ISSUE
DOUBLE
•Hong Kong LINK
Numbers
7 and 8
ISSN 1010-1861 December 1987
Tsuen
МОНТИРОВІТ
CONTENTS
New Controversy: The Survey Office Report
Delegations for Democracy in Hong Kong
Martin Lee comes to London
Tseto Wah goes to Beijing
Open Letter to the UK
by 8 Legislative Counsellors
The Green Paper
—
Update by Robert Archer
- UK Hong Kong Activists respond
ABC of the Basic Law:
The Legal Issues by Jill Barrett
Vietnamese Refugees
EDITORIAL
In this special double issue of Hong Kong Link, we cover the Green Paper, the Survey Office Report, Daya Bay and Vietnamese refugees: all are cause for anger in Hong Kong and much of what we report reflects the deepening sense of frustration and unease which large numbers of Hong Kong people feel. As they attempt to prepare for momentous change, they have reason to be afraid that their political masters are not able or are not prepared to take a stand on their behalf. Yet the authorities refuse to introduce changes that might assist Hong Kong to manage the transition more efficiently.
The recent, dramatic collapse in stockmarket values (which we do not cover) has only added sharpness to this unease. We abroad too often assume that Hong Kong people have acquired immunity from the pains of insecurity. This is surely a cruel assumption. It does not do justice to the endurance and resilience which Hong Kong's people have
SO frequently demonstrated. It also underestimates, perhaps dangerously, the emotions which lie concealed beneath the territory's flamboyant commercial skin.
deep
In this context, one comment is perhaps worth making in relation to the current, increasingly bitter controversy over the introduction of direct elections to the Legislative Council. At every stage of the debate since 1984, the "democrats"
have
been outmanoeuvred or defeated. Before 1984 there was no election at all to the Legislative Council. In 1984 complex forms of appointment were introduced by the Hong Kong government making the introduction of direct and simple election almost impossible. When election to a proportion of seats became an issue, the Chinese authorities made known their opposition to it and as far as it is possible to judge — they have secured deferment of any decision until after 1990 and promulgation of the Basic Law. The British authorities have, it seems, deferentially withdrawn the offers of reform that they proferred in the political review of 1984.
For those who believe in accountable government and the possibility of a responsible electorate, all this is deeply disappointing. The Hong Kong govern- ment's poor performance in managing a number of the most sensitive political
1
issues which have arisen since 1984 make its reluctance to share or disperse power more worrying still.
In the longer term, nevertheless, the experience of the last three years may not have been negative at all. According to polls (that are no longer challenged) only a tiny proportion of Hong Kong citizens positively oppose direct elections in principle, and the vast majority of people desire to elect those who govern them. The evidence for saying this is so clear that neither the Hong Kong government nor the Chinese government attempt to oppose the introduction of direct election in principle. In the space of a very few months, the debate has changed fundamentally. No longer is it asked whether there should be elections, but only when and how many elections there should be.
reeling
Exhausted campaigners, from yet another defeat, should remind themselves of this. They have won the argument. They have altered the political climate, probably irreversibly. And, though the imagery is certainly inappropriate, they may even after losing every battle be winning the campaign.