Essay: Relationship between Hong Kong and China

The relationship between Hong Kong and China is in progress. It has its own background through the special circumstances which are dominating this relationship. Especially, since the handover of Hong Kong, as a former British colony, back to China (1997) (Scott, 2000).
China was defeated by the British in two wars in the 19th century which consequently led to three contracts (Treaty of Nanking, the Convention of Beijing and the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong). Those ceded Hong Kong Island and Tsiam Sha Tsui to the British and the “New Territories were leased from Britain for 99 years (Wanglai, 2009).
In 1997 the time of waiting was over for China, 93% of the territory would pass back to China. Other advantages for China was there military strength and the capacity to cut off essential supplies (Thatcher, 1997).
From the beginning the British seems to be on the weaker side. The Sino- British negotiations about the conditions and necessities for the handover were agreed on from the Chinese and the British side with the exclusion of Hong Kong representative in the Joint Declaration of 1984 (Wanglai, 2009).
One advantage for the British was the wish of China to use Hong Kong as an example for the system of “one country two systems” for convincing Taiwan of this possibility. Taiwan rejected the offer of “one country two systems”. This system means that in only one China the regions could keep their own economic and political system while China keeps its own different more socialist system. It would be possible for the region to deal with its own legal, economic and financial affairs including external relations with other countries (Lam, 2000).
Another advantage was the interest of the Chinese side in having a handover without a bigger scale of confusion in Hong Kong, but if necessary they would use their military force as the last option.
The British goal at the beginning was to exchange sovereignty of Hong Kong against continued British administration of the entire Colony. Their argument was that without British administration investors would have no trust in the future of Hong Kong as a good location for investment (Scott, 2000).
China was not convinced by that argument, they wanted no change at all, and keeping the British system the Governor should only be made to a Chief Executive appointed by Beijing. Under British rule in 1984 there was no democracy in Hong Kong and China did not want to change it. Unlike Britain, they made the suggestion for directly elected members of the Legislative Council. Therefore that it was not possible for Britain to administrate on the side of China they wanted to have concessions from China for safeguarding Hong Kong after the handover. Through the good relationship between the British and the Chinese foreign ministers and the promise of the British to give back the remaining 7% of the land which was relinquish by Britain. It was possible to find a compromise in the system of “one country two systems” (the people’s rights and freedom and an own legal and parliamentary system) for the following fifty years also up to 2047 (Wanglai, 2009) (Thatcher, 1997).
This last point, introduced by the British side was not convincing for China. Especially the parliamentary system and the associated universal suffrage is not implemented. The Chinese government tries to do what they wanted from the beginning, just to replace the governor through an appointed chief executive, controlled by the central government. The main goal of China was to maintain prosperity and stability in Hong Kong. The Basic Law under Chinese rule established power in the hands of the chief executive, a weak and undemocratically elected legislature and the China’s National People’s Congress has influence of the appointment of the chief executive and all senior public servants (Scott, 2000).
The existing system of “appointment/election” for the Legislative Council in which functional constituencies had small electorates based on interest groups from business, financial and professional sectors protected their privileged status in Hong Kong. Like the Chinese government most business leaders were against a directly elected Legislative Council. The Hong Kong population on the other hand was clearly for a democratic process. In 1992 the last British Governor was taking office. He (Patten) introduced political changes: rule of law, fair elections, free press and political accountability (Wanglai, 2009). In the election of 1995 the democrats won 16 of 20 directly elected seats and 61% of the vote. They mainly focused on a wholly directly elected Legislative Council, it was clear for them that they would not get access to the more powerful Executive Council in the near future. The democrats were also able to win 1998 under a proportional representation which was unfavourable for them to win 14 of 20 directly elected seats and around 57% of the popular vote (Scott, 2000).
The British beginnings of implementing democracy at the end of their dominion was absorbed by the Hong Kong population, the majority wanted democracy. This was opposed by the Chinese government which was not ready to give up its control, its influence over the Hong Kong government. Two opposed camps are facing each other about the future of Hong Kong.
Additionally, the situation worsened through the financial crisis. In 1998, the unemployment rate rises up to 6.3%, an eighteen- year high. A reason for fear without a well-developed social security system.
Since 1997 the Chinese government have the authority to interpret the Basic Law. In common the Chinese government changed the institutions of the Hong Kong government to their own advantage. Chinas government appointed its own Legislative Council, made it clear whom they wanted to serve as chief executive and the electoral system has to favour conservative and pro- Chinese government people.
The fear of China to use Hong Kong as a possibility to subversion against China (Lam p.225)
The politic of China was not unanswered. More than half a million people protested against the legislation of Article 23 in 2003. This article prohibits any action which is directed against the Chinese government (e.g. treason, secession, sedition or subversion). Additionally are foreign political organisations or bodies of the Region with connections with foreign political organisations or bodies are also prohibited.
The main concerns of this article were:
• The possibility of banning organisations by the Central government at any time.
• Country and government are seen as identical, which makes it a treason (against the country) to be against the government.
• People can be arrested by the police at any time without warrants or evidence.
• Any instigative speech or expression is illegal. Additionally, it is seen as a criminal act to hear such a speech and not to report it.
After the protesting the ally of the chief executive the Liberal Party defected. The pro-democracy supporter were not only for stopping this article but also for electing through universal suffrage the chief executive and the Legislative Council. Their wishes were again confirmed by the population in 2003 by the District Council elections and 2004 with the Legislative Council elections.
This protesting was one example for China to see Hong Kong as political inconsistent. But the Chinese government saw structural problems in the economy of Hong Kong. The main issues were:
• Further development of Hong Kong role as a financial, shipping and trading centre.
• Improvement of services and a better cooperation with the province Guangdong.
• Promotion of education and improvement of the people’s livelihood.
• A gradual development of a democratic political system.
Especially to the last point had the Chinese government a clearer concept:
• The Chinese government wants influencing and directing Hong Kong’s political development.
• They want to implement control mechanisms in Hong Kong’s governance.
• Trying to divide the pro- democratic forces through the suggestion of compromises.
• Expanding the network supporting the Chinese government.
Beijing can influence the politics of Hong Kong through its influence of the chief executive. The election of the chief executive is regulated through article 48 of the Basic Law. The article says that the chief executive shall be selected by elections or through consultations held locally and appointed by the Central government in Beijing. The selection shall work through a nominating committee elected by a “broadly representative” which means only certain groups of the registered voters are allowed to vote. But the Chines government has other possibilities influencing Hong Kong’s governance e.g. in 2003 has the Chinese government withdrawn its support for the chief executive (Tung) after the protests. The chief executive was criticized in 2004 and stepped down 2005. Another point is the influence on the political discourse through political parties, interest groups or other individuals through: patronage, political honour and business opportunities. In addition to its power of appointing the chief executive and principal officials the Chinese government uses its political network in the executive and legislative branches of the Hong Kong government. Hong Kong profits from the economic support from China through e.g. The relaxing inflow of Mainland tourists to Hong Kong, improving the possibilities to do more Renminbi business. China influences the elections through letting their wishes known on the elections to the chief executive in 2002, 2005 and 2007. In 2004, Beijing was also behind the coordination of pro-Beijing groups in the Legislative Council elections.
The wishes of democratisation, the change of the “executive-led” system are increasing through the problems created by the political appointment system in 2002 and the weak behaviour of chief executive Tung. The reaction of Beijing was an interpretation of the Basic Law which says in their view that any changes in the selection method of the chief executive and the Legislative Council must be supported by a two-thirds majority in the legislature.
In 2007 was the possibility of universal suffrage of the chief executive and the Legislative Council rejected for 2012. For 2017, the prospect of election through universal suffrage of the chief executive and for 2020 of the Legislative Council. This was the first time that Beijing agreed to a timetable for universal suffrage. But still the Chinese approval is needed for future constitutional reforms and it is still not 2017.
The pro- democratic camp wanted at least to get rid of the functional constituencies in the election of the Legislative Council in 2012. Functional constituencies is used for electing half of the Legislative Council member. Only with a membership or registration in a recognized social, economic, industrial, commercial, political advisory, professional body or sector it is possible to exercise the right of voting. Therefore only a small percentage of the population has the right to vote. This system is seen as undemocratic. On 01 January the “March for Democracy” was organized. This was seen from the Beijing perspective as a treat, the trying of the disruption of the political design of the Basic Law. The pro- Beijing people formed in December 2009 “the Alliance for Constitutional Development”.
In January 2010, five democrats, one from each of the geographical constituency, forced a territory wide by- election through their resigning in which every Hong Kong citizen could participate. Referendums are not designated in the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Through the returning of the five legislators to the Legislative Council it was clear that their manifest for real political reform in Hong Kong and the abolition of functional constituencies was supported by the population of Hong Kong. In comparison to functional constituencies is in a geographical constituency every eligible voter in the constituency called upon to vote. The pro- Beijing groups boycotted the by-elections with the goal to avoid too much media presence and public discourse of political reform. A compromise was found in the proposal of “one person two vote”. Through this proposal 3.2 million voters who had only a vote in the geographical constituency will get in addition a vote on five new seats in the Functional constituency’s seats in the Legislative Council.
It seems the Chinese government felt pressure through these reaction to its politics and saw the need of clarifying its political message in a document, the white paper with the title: “The Practice of the “One Country, Two Systems’ Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administration Region.”(June 2014) In the paper Beijing summarizes its already known views on Hong Kong politics. The white paper makes clear that China’s government has comprehensive jurisdiction over all local administrative regions including Hong Kong. The autonomous power of Hong Kong was given by the central government. Therefore this power is not compatible with full autonomy or decentralisation. Furthermore stays the power to interpret and amend the Basic Law with the National People Congress and its Standing Committee (consisting of the leadership of the communist party of China). They made it clear that the chief executive to be elected by universal suffrage must be a person who loves the country and Hong Kong. It is questionable what with this love is meant, a strict vow of obedience or the usual pledge of allegiance to the national government.
Especially the phrase that the candidates for the election to chief executive have to love the country and Hong Kong and the connected Institutional safeguard mechanisms which shall secure the love brought the people to protest. For the election of the Chief Executive election, the Election Committee with its 1200 members are nominating the candidates for the chief executive. After the election the elected candidate has to be appointed by the Central People’s Government (Chinese government). This suggestion was not acceptable by many Hong Kong people. As an answer of these weak promises of “universal suffrage” an initiated campaign of civil disobedience was formed out of which accrued the Occupy Central with Love and Peace. Their goal was to pressure the Chinese government into a democratic universal suffrage for the election of the chief executive in 2017. For enforcing their claims they used civil disobedience means, the non-violent occupation of Central. After the rejection by the Chinese government of a civic referendum on the voting system organised by the Occupy Central the protests were inevitable. They affiliated to the week-long class boycott organised by Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism. At the 28th September 2014, for dispersing the protest in Central the police used tear gas, pepper spray and batons. The protester and the general public were frustrated by the violence, it motivated thousands more to participate. The continuing protests of the students led to civil disobedience and the occupy movement, spreading to several areas of Hong Kong. These evolving Hong Kong protests expanded, e.g. the Victoria Harbour were occupied by pro-democracy protesters. The Occupy Central saw themselves as a supporter of that movement. On 29th September the police was withdrawn and the regions were occupied by protesters with the consequences of massive traffic disruptions. This unexpected scale of demonstration made this movement to a non-centralised and self-managed movement, the Umbrella movement. The Hong Kong protests ended on 15th December 2014. On 3rd December three speakers of the Occupy movement along with others turned themselves to the police in the expectation of getting arrested. But they were set free, but concerned of the safety of the protesters because of police’s escalation of force. They requested the protesters to change the movement into a community campaign. At the beginning protests went on with less people, but after the police set a deadline on 11th December, which was ignored by 209 protester, including several pan-democratic legislators and members of the HKFS and Scholarism, were arrested. On 15th December, police cleared protesters and their camps at Causeway Bay with essentially no resistance, bringing the protests to an end.
Furthermore the influence of China on Hong Kong is growing through its economic development. China as the largest external investor contributes about 36% of total investment. Chinese companies are the main players in Hong Kong’s stock market. The greatest trading partner for China was Hong Kong in 2010. 592 Chines companies (57% market capitalization and 65% of turnover) were listed on Hong Kong’s stock exchange. Hong Kong is for China, one of the largest investor and trading partner. Especially since 2003, China is increasing its influence on Hong Kong, e.g. intensifying its supervision and guidance of Hong Kong affairs and its work with influential people in the area of politic, business, and the community, and supporting the economy. The economic integration between China and Hong Kong is growing through the economic dependency of Hong Kong on China. This may restrain Hong Kong’s autonomy in the future.
Hong Kong endorsed a closer economic cooperation with China combined with Chinas growing political influence may suggest Hong Kong will exchange wider influence against its autonomy.
China has been concentrating much on convincing the pro-Beijing, business, and professional elites. Hong Kong profited from this Chinese influence, but there are also people resisting the integration with China. Many developments since 2003 are seen as a negative by many people, such as the inflow of tourist from China, e.g. in many universities Chinese students taking up places and scholarships.
The social and economic integration of the two areas (Hong Kong and China) offers possibilities, but Hong Kong has no clear program to deal with the chances and challenges. The challenge for Hong Kong and China is to maintain for Hong Kong under status of “one country and two systems” with the relatively high autonomy. As seen on the discussion of universal suffrage it is the tactic of China to delay and weaken the own promises as much as possible through added conditions (e.g. that the chief executive has to love China and the city). This led to stronger reactions of people, they are not ready anymore to accept these empty promises. More confrontational tactics are used by the people for pressuring Beijing to implement universal suffrage in Hong Kong. This will also happen in the future, the two different valuations (China more on one country and Hong Kong more on two systems) will led to more and even more violate conflicts. Through the increasing influence of China into the politics of Hong Kong the institutions, electoral system, and the feeling of the people of not being represented at all the protests on the street will increase. It is possible to see the impact of the Chinese influence on political parties which are weak and divided their development is hindered through a variety of factors one of them, the Chinese anti-democracy stance. The Chief executive as the most powerful politician in Hong Kong has to be non-partisan and most executive positions are not open for electoral competition. Parties have own problems e.g. with their succession. Through this fixation of the parties on their own internal problems, many citizen are disappointed and avert from the parties. The power of legislation is restricted and many people may see it as useless to join or to engage in politics for changing or improving the given situation to more democracy. This given situation excludes the groups with the greatest majority public opinion support from the governing majority. These groups will give pressure for electoral and political reform for years to come. Different groups opposing the Chinese interpretation of “one country, two systems” e.g. localism, will increase to favour the autonomy or even separation from China but it is foreseeable that, at least in the nearer future they need to be satisfied with compromises. Against the wishes of China, autonomy or separation is not possible.
One possibility for strengthen democracy in Hong Kong and weaken the Chinese influence would be through strengthening the Legislative Council. The Chinese government tries to concentrate mainly the power of the Hong Kong government in the Executive Council, in the chief executive. Therefore China tries primarily to be in control over the Executive Council and especially the chief executive. For decreasing the influence of China it would be a step forward to increase the power of the Legislative Council.
1. Amending Article 74 which prohibits any private member bills without the approval of the chief executive (rarely given).
2. For supporting the Legislative Council the reforming of the committee and panel system is necessary.
3. Improving the staff support to the members of the Legislative Council.
With these changings the Legislative Council should be able to better fulfil its work. But it is questionable if it is possible to do that against the will of the Chinese government.
The civil service is one other important governing institution in Hong Kong. Through the reforms implemented from the Chinese government their power is challenged. In the British era Hong Kong was a bureaucrat-dominated system in which civil servants did the best policies, based on their own judgement without external pressure. This power has been threatened since the handover e.g. through the System of Accountability for Principal Officials and reforms of the public sector and the civil service. The goal of these reforms were the shift of power, increasing power of not popularly elected politicians on the costs of bureaucrats. This shows the influence of Beijing on Hong Kong’s politic and their long planed influence. In addition it is clear for Beijing to see the future of Hong Kong as an important economic city but as much as possible under Chinese rule or influence.
Through the handover Hong Kong became a more Chines city but Hong Kong should not forget its standing as an international city and as a “bridge” between East and West. Hong Kong has the difficult task of becoming a great Chinese city and develop its status as an international city. Hong Kong is seen as an international economic, tourism and communication centre in Asia, through the allotment to China some worry that Hong Kong is losing its international character. One reason for that worries is the more interventionist Chinese leadership. Hong Kong elites failed safeguarding the autonomy and institutions of Hong Kong. Inhabitants and foreign investors were alarmed by this failure of the elites. This will negatively affect the reputation of Hong Kong as an international financial city.
Additionally it is also important how the relationship of the people of China and Hong Kong will develop in the future, this is influenced by politics and the strong efforts of China to strengthen the socio-economic ties with Hong Kong. Examples of this development are the Individual Visit Scheme (began 28th July 2003) which allows travellers from China to visit Hong Kong on an individual basis, unlike before Chinese people had only the possibility to visit Hong Kong on business visas or in group tours. This opened the possibility of Chinese mothers to give birth in Hong Kong. From 2003 to 2012 the number of so called anchor babies was increasing. Their children had the right to abode and to the social welfare system. Hong Kong citizens disagreed with these possibilities of Chinese people. They argue that this puts higher costs on the social welfare and medical system. This stopped mainly with the announcement of chief executive Leung who declared that Chinese mothers are not allowed anymore to give birth in Hong Kong. Those who still do may not be able to get the right of abode for their offspring.
Another example shows the increasing interest of China to tighten the relationship of Chinese and Hong Kong peoples. The Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Link connects Beijing, Hong Kong via Guangzhou and Shenzhen, it shall be complete by 2018.
This short examples shows that the relationship between the people of China and Hong Kong is not perfect. Many individuals of Hong Kong are anxious of social and economic decline and that China might try to influence their politics and economy even further. Chinese people are therefore seen with mistrust. Chinese people on the other hand see the advantages in Hong Kong and want to use them. The exchanges between China and Hong Kong is promoted by China and as a counter movement localism is in rise. The extreme parts of the movement wants to be autonomous from China. It is possible that through the behaviour of China to tighten the relationship between the Chinese and Hong Kong people these movements and feelings grow.
Through the different interpretation of “one country two systems” it is hard to find a compromise between China and the Hong Kong people. China has a growing influence in the government of Hong Kong and it is foreseeable that this will grow, maybe China will put more pressure on Hong Kong politics the nearer the end of the 50 years, of the promised time of change towards more democracy comes. At least within this time China is ready to compromises although not for giving up control. It is hard to combine a way to democracy (two systems) from the side of the Hong Kong people with the wish of control from the Chinese side (one country). This completely different views are influencing not only the politics but the economy and the relationship between the people of Hong Kong and China. It will be very interesting to see how it will go on. How strong and how successful the people of Hong Kong are to get through their wishes and how far the Chinese government will go with their compromises.