Marching in Place

• Share

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.

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 Past Issues Kim Jong Il June 30, 2003 ----------------- Harry Potter June 23, 2003 ----------------- Arthritis June 16, 2003 ----------------- Narco Korea June 9, 2003 ----------------- Nature vs. Nurture June 2, 2003 ----------------- Endless War? May 26, 2003 ----------------- The Democrats May 19, 2003 ----------------- Inside The Matrix May 12, 2003 ----------------- China: SARS Nation May 5, 2003 ----------------- Asian Heroes Apr. 28, 2003   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.