I discovered that Hong Kong people have a tilted sense of democracy.
To many people whom I know personally, many of them have a view that the Chinese government is meddling with matters about Hong Kong way too much, and there is no democracy in Hong Kong because we can’t vote for the leader of the territory, we have people in the legislative council who are not elected by the masses, etc. I’m not sure, but I think that is a rather strange point of view that I struggle to grasp.
Democracy, as the definition provided in Wikipedia (OK I know you need to take it with a pinch of salt but who’s arguing), is as follows:
Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion.
OK, now let’s see what is usually considered as elements of democracy (again, thanks to Wikipedia):
Elements considered essential to democracy include freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, so that citizens are adequately informed and able to vote according to their own best interests as they see them. The term “democracy” is often used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.
From what I gather, I won’t say Hong Kong is undemocratic, it’s probably just flawed. But then again, everywhere is flawed. Of course I’m not saying there’s nothing wrong with being flawed. However I do tend to think that there is a process, and whether that process will be heading upward or downward, that would be the tough part. Hong Kong is so heavily linked with China, so that means if China goes upwards, Hong Kong probably would too, and vice versa. But if someone were to come up to me and say that Hong Kong is undemocratic, I wouldn’t agree. It’s not a game of absolutes – either zero or one. I do tend to think that this whole concept of democracy is about anywhere between zero and one. It could be 0.19. 0.47, 0.72 or 0.91. Of course we would want to move towards 1, but in theory I think nowhere in the world has that.
One view that I have, which I actually didn’t really like, is that I do tend to think that Hong Kong people think a bit too big about themselves. I actually buy the idea that one country comes before two systems. It is a sovereignty issue, and while in essence two systems exist, but if one system is to be heavily violating the principle of one country, should that system be allowed to stand? I’m not sure. Of course I agree that the Beijing government is too parent-ish on Hong Kong, like deciding who the chief executive should be before the so-called elections, etc etc, and I think they should relax a little because I don’t think Hong Kong people would allow Hong Kong to go wrong. The issue now, I think, is that Beijing is so worried that things would go wrong in Hong Kong, and they are worried that if things go wrong in Hong Kong, they will go wrong in the Mainland too. Now if you ask me, that is a perfectly legitimate worry (if you would consider from Beijing’s perspective), but this one country, two systems thing is new to even the lot in Beijing, so can you blame them for being so paranoid?
I’m not sure, but from my experience with the Chinese, they are not a bunch that take the hard line approach well. I was actually more inclined to think that the more pacifying Hong Kong is to Beijing, they might consider giving you a bit more. But if you go hard on them, they don’t really like it and would instead tighten the screw. And let’s face it, Hong Kong needs China more than the other way round, and I’m not even talking in the economic sense – China just needs to shut the water tap if it ever wants to. Communist states (or pseudo-communist) states all work on that principle. You go softer on them, they would be willing to give you a bit more. Just look at Taiwan, when Chen Shui-bian was the president, China kept threatening to start a unification war. But when Ma Ying-jeou took over, he was more pacifying in that sense, and Beijing is more willing to deal with them nicely. Typical communist school of thought! The opposition in Taiwan doesn’t like what Ma is doing (in fact I think many in Ma’s camp don’t like that either), but to get a way out of this superpower who keeps refusing that it is a superpower, that seems like the only way to go. Going hard against someone who has the money and the power isn’t wise. You need to deal with them in another way. Of course, some people will consider that surrender-ism, but you don’t need to be surrendering, you just need to deal with them tactfully. There are bottomlines that you need to be keeping, but everything above the bottomline can and indeed should be discussed.
I know I’m uttering something that many people won’t like, but I’m just trying to see if there’s anyway to get out of this whole gridlock that is bothering this territory I love. Going hard is not the way to go, surrender is not the way to go, we need a path somewhere in between to push democracy forward.
Alright, nuff of my crap, back to work.