July 11, 2003

(Clearwisdom.net) THE RETURN of Hong Kong six years ago to Chinese rule - after 150 years as a British colony - is one of the great political triumphs of modern China, a source of national pride and economic power.

That transfer took place under the promise of "one country, two systems," meaning the rich entrepot could continue laissez-faire capitalism and retain its limited political freedoms - under Beijing's control.

With that deal, democracy advocates have always worried that the other shoe - the political one, of course - would drop. It took six years, but it's happening - critically, at a time when Hong Kong's economy is in the dumps and the international business interests that are its lifeblood are tempted by such competitors as Singapore.

China brought this crisis on itself by pressing forward with a new Hong Kong security law, Article 23. Long in the works, the law empowers Beijing to use the familiar excuse of state security threats to squash Hong Kong dissent of all kinds - from Falun Gong, the [spiritual] group outlawed on the mainland, to critical journalists.

Largely acquiescent for the last six years, Hong Kong residents have put on a courageous display of opposition to Article 23 - with a huge public demonstration last week and a smaller one Wednesday. The initial protest prompted Beijing's appointed Hong Kong chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, to delay a vote approving Article 23 in the territory's legislature. This week's protest moved on to call for his removal and universal free elections of territory leaders.

[...]

There's little doubt Beijing can have its way on Article 23 - that even if Mr. Tung steps down, his successor could be an even tougher mainland servant. But the cost would be high: Hong Kong remains essential to China's development, and at this point ramming through Article 23 can only make its global competitors more alluring.

If - it's a big if - Beijing can save political face while modifying Article 23 to address Hong Kong's fears, Hong Kong's economic interests and China's long-term goals would best be served by giving "one country, two systems" fuller meaning. Indeed, Hong Kong would better serve its motherland as a much broader development model.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/bal-ed.hongkong11jul11,0,4109392.story?coll=bal-opinion-headlines