Talk economics, not politics
-
China to HK: Talk economics, not politics
By Guo Shiping
BEIJING has come up with this dictum for Hong Kong - talk economics, don't talk politics.
Vice-President Zeng Qinghong, the Chinese Communist Party's Politburo Standing Committee member who is in charge of Hong Kong affairs, decided on it after drawing from lessons which Beijing learnt in the aftermath of the Tiananmen incident on June 4, 1989.
According to sources, he felt that before the incident, the Chinese on the mainland were extremely politicised. Their daily agitation for democracy was giving the central government a big headache. Post-Tiananmen, Beijing decided that it would direct the people's interests to the economy. It was a high-handed policy that left no room for the Chinese to pursue democracy but gave full support for their pursuit of economic interests. It proved a success.
Chinese nowadays are not zealous about politics but very keen to make money. Many have become indifferent to politics, the result of the policy to promote 'stability above all else'. Hence, Beijing wants now to adopt the same approach when dealing with Hong Kong.
It will not concede too much ground to Hong Kong democrats clamouring for a quickening of the pace of democratisation. While there have been many suggestions for Beijing to offer the territory bigger political gifts, it has stuck to only economic ones. It expects Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa to concentrate on the economy, leaving the central government to handle political matters.
In Beijing's view, so long as the economy thrives, no problem cannot be solved. But all sorts of problems will surface if the economy falters. It has made the point several times that Hong Kong has become over-politicised since its handover to Chinese rule and that Hong Kong democrats are politicising everything.
According to authoritative sources in Beijing, the central government wants Hong Kong to be an economic city, not a political one. It will support Hong Kongers' pursuit of wealth but not politics and democracy. This approach to governing Hong Kong came about after Beijing dealt a heavy blow to the territory's democrats through various extraordinary measures and established its control over the pace of political development.
When conflicts between the central government and the democrats in the first half of this year became unprecedentedly sharp, Beijing felt it had to take a hardline attitude towards the democrats.
ASSUAGING DEMOCRATS
IT DECIDED that it would first launch a discussion on patriotism and drop heavy hints about the democrats being unpatriotic, which would cause them to lose the moral high ground. Then it would highlight the fact that Beijing has the final say on the running of Hong Kong, before initiating an interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. This would weaken the democrats' position legally.
Beijing achieved its objective but paid a very high price for it - the discussion on patriotism sharply divided Hong Kong. To recover its losses, it very naturally adopted a series of moderate measures.
First, an official of ministerial rank from the Central Liaison Office met Hong Kong's democrats to create a 'harmonious atmosphere'. Second, it made a high-profile gesture of granting entry to mainland China for some previously barred democrats to ease tensions further. Third, the most senior official in Beijing in charge of Hong Kong affairs indicated that he would not rule out meeting the democrats.
Given all this, Beijing believes that its 'talk economics, not politics' strategy is workable.
But many Hong Kongers disagree.
The writer is a professor of economics at Shenzhen University in China. This article was translated by Lim Ruey Yan.
--ST
_______________________________________________________________
cant help but felt a sense of familiarity when i read the article...
-
Hong Kong People have failed to see the bigger picture.
Under the British rule, they could never really be free.
Thanks to their motherland, they had at long last been liberated,
Paying a small price to gain this freedom - their own motherland retaining a symbolic political control over next 50 years.
Which is nothing, as compared with the long humiliations of being a colonised territory for the last century when their fate were at the mercy of others,
What is so bad after all,
Now that they are free.
-
HongKongers have freedom of speech under British rule. Now that freedom is being threaten .....Originally posted by robertteh:Hong Kong People have failed to see the bigger picture.
Under the British rule, they could never really be free.
Thanks to their motherland, they had at long last been liberated,
Paying a small price to gain this freedom - their own motherland retaining a symbolic political control over next 50 years.
Which is nothing, as compared with the long humiliations of being a colonised territory for the last century when their fate were at the mercy of others,
What is so bad after all,
Now that they are free. -
Granted that Hongkongers had certain freedoms of speech and other advantages under erstwhile colonial rule, these freedoms nevertheless were at the pleasure of her majesty the Queen of England.
At any time these so-called freedoms could be abolished or taken away. So what big deal that was? -
They were driven from one bondage to another, remember that the laws Great Britian implemented in HK were centered on preventing any racial or political surgence thus it worked against the local "citizens", people learnt not to go against the whites.
After decades of rule, the people got used to these "rules" and likewise, the brits decided that rather than enforcing obedience into the rebelious chinese, they over the decades focus on the economic value of HK and how they can exploit the economy of HK for their own benefits. They clean up their government of coruption, built buildings, corprate stuctures and promote tourism, westernizing the media and local culture. Money, was the term to run HK, not freedom of speech nor human rights.
After passing the baton to PRC in 97', the chinese government desired to start all over again, rather than continuing the importance of money, it dwells in politics and seek to remind the people of the very laws that were already in placed. Soon, the economy forecast was shrouded in darkness, uncertainity and fear gripped the middle class families and students. The magic of money dwindled in the midst of a seemly foreign political invasion, people had the impression that they had been cheated.
The central government, obsessed with their one China policy had forgot to understand the instability in the common folks whom viewed them as invaders more than saviours, these new generation of people have no impression of being suffered under British rule thus pushing all the blame towards the Chinese governance. They are not used in the transit of official priorities, rode in waves in protest, hoping that numbers will win against any ancient law. (The policies were more or less than same, the name simply changed to Article 23 and old memories refreshed.)
International reports however continued to lash against the Chinese authority and we have a very nice media vortex in HK, common people had to contend with either pro-China news, or anti-China news. Being westernized for decades, they chose the latter and continue to push it against the China central government.
Waves and waves of protests slapped HK economy repeatedly, as well as towards the reputation of PRC in the international community. Soon, Taiwan came under scrunity and US went in support of the Taiwanese independance. China stood by their claim firmly, but moved cautiously while watching the war in Iraq. HK is China's portal towards foreign investments, standing by it is Singapore, Macau and finally Taiwan. At the same time, US's stand against China's policy is not as firm as it claims, plauge with its failure against terrorism, it does not have time to stand beside Taiwan 24/7. Secondly, HK has always been a stead in asian investments for years, by playing its card's rights, US is able to come under an economic partnership with China. Yet it cannot support nor deny China's actions, either involvement will cause high political risks that in turn affect their stake in HK and China. Neutrality seems to be the best option available.
In recent years, China understood and with the ride of a rebounding economy, China switch priorities again, by claiming to focus on economy rather than politics, it hopes to dimmish its blunders that occured due to national pride. However, China will not give up on politically control HK and use it as a bargaining chip against the Americans's stance in Taiwan's issue. All these while looking to reduce its dependancy on US economy (mainly HK) by attracting investment directions from places like Singapore.
With a direct route of investments, promotion of education and using economy as a token of control, China hopes to remove any resistence both locally and within the international community.
Money IS politics, you just cannot avoid it this time. Neither have Singapore, for that matter in fact. -
..... and import of SARs, increase in crime rate, prositution, illegal immigration, corruption, armed gangs, money laundering, illegal workers..... happy reunification with motherland.
-
Hahah!Originally posted by tspg:..... and import of SARs, increase in crime rate, prositution, illegal immigration, corruption, armed gangs, money laundering, illegal workers..... happy reunification with motherland.
No lar, thats just coincidence, because even without returning to China, the economy was going down (which means higher crime rate) and alot of people and goods move between mainland China and HK, which means SARS will also flood in.