Marching in Place

Article Tools

The demonstration this week in Hong Kong by tens of thousands of citizens marking the sixth anniversary of reversion to Chinese rule is aimed at the imminent enactment of the anti-subversion law Article 23. Yet concern over that dubious piece of legislation only partially explains the mass gathering at Victoria Park and subsequent protest march to the city's Central Government Offices. Hong Kong's normally apolitical masses are also deeply frustrated over their sliding economic fortunes and civil liberties since Beijing appointed unpopular Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa to baby-sit Hong Kong.

Related Articles

It comes as no surprise that the relationship between the professional classes of the supposedly autonomous Special Administrative Region and the handpicked mandarins who govern them is in this parlous state. Beijing's high-handed manner—and the supine appeasement with which the Hong Kong government generally greets its pronouncements—has left many feeling voiceless over the past six years.

LATEST COVER STORY
Southeast Asia: Tigers No More?
 Singapore: Lion in Winter
 Economy: Facing Up to China
July 7, 2003 Issue
 

ASIA
 Viewpoint: The Real Hu Jintao


ARTS
 Movies: Bloody Battle Royale II
 Books: Explosive Bunker 13
 Q&A: Aniruddha Bahal


NOTEBOOK
 Hong Kong: Resistance is Futile
 South Asia: New Friends
 Japan: Saving the Whales
 China: Outbreak, the Sequel
 Milestones
 Verbatim


TRAVEL
 Australia's A-List Destination


CNN.com: Top Headlines
A slow erosion of freedom was to be expected—the 1997 handover of a mercantile oligarchy to an authoritarian regime never looked promising for civil liberties. What is noteworthy is the way Article 23's opponents have been so gruffly shrugged off by an administration that appears intent on extending Beijing's control. This time, the cream of Hong Kong's chattering classes have been alienated by the maladroit way in which their criticisms have been handled. Bankers, lawyers, senior business figures, religious leaders, academics and teachers fear the legislation will give leadership the legal tools it needs to suppress dissent in Hong Kong as ruthlessly as it does on the mainland. Meanwhile, foreigners voicing concern, including the U.S. government and the European Union, have been portrayed by the Hong Kong government as misinformed dupes of local democrats. At a time when Tung badly needs to reassure the international community on a number of fronts—economic and epidemiological as well as political—this is an appalling gaffe.

Nobody is pretending that the July 1 gathering, no matter how large or loud, will be anything other than an act of quixotic futility—and there lies the problem. Preoccupied with pocketbook issues, Hong Kong's working class has never wholly believed in political change through either ballot box or protest. But the possibility of effecting political change has been held out to white-collar types. It has been, they are discovering, an illusory promise all along.

"How many protestors would it take to make you listen?" independent legislator Margaret Ng asked the Chief Executive during a recent debate. The question was rhetorical, for Tung, as is now clear, feels primarily answerable to Beijing. He described "national security" as a "divine duty ... [for] our race."

Race? If Tung believes that Article 23 is a matter for the greater Chinese race, that bodes poorly for the mere political concept of "one country, two systems." The July 1 march, therefore, may be remembered not as a rally but as a farewell to an idea that never really took hold, and increasingly looks like it never will.

QUOTES OF THE DAY

Open quoteTell the governor he just lost my vote.Close quote

  • CHRISTOPHER EMMETT,
  • right before his death by lethal injection. Emmett argued that Virginia's execution methods were unconstitutional and Gov. Tim Kaine declined to intervene