Audrey EU: Who's a Patriot?

So now it's official. The idea of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong only refers to "patriotic" Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong. That's what the central authorities told Donald Tsang, Hong Kong's chief secretary, when his special task force on constitutional development went up to Beijing last week to seek guidance on the pace of democratization in the Special Administrative Region.

Since then, a fierce debate has erupted over what constitutes patriotism, and who is or is not a patriot. An anonymous senior source, widely believed to be Mr. Tsang, told a background briefing for the local media that the central authorities had queried whether it was patriotic for Hong Kong people to oppose draft national-security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong's mini-constitution. Since that is not mentioned in Mr. Tsang's official report on his visit, there is no record of what he said in response. But, in public, Mr. Tsang has maintained that Article 23 has nothing to do with the discussions on constitutional development.

The Hong Kong government put forward the Article 23 bill early last year and insisted on rushing it through by July of the same year despite the SARS crisis and strong demands for more time, wider consultation and tighter drafting. In the end, half a million people took to the streets in protest and the government was forced to shelve the bill. Hong Kong's then secretary for security, Regina Ip, resigned. The government admitted it had mishandled the whole process and pledged to undertake a proper exercise, led by an internal group to be set up by its Security Bureau.

Democratic legislators have pressed the government to commence this consultation. But the Security Bureau has not even set up its internal group and the government gives every indication of sitting on the issue.

Instead, the people who protested are now being used as scapegoats for the government's bungling of the whole affair -- and branded as unpatriotic.

Patriotism can hardly be defined, let alone measured. It is not written into the Basic Law. In fact, the term "patriot" is really a pseudonym for someone approved by Beijing. As Sir David Akers-Jones, former chief secretary during colonial Hong Kong, put it, "The Chinese have no objection to elections, provided they know the results beforehand." In other words, the central authorities will not oppose universal suffrage for the chief executive if there is no danger of such a system electing someone whom Beijing disapproves of.

The irony is that anyone who is familiar with Hong Kong affairs will tell you that even if there is universal suffrage tomorrow, Hong Kong is unlikely to produce a chief executive opposed to Beijing. Political reality is such that a candidate who does not have the blessing of Beijing is unlikely to run. Further, Hong Kong people are pragmatic. They know which side their bread is buttered and are unlikely to pick a candidate whom Beijing is known not to approve. They want universal suffrage not because they want to upset Beijing, but because the current system of the chief executive being chosen by a small circle of 800 people is totally skewed. And even in the unlikely event that universal suffrage were to produce a person Beijing disapproves of, under the Basic Law it still has the power to refuse to appoint him as chief executive.

The whole debate about patriotism is a bit of shadow boxing. Yet it is part of a process of using general principles to postpone any real discussion on the substance of the democratization debate. Beijing has stressed the importance of one country, sovereignty and its power of veto.

Although no one disputes these principles, which are already laid down in the Basic Law, the central authorities continue to insist they are very complicated and not properly understood. There is talk of educating the Hong Kong people on the real meaning of one country and the Basic Law, and a review by the National People's Congress as to whether the Basic Law has been properly observed in Hong Kong.

This first-stage debate on principles is making it impossible to move onto the second stage of the debate and discuss issues of substance: such as whether the chief executive can be elected by universal suffrage in 2007, the first possible date mentioned in the Basic Law. If so, what should be the method of election? And if not, when can universal suffrage be introduced? Similarly, should all Hong Kong's legislators be directly elected in 2008, again the earliest possible date suggested by the Basic Law? And if not, when?

The whole approach smacks of delay. No timetable has been set as to how long these first-stage discussions will take, although Mr. Tsang did suggest he would finish the process of consulting local groups on these issues in March. That happens to be Taiwan's election month. Even then, Beijing is unlikely to reveal its final hand. Instead, it will probably continue with this hard line for as long as possible, leaving just sufficient time before 2007 to throw out some concessions, which will then be presented as better than no change at all.

But there is a price for everything. When people's aspirations are not met, even patriotism can not bridge the gap, and it does not bode well for one country, two systems.

Ms. Eu is a democratically elected member of Hong Kong's Legislative Council.

(Published on Asian Wall Street Journal, 17 Februay 2004)