Backfire

Lau Nai-keung

When reporters sought my reactions to British Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Hugo Swire’s recent article on constitutional development in Hong Kong, I said, “Don’t issue blank checques.” If the British are at all sincere in “stand(ing) ready to support in any way” our dissidents in their fight for their weird brand of “true universal suffrage” in disregard to the Basic Law, just open the door and let all BNO passport holders here have the right of abode in the UK. This has been fought for by some people since the early nineties, and should it be granted I am sure you will hear Good Save the Queen in many corners of this city, not to mention the Union Jack will appear more conspicuously in future rallies large and small.

Alas, these are just empty words coming from a middle-ranking official of a much weakened small island country, and the rebuttal from Chinese foreign Affairs Ministry was swift and blunt. In Hong Kong the official line is “we don’t need your help, you busybody.” And among the public, nobody takes Swire’s pledge of support with a grain of salt. Hong Kong People are not STUPID, you know.

This together with the recent highly inappropriate behavior of the new American Consulate General Clifford Hart, the issues relating to constitutional development in Hong Kong are now tainted with nationalism. As pointed out by some dissident leaders their concerted efforts to meddle into constitutional development here will do more harm than good to their crooked cause because it is now clearly no longer just about democracy, but also about Western superpower sticking its nose in this city’s internal affairs. Most people here for a variety of reasons don’t want to upset Beijing, and the very few with separatist sentiments are bound to be marginalized.

From previous experience it is futile for the SAR government to canvass support from individuals and small factions in the dissident camp. Only the Democratic Party with 6 seats in the Legislative Council can save the day with a bloc vote.

In the upcoming five steps of constitutional development, there will be only two scenarios. Either the Democratic Party makes another deal with the central government to get the relevant bill passed in the Legislative Council or the dissident politicians bundled together to veto the bill. In either case unrest will bound to follow, the difference is only a matter of size and the degree of violence. Thanks to joint Anglo-American effort, much fewer people will join the mob, which makes it much easier for the police to handle.

The pressure is now focused on the Democratic Party as was in 2010, and most people want them to come to a second compromise with the central government to achieve a soft landing for 2017 universal suffrage in the election of Chief Executive.

There is mounting pressure for its legislators to support the official proposal of universal suffrage in 2017 Chief Executive election unless it is far off the mark and utterly untenable, which everybody knows is highly unlikely. Subsequently there is tremendous stress within the Democratic Party, many of its members insist they are also patriotic, only that they love China, but not the ruling Communist Party. Siding with the Americans and the British without a credible excuse will make them traitors in the eyes of many citizens after their old leader, the infamous Martin Lee Chu-ming. In a roundabout way, the US and UK are giving China a hand in stabilizing the situation to the detriment of dissidents they are supposed to support, as it is not unusual in over politicking.

Compromise is always possible as Chinese are pragmatic people, but now it is crystal clear that the give and take has to be within the framework of the Basic Law. On top of that, to gain rapport with the central government the Democratic Party has to be seen to dissociate with American and British influence.

“We don’t need your support. Stay away from Hong Kong.” Does the Democratic Party have the moral courage to say this to the face of the Americans and the British? I am pessimistic, and this being the case, compromise solution is no longer an option and the Democratic Party will veto the government proposal. There will be no universal suffrage in 2017, and thousands will take to the street to protest…This is our Karma.

  In 1979, the Hong Kong governor Sir MacLehose paid a visit to Deng Xiaoping to sound out China's intention on the future of Hong Kong when the treaties that leased Hong Kong to Britain was due to expire in 1997.  Deng told MacLehose in no uncertain terms that China will get Hong Kong back.  MacLehose didn't divulge this important piece of news to the Hong Kong people when he returned.  Instead shortly afterwards the British parliament quietly and without fanfare passed a law voiding the passports of the Hong Kong British passport holders by denying them the rights to reside in Britain (a new category of passport, called the BNO (British National Overseas) were invented for this purpose).

Adding insult to injury, in 1996, shortly before the handover when all the focus was on the impending handover, the British Hong Kong government quietly passed a law that in effect allows any British civil servants and its families members Hong Kong residencies if he or she so choose to apply, and many did.

So this is how the British government treated the Hong Kong people after one hundred and fifty years of colonial rule.  And now the British government want to help the Hong Kong people.  Is this a joke?