The Hong Kong Handover HangoverTen years on, the natives are restless.
Posted Friday, June 29, 2007, at 12:11 PM ET
In Hong Kong, there are almost as many different names for the 10th anniversary of the city's handover to China as there are ways to commemorate the July 1 occasion. Loyal members of the People's National Congress, and of the DAB, the Chinese Communist Party's proxy in Hong Kong, prefer the retro-Maoist: "Celebration of the 10th Anniversary of Hong Kong's Return to the (Glorious) Motherland." The Hong Kong government spins it with the bureaucratic élan you'd expect from an ex-British civil service: "Celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the Establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region."
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponHong Kong's famously practical citizens have figured out what to do about Handover Celebration Word Bloat. They collapse the holiday's name into two Chinese characters: wuih gwai, an expression that, like so many in the wonderfully pun-filled Cantonese language, has multiple meanings. You can translate it as return—but it also can imply retrogression.
The most popular shorthand for Handover Day, by far, is "Chat Yat"—that's Cantonese for 7/1. On July 1, 2003, more than a half-million Hong Kongers marched to oppose draconian government-proposed security laws and to demand universal suffrage. Since then, Chat Yat has become Handover Day's signature event (there's even a Hong Kong pub, Club 71, named after the march), challenged only by the traditional nighttime fireworks extravaganza.
Hong Kong's constitution, the Basic Law, promises that Hong Kong and China will be "One Country, Two Systems" until 2047, and it affirms that Hong Kong citizens will have the right, eventually, to vote directly for their chief executive. But the Basic Law's British and Chinese drafters took a few lessons from Cantonese in the Rubbery and Ambiguous Language Department. The Basic Law seems to say that Hong Kongers can cast ballots for their chief executive as early as 2007. But constitutional "experts" in Beijing and the Hong Kong government have reinterpreted the Basic Law, and year by year, they've nudged the timetable forward. Now they're talking 2017. Maybe. Even most of the Hong Kong legislature's pro-democrats have lowered their expectations and are pinning their hopes on 2012. It's no wonder that this year the words "Chat Yat" are usually followed by "Seung Gaai"—"Take it to the streets!"
How many Hong Kong people will seung gaai on the 10th anniversary? It's hard to say right now, and it will be even harder after it's over. Since Hong Kong lacks a free ballot box, counting human bodies in street processions is the Hong Kong equivalent of arguing over hanging chads. But if really massive crowds come out this year on 7/1, as in 2003 and 2004, the images and video will beam all over the world and make the bean-counter wars irrelevant. The Chinese government will look bad in front of the international community. And that is not going to make Beijing very happy. Indeed, you could argue that the very reason why Hong Kong got its 50 years of Basic Law in the first place, instead of a fast-track Return to the Glorious Motherland, is to avoid embarrassing situations like this.
The Hong Kong government has been working overtime to keep the protesters at the margins and ensure that the 10th anniversary follows the script. Last year, they hired extra PR muscle for the occasion, and the official anniversary events have been going on—and on and on—since April. The schedule includes everything from a "Basic Law Fun Day" and a Cantonese opera singing contest, to an "Election of the 10 Most Joyous Incidents" since 1997. Most of these feel-good handover events are harmlessly hokey, but some are a bit too retro-Maoist for comfort. The Cultural Revolution-meets-Sgt. Pepper commemorative handover painting, "Halcyon Days Pearl," with Hu Jintao and Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang playing the roles of Mao and Chou En-lai (or John and Paul) may remind many Hong Kong people of the reasons why they fled the motherland in the first place.
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Remarks from the Fray:
Your article is a pretty good 'street-level' view of Hong Kong politics. However you have cast the two sides as the smarmy Hong Kong people vs the Maoist suits from China. Actually the most important constituents of the pro-Beijing side is the business/corporate sector in Hong Kong. All the business tycoons tout the pro-Beijing line and work with the SAR's agenda. The DAB/ Ma Lik can be thought of as the Pat Robertson/ Rush Limbaugh red-meat contingent here in the US. They make loud ugly noises, but the real power of the Right actually resides with the Wall St white table-clothe crowd.
--icemilkcoffee
(To reply, click here.)
Since when has China's communist party allowed any alternative power structure or organization to be established. There is no independent religion or educational system. There are no western-style civil rights. They are a system based on control, not on open market freedom.
This is an issue because Hong Kong was based on the British system and they had a western-style economy. They understand free markets - free markets are anathema to Chinese leadership.
This isn't just a problem within China- the rest of the world trades with China -but their currency is pegged to another. In other words- there is no price discovery in their currency- it's value is what THEY SAY IT IS!
This is not the way that fair trade is established. China has no interest in fair trade- only trade that benefits them according to their perspective. There is no give and take- no negotiation between equals.
China is far from the principles America was founded on. These are principles the Chinese in Hong Kong and Taiwan are very familiar with, and they like the freedoms. China has no idea of how to deal with open dissent, and their clumsy efforts to stymie debate reveal just how backwards they are in this area of politics.
It was a serious mistake for the west to deal with China on their terms. There is an inherent conflict between their desire for control and stability by force and western stability based on free will. The problem is that the west is becoming more like China- authortarian and unreflective of the will of the people.
--allyra
(To reply, click here.)
(6/30)