When they
to be elected in the Westminster or the Beijing manner? committed themselves to the accountability of executive to legislature, were they thinking of an obligation to obey, or simply an undertaking to report?"
And as for the Basic Law:-
"[N]obody knew whether it would work as a constitution in the
western sense, guaranteeing the rights of the people, or a constitution in the Communist sense, entrenching the powers of the State."
The link between democracy, accountability, and "rights" has been the focus of argument for a long time here in Hong Kong. I do not want to open up old issues, but I am concerned that the central issue on which all are agreed, autonomy, can get lost too easily in the after-burn of the discussion on the nature of Hong Kong's governmental system. The danger is that expressing the need to bolster autonomy, which is a legitimate aspiration in Hong Kong, is feared as a possible affront to China. China is understandably concerned about the question of sovereignty, but that is a different issue, and should be known as such. So, given strong Chinese feelings on certain issues, how can Hong Kong or Britain respond? This is a necessary question, made more so because of a sense among some Hong Kong people that Britain will not stand firm for the principles which have made Hong Kong what it is today, being more interested in a "smooth" handover. There is a belief that HMG has decided for good (but not good enough), or even bad, reasons of expediency to seek to nudge China where possible, rather than be clear in public about the pre-conditions for the continuation of Hong Kong's lifestyle. In other words, the complaint is that there is an absence of leadership in matters of principle. If so, policy may run a danger of being distrusted by everybody; its opaqueness may be mistaken for deceit, and some Hong Kong people may see an attitude summed up in the quote which follows:-
"[Some] speak soothingly of British determination to make
their own decisions [where relevant]. But British attitudes were more honestly summed up by a lower-level diplomat explaining censorship of a film deemed irritating to China. Policy, he said, must be continually adjusted to the Peking political climate:
'What upset China in April is different from what upsets China now
It is a shifting target
The Chinese Government is capable of taking offence and attacking Hong Kong and this causes worry and concern among Hong Kong people.' Censorship, he maintained, was not a high price to pay for avoiding Peking's irritation. This apathy sums up the combination of cowardice and condescension which characterises British policy. It will clearly not be long before these principles of appeasement are applied to freedom of speech and the press, reducing the promises of the Joint Declaration to a sour joke.
11