IN HONG KONG DURING THE STRUGGLE Dr C.V ANANDA BOSE

 

9. IN HONG KONG DURING THE STRUGGLE

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was once asked: ‘Which is the best form of government?’

After thinking for a while, Churchill asked a counter-question: ‘For which country?’ Each country has a system of government that is suited to it. It is generally said that the people get the government they deserve. For English poet Alexander Pope the best form of government is the one that administers best.

For forms of government let fools contest;

Whate'er is best administer'd is best:

The worst form of government, no doubt, is democracy. But there is no system of government better than that.

During a visit to Hong Kong, saw a huge demonstration in the street participated by about half a million people. The streets were pregnant with a new found vigour. ‘Give us democracy,’ the people chanted. And the whole world was watching the developments with bated breath.

It was in 1997 that Britain handed over Hong Kong to China. The people of Hong Kong who till then enjoyed the fruits of democratic freedom, were apprehensive whether the communist style of government on the mainland would encroach upon their personal freedom.

In China the days of change had already started. The Chinese leadership decided to turn the specialities of Hong Kong to their favour. They appointed Tung Chee Hwa as the Chief Executive and President of the Executive Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Step by step, the political leadership on the mainland tried to consolidate its hold over Hong Kong. With this the embers of unrest that were so far enveloped in ashes started to burn with renewed vigour.

 

Martin Lee Chu Ming, a member of the legislature and a spokesman of democracy, explained the arguments of the pro-democracy sections thus: The joint declaration made by Britain and China on December 19,1984 had stipulated the conditions under which Britain was handing over the soverignty of Hong Kong to China. The most important of these conditions was that the freedom and life style of the people of Hong Kong would continmue for the next fifty years without any change brought in by China. . An elected legislature was also promised for Hong Kong. These assurances have to be implemented in letter and spirit. ‘Our aim is not to gain freedom from China. But we want effective autonomy. ’

The formula pursued by the pro-democracy sections was ‘One country. Two systems. ’ That is, while remaining under the sovereignty of China, Hong Kong would continue to have its own system of administration. What the people of Hong Kong wanted was a Chief Executive elected by the people under universal adult suffrage and an elected legislative council. A study conducted by the Chinese University in Hong Kong showed that a majority of the people of Hong Kong wanted direct election to elect the Chief Executive and the legislative council. Deng Xiao Ping had once said that only patriots loving the motherland would be allowed to rule. The anxiety of the pro-democracy sections was whether in the light of such a statement their patriotism would be called to question. However, these sections were relieved to some extent when Chinese primier Hu said democracy was humanity’s common path and that all countries were committed to safeguard people’s rights.

Believers in democracy the world over were in confusion. Like the question “Can anything good come from Nazareth”, their anxiety was whether democracy can be expected from China. It is not yet time to forget the murder of democracy in Tiananmen Square.

Tiananmen square means gate of heavenly peace. When pro-democracy student protesters assembled there in 1989, the Chinese military chose to crush it, killing as many as 1,000 of them in a blatant massacre. Another 1,000 odd protesters were seriously injured in the military action. What was the wrong committed by them? All they said was they wanted democracy. Though initially the leadership had said army would not be used, on June 3 about ten thousand soldiers descended on the square with daggers and sticks. The students faced them with fortitude and the brute force of the army genuflected before their determination. Then came the army tanks and machine guns. Though the people, including mothers and children, tried to block the onward movement of the tanks by putting cars and other vehicles across the roads, this was of no avail. With whatever they could lay their hands on, including stones and bottles, the students challenged the army and attacked it, taking inspiration from the statue of the angel of democracy they had put up in the square. But at the gate of heavenly peace, democracy did fall down dead.

For whom does the bell toll in Hong Kong? For freedom and democracy or for consolidating the hegemony of autocracy? Would the shadows of the past fall on the future?We see history at a crossroads. The thinking of the leadership in Beijing appears to be like what the poet said: ‘Light means grief, child, it is darkness that is pleasant. ’

There was a king in the forests, a fierce looking lion. It used to hunt down any animal it came across. Once the other animals asked him whether there couldn’t be a little bit of democracy. He could kill, but only to satisfy his hunger. After having his fill, could they have the left overs? The lion agreed. After killing a big deer, the lion divided it into three pieces and called the other animals. Let the sharing be democratic, he said and claimed the first piece as his entitlement as the king. He then took the second piece saying it belonged to him as the hunter. Pointing to the third piece, he said it was for the subjects. ‘Whoever among you has the courage can come forward and take it. ’

When Hong Kong went in for sharing of democracy, I was reminded of this story of jungle justice. Let us wait and see.