Hong Kong 1997-2007

This is an extended version of the roundtable discussion that appeared in TIME magazine. To read the original, click here

How have the past 10 years been for Hong Kong? What is its relationship with the mainland like? What's the city's future? TIME International Editor Michael Elliott, Senior Editor Zoher Abdoolcarim and Reporter Austin Ramzy discussed these issues recently with Hong Kong's former Chief Secretary Anson Chan; construction and property tycoon Sir Gordon Wu; Christine Loh, head of think tank Civic Exchange; barrister (and former solicitor general) Daniel Fung; and Raymond Zhou, Beijing-based editor at large for the China Daily. Highlights of their roundtable conversation.

TIME: In the past 10 years, what has surprised you most?

ANSON CHAN: The very severe economic downturn [sparked by the 1997 Asian financial crisis]. Before the handover, everybody's eyes were directed at how well or not well the political transition would go. Nobody expected difficulties on the economic front. Certainly, in the first few years, from where I sat as Chief Secretary, the political transition went extremely well. Hong Kong wasn't swallowed up by mainland China; the People's Liberation Army wasn't all over the place — it was, and still is, conspicuous by its absence.

GORDON WU: There seems to be a lot of discontent on the political front. In the 1960s and '70s, when Hong Kong people were busy working to foster economic growth, China was doing all the political [stuff]. Today, China has settled down and really become very busy with economic activities, while here in Hong Kong we're going the other way. It's a fresh cultural revolution here in some quarters.

CHRISTINE LOH: Hong Kong has gone into a process of not being quite sure how to attach itself to the mainland, and, at the same time, how to stay connected to the rest of the world. There is this ambivalence about who we are and what we are. Many of us have transited from being British to being Chinese. Nevertheless, perhaps Beijing and [some] Hong Kong people have the attitude that we're not quite sure about the loyalty of Hong Kong people and so on. That bit made it more difficult for us to be a part of China. But at the same time we're part of the world. I think even now, 10 years on, we're still trying to knit these two pieces back together — attachment both to the nation and to the world.

DANIEL FUNG: The resilience of the legal system is a real surprise. Not just the idea that common law would survive the reversion to Chinese sovereignty, but the reinvention, or the birth, of constitutionalism. As a British colony for 156 years, we never had a written constitution; both the Chinese and British governments deserve to be congratulated for writing the Joint Declaration, which recognizes that the provisions of that international treaty should be reduced to domestic, enforceable, constitutional terms [in the form of] the Basic Law. Now, post-97, our courts, using a common-law system, are able to [interpret] that written constitution and make it living law. Today, the body of Hong Kong constitutional jurisprudence is looked at worldwide in the common-law world as a precedent to be followed. That is something amazing. That is a miracle. Nobody expected that. Nobody expected that once Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty we would have a constitutional reinvention. That is an amazing achievement.

RAYMOND ZHOU: The biggest difference in the past decade is a stronger sense of national identity. A decade ago when I was first in Hong Kong and spoke Mandarin, it would elicit a certain kind of response. My friends would strongly advise me not to speak Mandarin. Nowadays I can speak anything: English, Mandarin or my not-even-passable Cantonese and I get [an equal] reaction [each time]. And it's genuine. I'm treated like an equal. I feel that I'm very comfortable here.

TIME: Is the idea of Hong Kong's relationship to China, of Hong Kong's identity, settled then?

CHAN: This acceptance of being Chinese has never been an issue. Even under British rule, I regarded myself as a Chinese and nothing else. The question really is: What are the defining qualities of being Chinese? What are the core values that you espouse? In certain ways — people speaking Putonghua, the increasing trust in the central government — is a very natural process. If you asked me on the eve of the handover whether this would happen, I would have said: most definitely. The question is how fast this process takes. It's just that in Hong Kong we have a particular problem in that we have a group of what I describe as disillusioned people who before the handover regarded themselves as loyal supporters of the Communist cause. And this group has not had the reward and recognition that they think they deserved after 1997. To some extent we continue to have a problem with this group, and with the overall question of identity. It's something where we should allow time to take its course.

WU: It's not only this group of pro-Communists; there's also another one that is very vocal and doesn't even want to respect the Basic Law. The Basic Law is our mini-constitution. Whether we like it or not, we must respect it and follow it. Actually, if you analyze the Basic Law, it's not bad for Hong Kong; we don't have to pay taxes to Beijing, we don't have to pick up the defense expenses. The Basic Law says that Hong Kong is going to be a capitalistic system. It lays out the groundwork on how Hong Kong is going to be governed. Obviously one day I'd like to see universal suffrage [full democracy], but I don't want to see it tomorrow.

LOH: The Basic Law does allow evolution. This point that Sir Gordon has made about whether we respect the Basic Law or not, there are different view as to what respect means. Calling for an amendment to the Basic Law so we can move certain constitutional evolutionary steps through, that's okay. That's also what's discussed on the mainland. We have essentially adopted a structure that was billed as highly successful back in the 1970s and '80s — no democracy, strong government. Does it still work today? Can you make it work in the next 10, 20 years? I have my doubts. Structurally, we have entrenched business interests into the political process to choose both the Chief Executive and the legislature. As we go forward, we really need to adjust that. Sir Gordon and I probably have a difference of view on that. If we're talking about how fast, okay, we can talk about that. If we're talking about structurally, whether we want to embed business interests as lobbyists sitting in the legislature, I must say I have my doubts. This is one of those features that ordinary Hong Kong people feel is an element that makes for unfair policies.

FUNG: It's really a matter of defining what is Hong Kong's role vis-à-vis China. Is Hong Kong's role in the 21st century purely that of capital formation for mainland state enterprises, which is a very important role indeed, or is there some other role we can play? Is Hong Kong to be an intellectual decompression chamber between China and the outside world? That is a role that many have mooted, including myself, both before and post '97. In that adjustment we face many challenges, challenges not just on the Hong Kong side, challenges on the mainland side too. And therefore, not surprisingly, you get the growing pains of that particular relationship. It will take a long time. Every society evolves, no society ossifies.