Beijing's reminder of control | SCMP

When President Hu Jintao expressed serious concern over the political development of Hong Kong to Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa during a duty visit in Beijing on December 3, many people here took the head of state's comments lightly - including perhaps Mr Tung and his top aides. Mr Hu's words sounded like political rhetoric, they thought.

But hours after Mr Tung returned home on the following day, the official Xinhua news agency dropped a political bombshell. In a despatch issued late that evening, four leading mainland legal experts laid down five principles on the development of Hong Kong's political system. Its message was clear and blunt: Beijing has the final say.

At about the same time, Mr Tung received a formal note issued by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) stating the stance of the central government on political reform. Mr Tung was told: "The central government hopes that Tung and the SAR government will conduct thorough consultations with relevant departments under the central government before making detailed arrangements."

The unpublicised correspondence was revealed by the HKMAO in a surprise statement about 20 minutes after the chief executive finished his speech at the Legislative Council on January 7. In his address, he announced the formation of a top-level taskforce headed by Chief Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen to forge formal talks with Beijing officials on the issue of political reform.

Grilled by reporters, Mr Tung and Mr Tsang have refused to give a timetable, but pledged to talk to mainland officials as soon as possible. Nor did they elaborate on what "matters of principles and law" in the Basic Law needed to be clarified with Beijing. On Saturday, Mr Tsang said they had written to the HKMAO to arrange a meeting.

If Hong Kong people had expected a small step to kick-start the political review in the policy address, they were confused and surprised by the sharp turn of the events. In a nutshell, the Tung administration has put a brake, if not back-pedalled, on the reform drive in the face of Beijing's demand.

One month after Mr Hu spoke, the central government has moved to gain full control of the political review. In many senses, the role and power of the Tung administration in leading the reform debate has been significantly <243>undercut.

City University of Hong Kong political scientist, Joseph Cheng Yu-shek, who is also a leading advocate for full democracy, said: "The writing is on the wall. Beijing is keen to assert its power and authority in framing the political reform . . . Clearly, Beijing is very worried that the situation in Hong Kong will get out of control.

"Over the past two weeks, some friends close to the central government have already cautioned against high expectations in the next chief executive election. To Beijing, Hong Kong people have a democracy fever and need to cool off."

A senior official added: "To Beijing, the situation has become intolerable. Rumour was rife that the option of removing Mr Tung had been floated. Now that they do not want to do so, they apparently decided to handle the political reform issue on their own."

The change of tack for Beijing is hardly indiscernible. Events since the July 1 rally showed the political crisis engulfing the Tung administration was far from over, despite the return of feel-good sentiments about the economy.

The shock defeat of the pro-Beijing flagship Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong in the November district council elections deepened fears that Legco would fall in the hands of the pan-democratic camp if it won a majority of 31 seats in the next election.

On January 1, 100,000 people joined the New Year rally. Although smaller than the half-million-strong march on July 1, the turnout on New Year's Day was much higher than expected. More importantly, the crowd gave a clearer and stronger message: democracy.

The rising public expectation for electing the next chief executive and Legco by universal suffrage by 2007 and 2008 respectively has been in sharp contrast with the mood in Beijing. One of the four mainland legal experts, Xu Chongde, who has reflected the views of Beijing, was adamant Hong Kong should focus on the economy - not politics. He argued Hong Kong had done fine in the past six years and therefore there was no need for drastic changes. The Basic Law has provided a set of mechanisms for electoral changes to the political system if "there is a need" to do so and stipulated that any changes should be made in accordance with the principles of an "orderly and gradual" process and "practical conditions" of Hong Kong.

By defining the political reform issue as one that hinged upon the "one country" principle and the central-SAR relationship, analysts believe the Beijing leadership has clearly no appetite for major changes by 2007 and 2008 because it does not see the need. Nor does Beijing consider full universal suffrage by 2007 as consistent with the gradualist approach.

Speaking on the basis of anonymity, a prominent businessman close to Mr Tung said the pro-democracy camp has held out false hopes in the leadership of President Hu and Premier Wen Jiabao for faster democracy.

He said the communist leadership looked at the issue of political reform in Hong Kong from a broader perspective and overall national interest.

"What if Guangdong wants to elect its governor by universal suffrage? How about Xinjiang? These senior-ranking officials read reports in the foreign press saying people hope a democratic Hong Kong will bring democracy on the mainland. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. They really believe there is a plot to overthrow the communist regime.

"I'm very pessimistic. A clash between the central government and Hong Kong people looks imminent."

He said the Beijing leadership would have to evaluate whether Hong Kong was indispensable if its democratic change posed a threat to the communist leadership.

"Ten years ago, I think they would have found Hong Kong indispensable. Now, I'm inclined to say Hong Kong is dispensable."

The businessman argued foreign firms could now move directly into the mainland without going through Hong Kong. The showcase effect of Hong Kong had become irrelevant in the case of Taiwan, he said, adding Taiwan people simply did not buy the idea of "one country, two systems".

A Tung cabinet member said: "Every step we take on the issue of political reform will have a profound impact on unification and political development on the mainland.

"Personally, I'm not afraid of democracy. Hong Kong people understand well and learned about democracy quickly over the past 13 years. But we can't take the `democracy in one step' approach. The former Soviet Union learned a painful lesson. None of its former republics has done well," he said.

A local deputy of the National People's Congress, Allen Lee Peng-fei, said Beijing did not want to repeat the blunders the SAR government made in its handling of the national security bill. "If they let the Tung team handle the political reform issue, they know it's going to be a disaster," he said. "Now that Beijing has decided to direct the process, Mr Tung has no choice but to become a puppet."

Mr Lee said there would be little progress on the issue of political reform before the Legco elections. "They will only consider making a compromise with the democratic camp if the latter manages to get a majority of 31 seats in the next Legco," he said.

Mr Lee said the pan-democratic camp was likely to win more seats in the next elections, but would refrain from confronting Beijing.

The businessman close to Mr Tung said Beijing was likely to insist it was a matter for them to decide whether "there is a need" to review the political structure under the Basic Law.

"I don't think there will be even a review," he said. "Hong Kong people are pragmatic. They won't take to the streets to confront the central leadership. They will put the blame on Tung, the government and Liaison Office. And when there is an election, they will vote for anyone who opposes Tung and the central government.

"It looks quite likely that the pro-democracy force will get a majority of 31 votes. They will then use their power of veto of the Budget to bring the government to its knees. It will become ungovernable. What will Beijing do? I wish I knew the answer."

Professor Cheng said a frank consensus on a more moderate electoral option might have been the best scenario.

"People will feel more frustrated if Beijing forces a decision upon us," he said. "There will be a severe political shock. Without legitimacy, the government will find its hands tied when trying to introduce unpopular policies. How can it implement cost-cutting and revenue-raising measures or re-prioritise services?"

The senior official said: "The government has become a lame duck. I wonder how long this situation can be sustained. I have a feeling that some major changes will happen."