order. Although it is true that Mr Patten did not 'create' the Issue of constitutional reform, as some have accused, when he went public with his plans in his first address to Hong Kong's legislative council last October, against the expressed wishes of the Chinese, he was fool if he did not know he was choosing a battleground. And amongst the many epithets, both classical and colloquial, which the communist press have subsequently awarded him I have yet to see any of the usual terms for 'fool' (e.g. shagua-lit, 'muddle-headed me on').
Nor can it only recently have been revealed to him that there is an underlying difference of purpose which even the most intricately patterned diplomatic wallpaper cannot cover up. As one of his troops puts it, he wants Hong Kong to have a system of government which, if not exactly democra- cy, is at least fair, straightforward and open to public scrutiny; while the Chinese want a system whose results they can at least influ ence, if not control. They don't mind too' much what it looks like, so long as they can fix it. A nice, oriental problem this: the rec- onciliation of the irreconcilable.
Given this gap
which has always been there, and has neither altered nor nar- rowed since this all started one cannot help wondering why, in all logic, Mr Patten chose to descend into the Nibelungen world of 'talks' (or rather, send the unfortunate ambassador down there), when there seemed so little hope of obtaining anything worth having. Or, to put this another way, if he really thought that an acceptable result could in fact be had from closed- door talks with the Chinese, why did he not take this Way in the first place, and enjoy at least the small advantages that Chinese goodwill might have conferred, rather than publicly garlanding himself with democratic laurels yet to be won?
Locally, Mr Patten is under pressure from two (opposing) directions, the busi- nessmen and the democrats. For different, reasons, both sides have eased off recently, and it looks a little as if he may have been allowing himself to enjoy a false impression of relaxation.
In the blue corner (or rather, these days, the red corner): the local business commu- nity, hot-faced with rage at the furn of the year that Patten, by stupidly sucking to his principles, might jeopardise the money har- vest, now affect to consider him and his footling reforms irrelevant. Set beside the truly world-shaking developments currently under way in China, it is undeniable that the scale of the local political debate seems small. But the new-found cool of the fat cats has much to do with the recent heli- copter-like ascent of the Hang Seng Index, which has made a nonsense of all their apocalyptic predictions. Earlier this year Mr Lu Ping, the senior Chinese official responsible for policy on Hong Kong, said that if the Sino-British talks reached agree- ment, the Index could go past 8,000. No doubt he intended this as a form of pres-
sure, but at the time he was criticised for wild talk. Ha. If? It zoomed past 8,000 a while ago, with no agreement in sight. But then, only the very wisest old Taoists understand the Hong Kong stock market. By the time you read this its rotor blades could well have dropped off.
Meanwhile the local democrats have gone very quiet. Minuscule pro-democracy demonstrations urge Mr Patten not to give in, but there is a weariness to the whole debate. Their profile and possibly their support has collapsed; they increasingly suspect that Patten is preparing to sell them out, but their attacks leave no scars. The reformers, like the businessmen, seem almost content with the stalemate: maybe because it is at least better than surrender Life goes on, after all, and tomorrow,to coin a phrase, is another country. Opinion polls show that support for Patten and his theoretical reforms remains high, but at the same time that people have no stomach for a row with China.
In this rather Yin-Yang situation Mr Pat- en may have been tempted to adopt the Taoist theory of government by Wu Wei Doing Nothing. This would sit ill on the action man who cheered everyone up so much in the summer of last year. But it seems unlikely that this week's collective rumination will result in anything other than more of the same tinny clinking of small hammers on negotiating anvils far underground, forging what, one won- ders? A genuinely honourable agreement? Result: joy unbounded. An honourable dis- agreement Resul uncertainty. A shabby deal? Result: peace with dishonour. For the first to happen, the Chinese will have to concede Patten's stated principles. For the second, he will have to stick to them any- way! For the third wel... faîtes vos
jeux.
I'm a caid Jeremy axman
has taken rather hard
―
For health reasons under a strict dietary régime, over the last yea tten has become Mr Contracting Wastline. The same cannot be said, however, for his dead- lines, which seem indefinitely expandable, coming and going with ever decreasing credibility. Now he jokingly admits the gov- ernment's constitutional reform pro- gramme is chronologically challenged' (District Board elections are due next year and the main LegCo elections in 1995, and much administrative work remains to be done. This is covering shame with a cling- film of humour: what's underneath still shows clearly enough. And, however much he may now wish it were, Hong Kong is not a misty, timeless island where immortals nibble magic fungus and sip ginseng tea: if anything it resemblės more closely Barrie's frenetic Never Land. And there rather here, as the Governor never tires of reminding everyone, particularly the Chi- nese, 'tick-tock goes the clock'. But ask not, Peter Pan, for whom the clock tocks.
ΟΙ
Stephen Dunstan is the pen name of a former Hong Kong government official.
ends.