TNAG-1900-FCO40-2699-Future-of-Hong-Kong-briefing-1989 — Page 9

+

C

Joseph Y. S. Cheng

449

and television owners were naturally unwilling to devote resources to issues unattractive to the public.11

Internal divisions

Another problem for the democracy movement has been internal divisions. Despite two years of negotiations, Meeting Point, the Hong Kong Affairs Society and the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood had by the spring of 1989 failed to agree to form a united political party. The logic behind such a union is simple: the three groups share the goal of striving for a democratic government, they have similar political and social values, their core members are of the same age group and almost identical background, and they appeal to the same pool of potential supporters. The formation of a united political party would much strengthen the appeal of the democracy movement. It would facilitate fund-raising, the pooling of resources and, above all, the support of a single list of candidates in the 1991 direct elections to the Legislative Council. However, Meeting Point, the best organized of the three groups, has been the most reluctant to give up its own independent organization. In November 1988 it indicated that it would no longer participate in the inter-group consultations with a view to a formal union. Consultations were to continue between the Hong Kong Affairs Society and the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood but, whatever the outcome, differences between the groups seemed likely to become more

open.

Besides the normal mutual jealousies and competition for leadership, there has been a major division within the democracy movement. Differences increasingly surfaced between those who were openly critical of China and those who were keen to maintain a dialogue with the Chinese authorities. This constituted the major difference between the pessimists about the future, who are inclined to emigrate before 1997 and have no intention of seeking public office, and those who are less pessimistic regarding the territory's future, more likely to stay and more eager to seek election to public office. One good illustration of this difference was the democracy movement's lobbying effort in 1987 for direct elections to the Legislative Council, to be introduced in 1988. At the end of 1987 two delegations were dispatched to London and Beijing. There was not much expectation that the trips would yield substantial results, and the move was largely aimed at attracting international attention. Before setting off, it was decided that a different position paper would be prepared for each delegation, and there was some dissatisfaction even within the democracy movement that the delegation to London adopted a stance highly critical of the British government while that to Beijing emphasized dialogue with the Chinese government.

Similar divisions began to emerge in almost every institution in the territory, from the civil service, to the church groups, to the hitherto non-political voluntary social welfare agencies. At the middle and senior management level of all these institutions division lines have been gradually developing between those who want to stay and those who plan to emigrate. The latter have tended to be more critical of China, and the former have a natural tendency to accommodate to the Chinese authorities' demands.

11. The Hong Kong Journalists' Association accused Louis Cha, owner of Ming Pao, of sending his reporters a list of Basic Law Drafting Committee members whom they should and should not interview. Naturally, Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, champions of the democracy movement, were to be avoided. See Hong Kong Economic Journal (a Hong Kong Chinese newspaper), 9 Dec. 1988. It is common knowledge that the activities of the democracy movement have been receiving considerably less attention from the local media since 1986.