministers to resign, but there was hardly any mention of Chinese President Hu Jintao or his Politburo colleagues.
The emphasis on Tung reflects public opinion in Hong Kong, where Hu and Premier Wen Jiabao are viewed kindly as potential reformers. But it also represents a pragmatic calculation by the democracy movement: China’s leaders have the final say on political reform in Hong Kong, so it is best not to antagonize them.
Under Hong Kong’s constitution, agreed on by China and Britain, direct elections can be introduced after 2007 only if two-thirds of the legislature, the chief executive and the central government agree. Pro-democracy activists had hoped that by mobilizing the public, they could win over the legislature, pressure Tung into going along and then present Beijing with the difficult choice of rejecting a proposal that enjoyed broad support in Hong Kong.
By seeking a direct role in the process now, the Chinese government was saying it had lost confidence in Tung’s ability to prevent that from happening, said Allen Lee, a member of China’s national congress who is sometimes consulted by Beijing about the territory’s affairs.
Lee said China’s leaders blamed Tung for the huge protests in July, which took them by surprise and forced Tung to withdraw a stringent internal security bill that they wanted passed. “They don’t want that to happen again. They really doubt C.H. Tung can manage these political reforms for them,” he said. “They’re worried about another groundswell of public opinion demanding elections in 2007.”
Christine Loh, a former legislator who supports democratic reform, said Tung had failed both the Hong Kong people and the Chinese government. “It’s no secret that Beijing is concerned about the pace of political reform, so what we needed was someone who could explain and allay Beijing’s fears,” she said. “Now Tung’s incompetence may have created a no-win situation for everybody. People will feel more frustrated and continue to demonstrate, and Beijing’s fears will remain and perhaps get worse.’’
The pro-democracy movement appears divided about what to do next. Some members are calling for protests to put pressure on Beijing, but most are continuing to focus their criticism on Tung. Another large demonstration is expected on July 1, the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China and of the mass rally last year, followed by a showdown during legislative elections in September.
For the first time, 30 of the 60 seats in the Legislative Council will be filled by direct elections, up from 24 four years ago. Small business and professional groups that tend to favor the Chinese government will choose the other 30 lawmakers. Pro-democracy candidates now control 22 seats, and if they can win eight more, they will be able to block legislation and perhaps force Beijing into negotiations about political reform.
Martin Lee, one of the leaders of the Democracy Party, said the Chinese government’s latest move appeared aimed at helping its candidates before the election. By delaying the reform process, Beijing makes it easier for them to avoid taking a position on whether universal suffrage should be used to choose Tung’s successor in 2007.
