Sacrifice of democracy in HK?

By Lie Tek Tjeng

JAKARTA (JP): The British colony of Hong Kong will cease to exist at midnight, June 30, when the territory will formally be returned to the Chinese government, its rightful owner according to international law, after a century and a half of separation. This will fulfill the long awaited dream and aspiration of all Chinese patriots to restore all estranged territories to the motherland.

The reunification has been the focus of the tone-setting Western and international mass media that have shown concern for Hong Kong's freedom and civil rights that, they feel, involve their business operations and trading interests in the Asia- Pacific region.

Even though Hong Kong has been promised that it can maintain her current capitalist system for the next 50 years under China rule, the Chinese have recently announced the curbing of certain civil rights and freedoms considered incompatible with China's central laws. This has alarmed freedom and civil rights-minded Hong Kong citizens who naturally want to maintain the freedoms and rights that have become interwoven into their lives under British colonial rule.

The concern of Hong Kong citizens seems to have been exploited by the international mass media reflecting the worry of their financial masters that in the ongoing struggle between the reformers (right wing) and their opponents (left wing) of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), vital businesses and trading interests could become victimized, just like post-World War II American foreign policy has become the victim of the rivalry between Democrats and Republicans.

However, this rational concern could only irritate militant and frustrated Chinese nationalism that is reminded of her pre- liberation humiliation for over a century when Western nations and Japan imposed their laws, if not their will, on China in many parts of the country under an extra-territorial system.

The result could be that China, as a sovereign nation that absolutely rejects outside interference, will rigidly apply the laws of the country in fighting undesirable negative excesses of unbridled freedom -- like extreme individualism at the cost of social solidarity, permissiveness, sexual promiscuity, hedonism and others -- that are now plaguing liberal societies of the West.

However, the Chinese government is perhaps well-advised to consider the possibility that curbing the negative excesses of unbridled freedom could also unintentionally kill the creativity of people that underlie Hong Kong's modern success story. Or in other words, it could result in slaying the goose that lays the golden eggs.

If this really happens, then Hong Kong's usefulness as a locomotive to speed up China's modernization could be damaged, thus delaying, if not destroying, China's emergence as a real economic superpower, which is already worrying rivals and potential enemies.

Even a worse possibility is that China's rigid behavior in Hong Kong's reunification will be exploited by her enemies and critics to postpone, perhaps forever, Taiwan's reunification.

In other words, if China's behavior is inconsistent with the promised "one country, two systems" formula, this could be exploited by her enemies and critics to sway the still undecided majority of Taiwan's population to absolutely resist reunification and support the island's independence.

This would destroy, perhaps forever, the long-cherished hope and aspiration of Chinese patriots of regaining all estranged Chinese territories -- meaning Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, but not the islands in the South China Sea, which have never been recognized as part of the traditional Chinese empire by international law.

On the other hand a smooth Hong Kong transfer could serve as a "sweet persuasion" to the many, still undecided Chinese to give reunification a chance.

This article would like to consider the positive aspects of Hong Kong's reunification that seems most unlikely to be reversed. That is to say, the positive argument for reunification is the strengthening of pro-democracy forces in changing China that have rarely, if ever, been mentioned at all by the influential international mass media. Until now, reunification has always been negatively argued as a "sacrifice of democracy".

It seems that the mass media obsession with the above mentioned negative argument could become a self-fulfilling prophecy that would not contribute positively to our efforts in establishing peace in the vital Asia-Pacific region, if not the entire world.

The headlines and gloomy speculations about the bleak future of Hong Kong after reunification -- implying a similar dismal future for "Taiwan reunification" -- cannot but remind us as a part of Southeast Asia of the recent screaming headlines and grisly accounts of Pol Pot's genocidal regime in Cambodia. This was followed by sensationalist headlines and articles about the communist Vietnamese invasion in late 1978 and the Sino- Vietnamese border war in early 1979.

Similarly the practical indifferent attitude of the mass media about the fate of "unimportant" Macao, which will be reunited before the end of this century, cannot but remind Southeast Asians about the lack of interest displayed by the sensation and profit-oriented mass media about the fate of Laos that quietly and unobtrusively slipped into communist orbit.

It seems to us that if the mass media is really concerned about freedom and human rights, then it should not discriminate between the fate of Laos and Cambodia, or between the fate of Hong Kong and Taiwan on one hand and Macao on the other.

The fact that the same attitude is not displayed in the cases mentioned above seems to indicate that there must be other interests masquerading behind freedom and human rights arguments, which are vocally championed by human rights activists and so appealing to the public at large.

In the case of Laos and Cambodia, a profit motive seems to account for the different attitudes. Quiet and uneventful Laos does not increase mass media sales; however sensationalist events surrounding Cambodia is news to the sensationalist-oriented public at large, and boosted tremendously the attraction of mass media.

In the case of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, the powers that control mass media seem to be indifferent towards the fate of Macao, but they are vitally concerned about the fate of economic, military and other interests in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

No wonder practitioners of realpolitik with their realistic (critics call it cynical) outlook on world affairs, unlike the gullible public at large, are not blinded by freedom and human rights arguments, but take it with a grain of salt.

It seems that the reunification of Hong Kong -- followed by that of Taiwan -- will significantly increase the number of Chinese citizens longing and working for more freedom and democracy in fast-changing China.

It seems that the addition of six million plus Hong Kong citizens with their economic clout, followed by 20 million plus Taiwanese with their even bigger economic clout, cannot help but contribute positively to the realization of Deng Xiaoping's and the world's dream of a stable and prosperous China, committed to peace that has, until now, eluded the 20th century.

Seen from a historical perspective, we can perhaps do better than keep on lamenting Hong Kong's reunification as "a sacrifice of democracy", implying the same dismal fate for the reunification of Taiwan, but strangely not for the reunification of Macao.

In a sense, the historical challenge facing Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan could be likened to the historical role of the thousands of students who have benefited from the idealistic exchange programs instituted by the United States after World War II. After having completed their studies, they are expected to go home to share their acquired knowledge with their countrymen and help build a better society, even though quite a number have succumbed to the temptation to stay in America where life is better than at home. I know this from personal experience. After having studied for almost eight years in America and Japan on various American scholarships, I returned home to Indonesia in 1962.

One cannot deny that the reunited people of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, like the thousands of returned exchange students, will have a difficult task in readjusting to and being accepted by their own society. In a sense, they cannot realistically be expected to become fully accepted for becoming different and estranged from their society, but in due time they can become trusted and play a positive role in their society.

Certainly they should not be discouraged by jealousies, rivalries or pettiness that are inherent in any society, but must be able to overcome these and other difficulties. If they can persist, then they may feel the satisfaction of having played a role, no matter how small, in the transformation of their society into a modern and hopefully better one.

If our perception is not completely wrong, then the foremost historical role of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, like that of foreign exchange students, is to elevate their society to a higher level. This should be done, even if it is forgotten in the humdrum daily routine of everyday life, which revolves around one's efforts to satisfy physical, spiritual and material needs, along with the pursuit of money, one's career and status, material wealth and other things.

We should not underestimate the ingenuity, resourcefulness, courage, toughness, dedication and, last but not least, patriotism and willingness of those who sacrifice to bring greater happiness and prosperity to their long suffering compatriots on the mainland. We simply should not fatalistically write off Chinese in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan as "lost to communism" or more exactly, "lost to Deng's socialism with Chinese characteristics".

The negative side of the reunification coin is to simply dismiss reunification as "a sacrifice of democracy to communism/socialism with Chinese characteristics". This attitude seems to be based on the presumed fatalistic concept that communism will prevail. This, however, has been historically refuted by the recent defeat of communism in its homeland: Central and Eastern Europe.

The positive side of the reunification coin is to consider reunification as the strengthening of pro-democracy forces in fast-changing China as set forth in this article. If this assumption is correct, one can wonder whether or not it is the duty of the non-communist world to relay it.

Admittedly, this assumption has not yet been scientifically proven. But in view of the fact that recent history has proven its alternative to be incorrect as stated above, might it not be wiser for the world to give it a chance to prove itself instead of agitating China for the sake of world peace?

In this connection, the decision of the 13th CCP congress to accept the formula "socialism with Chinese characteristics" perhaps deserves more than a passing glance as possibly containing clues to China's future, which is inextricably interwoven with peace in the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large, and the future existence of mankind.

The writer is a senior researcher at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences.

Window A: Even a worse possibility is that China's rigid behavior in Hong Kong's reunification will be exploited by her enemies and critics to postpone, perhaps forever, Taiwan's reunification.

Window B: It seems to us that if the mass media is really concerned about freedom and human rights, then it should not discriminate between the fate of Laos and Cambodia, or between the fate of Hong Kong and Taiwan on one hand and Macao on the other.