Jul 16th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda
After mass protests forced Hong Kong's government to moderate a controversial anti-subversion law, two of its most unpopular officials resign. But will letting his underlings go allow Hong Kong's chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, to hang on to his own job?
WHEN the former British colony of Hong Kong was handed back to China six years ago, the government in Beijing insisted that it would retain its freedoms under the doctrine of "one country, two systems". Hong Kongers' scepticism over the sincerity of this promise seemed vindicated when, earlier this year, Tung Chee-hwa, Hong Kong's chief executive, and Beijing's puppet, began trying to force through a repressive "anti-subversion" law. Last week, a few days after half a million people had taken to the territory's streets to protest against the measure, and with his administration in crisis, Mr Tung retreated. He announced a postponement of the measure's presentation to the Hong Kong legislature and later removed some of the most controversial clauses.
But Mr Tung's retreat was not enough to defuse Hong Kong's most serious political crisis since it reverted to China, and Wednesday July 16th saw the resignations of the two most disliked members of his unpopular cabinet: Regina Ip, the territory's vilified security chief--who had campaigned fiercely for the anti-subversion law--and Antony Leung, the financial secretary, who had faced calls for his dismissal after announcing a big rise in the tax on new cars, shortly after buying one for himself. Earlier on Wednesday, Hong Kong's justice department had said it was considering prosecuting him. The government said Ms Ip was resigning for personal reasons and had handed in her notice before the big protest forced it to backtrack on the anti-subversion law. Mr Tung said he had tried to persuade her not to go. It seems unlikely that these claims will be widely believed.
The Hong Kong government posts news and gives information on the proposals to implement article 23 of the Basic Law. "Political resources on the net" provides political, media and government resources on Hong Kong. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides information on relations with Hong Kong and Taiwan.
The many critics of the anti-subversion bill had said it would threaten freedom of speech and assembly, curbing the rights of the press and religious groups, among others. But even after the big protest, on July 1st, Mr Tung at first seemed determined to push it through. However, he was forced to think again when, on July 6th, James Tien, the head of the Liberal Party, resigned from the cabinet. Mr Tien's party includes many business people with close links to China, which has long regarded Hong Kong's professional class as natural allies--people who cared more about preserving stability and making money than about democracy. However, many Liberal Party supporters took part in the protest and it appears that Mr Tien's decision to abandon the Tung administration was made with an eye to preserving his political future.
The stability of Mr Tung's rule, and his ability to fend off calls for full democracy, have depended on the support he has enjoyed from a tight-knit group of pro-China politicians, and this group's break-up will be causing alarm in Beijing. By losing the backing of Mr Tien's Liberals in Hong Kong's Legislative Council, Mr Tung could no longer be sure of getting the anti-subversion law or other controversial measures through. His predicament would be even more dire if Tsang Yok-sing, the leader of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, another pro-Beijing group, also decides to quit the cabinet--something he has not ruled out. Mr Tsang's party has strongly supported the anti-subversion measure but he now admits that its future is uncertain.
Last weekend, Mr Tung removed or changed three of the most criticised sections of the bill, involving: police powers to search without a warrant; powers for the government to ban groups already outlawed in mainland China (such as the Falun Gong spiritual movement); and penalties for "theft of state secrets". Democrats were unsatisfied with this and are likely to remain unsatisfied with Mr Tung's sacrifice of his security and financial secretaries. But their success so far may embolden them to press further their demands for more liberties. Hong Kong's nearest equivalent to a constitution, the Basic Law, allows for the possibility of open elections for both the chief executive and the Legislative Council, starting from 2007 and 2008 respectively. So far, Mr Tung has avoided any discussion of fuller democracy but it may now be difficult to continue avoiding it. And this has Beijing very worried indeed. The Chinese government has sent a delegation, including representatives from the security and intelligence agencies, to assess the situation in Hong Kong and to help it work out a response to the crisis.
China, which reappointed Mr Tung for a second term of office last year, has lost confidence in its man. His problems over the anti-subversion bill follow criticism of his administration's poor handling of Hong Kong's economic slowdown. Unemployment is now at a record 8.3%, the government has a record budget deficit and, four months ago, it was forced to increase taxes for the first time in 20 years. Mr Tung has also been widely criticised for his handling of the recent SARS outbreak, which killed around 300 people in the territory.
The authorities in Beijing are in a bind: do they leave an enfeebled Mr Tung in place? Or do they press him to quit, and be accused of interference (they claim Hong Kong is free to run its own affairs)? If they do shove him out, this risks giving pro-democracy campaigners further encouragement.
Furthermore, the crisis over Hong Kong's anti-subversion bill is undermining China's attempts to convince Taiwan (which it regards as a breakaway province) that it would retain its freedoms if it rejoined the motherland. After ten years in limbo, a bill in Taiwan that would allow public referendums (which China fears would lead to a plebiscite on Taiwanese independence) has now secured the support of opposition parties who had previously seen it as unnecessarily provocative towards China. Worse still, if people power is seen to have results in Hong Kong, it might even be the spark that relights the fires of democratic fervour in mainland China itself, which were snuffed out in Tiananmen Square in 1989.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1922671