|
True face of ‘one
country, two areas’
By Ted Chang 陳峻綱
A recent “election” in Hong Kong that saw Leung Chun-ying (梁振英) emerge as the
new chief executive/guardian of the “status quo” in the Chinese territory was as
close as it could get to an actual election campaign. It featured its share of
scandals, reports of potential conflicts of interest and mudslinging among
candidates — all familiar elements to which Taiwanese and other voters in
democratic countries could relate.
If only Hong Kongers had the power to vote for their leaders.
Under the “one country, two systems (一國兩制)” framework enshrined in the Hong Kong
Basic Law — the territory’s mini-Constitution — a 1,200-strong committee
consisting of mostly Hong Kong lawmakers and pro-Beijing individuals
representing special interest groups have the responsibility to “vote” for Hong
Kong’s leader.
That the winner of the most recent contest was a pro--establishment figure was
no surprise; however, the Election Committee this time around did not play its
typical role of rubber-stamping Beijing’s choice. For once, the Chinese central
government actually took into consideration public opinion in deciding which of
the two main (read: Beijing-sanctioned) candidates it would back: Leung and
former Hong Kong chief secretary for administration Henry Tang (唐英年). Further
wrinkling the script was the fact that the pro-Beijing camp in Hong Kong was not
united behind Leung or Tang.
Yet, the Hong Kong public is chafing under Beijing’s intrusive thumb, as well as
at the idea that their leader belongs to a coterie of elites. Twenty-eight
members of the Election Committee who represent the territory’s social welfare
sector boycotted the vote, saying they were dissatisfied with the “twisted and
unjust” election process under what they called a “small circle” electoral
system.
Meanwhile, an alternative poll, or a “civic referendum” as it was called,
organized by the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and held in the final two days
before the Election Committee’s March 25 vote, had a turnout of nearly 230,000
people. Between the three candidates, a fourth option emerged as the landslide
“winner”: about 55 percent cast a blank vote, demonstrating widespread
dissatisfaction with the field of candidates.
Given the increasing calls within the territory for universal suffrage and
growing resentment against mainlanders in general, perhaps it was no surprise
that such a high percentage voted this way. That the online voting system of
HKU’s alternative poll experienced “high-level cyberattacks” is enough to raise
suspicions that certain groups had vested interests in -preventing the vote —
unofficial as it was — from happening.
Maintaining the “status quo” on Beijing’s behalf has been made easier by the
practice of self-censorship among media in the territory, a trend that has
increased since its handover to China in 1997, with about 30 percent of Hong
Kong journalists admitting to having practiced self-censorship, according to a
2007 survey by the Hong Kong Journalists Association. The survey also showed
that about 42 percent of journalists viewed downplaying issues or information
“unfavorable” or “believed to be sensitive” to Beijing as the most serious forms
of self-censorship. Another 28 percent identified downplaying news that harmed
the interests of highly influential conglomerates — important sources of ad
revenue for media publications — or the Hong Kong government’s image as the most
serious forms of self--censorship that take place.
Even in the wake of the election, individuals were targeted. A prominent
pro-democratic blogger, Kay Lam (林忌), had his Facebook account reported and
banned after posting, just hours after Leung was announced the winner, a picture
of the evening skyline of Hong Kong with the lights dimmed, accompanied by the
caption: “The final lights go out, The Death of Hong Kong 1841-2012.” Lam’s post
had apparently violated Facebook’s policy of racial and ethnic discrimination,
as well as having contained “credible threats” to harm others or support violent
organizations. Apparently, Lam’s allusion to the suppression of Hong Kongers’
political rights on a social networking site was too much to swallow for the
powers that be.
And all of this is happening under a “one country, two systems” arrangement.
At the same time the election campaign was winding down, former Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) was in Beijing touting the
allegedly President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九)-approved “one country, two areas (一國兩區)”
concept as a way to handle cross-strait matters.
While “two areas” may imply separate jurisdictions, it does not suggest separate
economic, social and political systems. As the stronger “area” within the “one
country,” China’s significant influence would dictate how things are run, no
matter how many -areas-/jurisdictions there are within the “one country.” To
expect otherwise is delusional, unless Ma is content with a demotion to regional
manager.
Regardless of what Ma’s intentions are with “one country, two areas,” the term
already implies a lesser degree of the semi-autonomy that “one country, two
systems” provides. With what has happened in Hong Kong, could anyone in Taiwan
dare entertain the thought of living under a “two areas” arrangement?
Ted Chang is a copy editor at the Taipei Times.
|
