HK likely to remain the same after handover

By Arief Budiman

SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): At midnight on June 30, Hong Kong was returned to its original "owner", the People's Republic of China. The historical ceremony was rather strange. People celebrated the event with fireworks. But people were not sure of their future. This was because the old "owner" of Hong Kong had a totally different economic and political system than the present one: capitalism and democracy as compared to communism and authoritarianism.

This contradictory feeling was expressed by hundreds of young people who asked the new government to assure them that Hong Kong would maintain its old existing system. They were given some hope when China's President mentioned the "one country, two systems" policy.

In his farewell speech, the last Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, reflected on Hong Kong's history. He praised the hard work of Hong Kongers in building the city into what it is today. The British contribution, Patten claimed, was that it succeeded in creating a strong civil society and economic wealth. It was hoped that this achievement could be maintained and be developed further. Patten hoped the Hong Kong people would have the power to maintain the existing system. Is this kind of hope realistic?

Who really has the power to determine Hong Kong's future? So far, the fate of Hong Kong has been determined by governments, in this case the Chinese and British governments, both when it was leased out 150 years ago and when it was returned to China last June. It seems that the government is the most powerful institution that will determine the future of this city.

Abraham Lincoln once said "the government is the people". His famous statement that "government from the people, by the people and for the people will not perish" is still quoted frequently by people. But Hong Kong is not a good case to support what Lincoln believed. When Hong Kong was leased to the British empire and when it was given back to China, the people of Hong Kong were left out. It was totally government affairs, even though they did it in the name of the people. But "people" here is an abstract political concept.

So is it right to say the government is basically an independent institution above society? As the famous philosopher Hegel said, the state (the government is the executive branch of the state) is the embodiment of the highest ideal of society. The people, torn apart and divided by their many different individual interests, have thereby lost track of their collective interest. Only the state has the capability to spell out society's ideals. In this way, the state stands above society, and has to be obeyed because it works for a better future.

But Hegel's theory of the state was challenged by Karl Marx. According to Marx, the state was the managing director of the existing dominant class of the respective society. Therefore, in a feudal society, the existing state serves the interests of the feudal class, and in a capitalist society, the interest of the capitalist class. In saying this, the state has ceased to be the institution above society. It is part of society, namely an instrument of the existing dominant class. It is therefore absurd to say that the state knows society's collective ideal, since it does not serve the whole society but only the dominant class of the respective society.

But when we examine Hong Kong, it is difficult to say that the government of Hong Kong is serving the Hong Kong bourgeoisie. In the June 30 transfer of power, the Hong Kong bourgeois were not consulted, nor did they have the power to influence the existing Hong Kong government. So in Hong Kong's transfer, the British government was independent in carrying out its job. The question now is whose interests is the government serving? The answer: the interest of global capitalism.

The People's Republic of China has been considered an awakening dragon. Its potential as a world economic player, both in the consumer market (with its huge population) and as a producer (with its expanding competitive industrial products based on the cheap labor production process) has amazed the world. China is aware of this potential, and this is one of the strong reasons why it is still able to resist pressure from western industrial countries (especially the U.S.) in implementing human rights policies.

In dealing with China, the British government has to seriously consider the above reality. It is more advantageous for British economic interests to be friendly to China, rather than having a dispute over Hong Kong. Bad relations with China, the potential economic giant, would do more damage than good for Britain's long-term economic interest. Therefore, in the decision to transfer Hong Kong, Britain was being dictated by its global economic strategy.

On the other hand, the Chinese government is also being dictated by the same power, namely the power of global capitalism. It is difficult for China not to maintain capitalism in this area, albeit not to be followed by the same democratic political system. Hong Kong will be more authoritarian, although not as authoritarian as in mainland China (albeit this is changing too), or else the functioning of capital would be disrupted. With a large amount of foreign capital still there, and the interest of the Chinese government to generate income, it would be very unlikely that the new government would be able to afford any disruption to the existing capitalist system in Hong Kong. So the fate of Hong Kong will not be dependent on the political will of the elite that presently controls the Chinese government, but by global capitalism in which China's economic interest is also at stake.

It is therefore most likely that Hong Kong will remain the same, and China will try hard to maintain its "one country, two systems" policy.

The writer is a sociologist and researcher based in Salatiga, Central Java.

Window: So the fate of Hong Kong will not be dependent on the political will of the elite that presently controls the Chinese government, but by global capitalism in which China's economic interest is also at stake.