----------
"As the government and bureaucrats find that they
typically cannot count on the legislature making new laws, they interpret
existing laws with ever wider discretion. The scope of arbitrary regulation is
broadening. This does serious damage to the rule of law, although that probably
does not start out as the intention." -- Bill Stacey, Chairman, LRI
From the World Street Journal, opinion papers by Hugo Restal:
The people of Hong Kong want China to honor the
democratic promises it made when the city became a special administrative
region in 1997, and this fight for freedom deserves more world
attention—especially as Beijing's counterattack is getting ugly.
Agents from Hong Kong's Independent Commission
Against Corruption (ICAC) searched the homes of media tycoon Jimmy Lai, his
employee Mark Simon and legislator Lee Cheuk-yan on Thursday. The search
warrants covered records of Mr. Lai's donations to Mr. Lee and other
pro-democracy politicians. The raid is especially ominous because it suggests
that Beijing is compromising the independence of Hong Kong law enforcement....
Such arrests and Thursday's searches risk
undermining public respect for the law and the government in general.
Ironically it was Jasper Tsang, one of Beijing's staunchest loyalists in Hong
Kong, who sounded the alarm last year. When leaders lose the public's trust, he
warned, even their good policies will be resented. Beijing's steady erosion of
the independent institutions left behind by the British will only increase the
desire of Hong Kong's people for greater democracy and autonomy."
I have met and heard Jimmy Lai 10 years ago, during the
Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference in HK, also co-sponsored by LRI.
The man was so down to earth. Typical rags to riches, never forgetting his
roots and inspiring others, helping freedom-oriented people and groups to
secure such freedom in the future. Now his house has been raided by the
Beijing-loyal autocrats. Sad.
The people of Hong Kong can plead or protest for
democracy all they want, but they can only hold a sham election for Chief
Executive in 2017. That was the ruling of China's rubber-stamp National
People's Congress on Sunday.
Moderates on both sides of the political spectrum
in Hong Kong had urged compromise. They proposed nomination procedures that
would satisfy Beijing's concerns while still allowing the free election that
China promised in 1997 when it made the city a self-governing special
administrative region for 50 years. Beijing not only rejected these ideas, it seems
they were never seriously considered. The Communist Party insists on absolute
veto power over the choice of candidates....
This Putinist politics gets a pro-business gloss
because most of the city's richest businessmen long ago submitted to Beijing's
will. Last week Wang Zhenmin, the dean of the Tsinghua University Law School,
was sent to Hong Kong to explain that the electoral system is designed to
please the business elite: "If we just ignore their interests, the Hong
Kong capitalism will stop. So that's why on the one hand we realize universal
suffrage in Hong Kong, on the other hand we must guarantee the continued
development of capitalism in Hong Kong."
The threat to Hong Kong's capitalism comes not from
democracy, but from the cronyism and erosion of the rule of law that are
infiltrating from the mainland. Businessmen may want to curry favor with
politicians, but it is competition that drives capitalist prosperity. Beijing
foolishly believes that turning Hong Kong into a paradise for oligarchs will
make it easier to control....
The tragedy for both Hong Kong and China is that
the conflict is unnecessary. The city is manifestly ready for democracy, which
would give Beijing fewer headaches rather than more. The cautious and pragmatic
population would never elect the populist firebrand that Beijing fears. Instead
a vibrant city is caught in a downward spiral of disaffection and fear. Mr. Xi
deserves the blame for the consequences." -- Hugo Restall
------------
A political showdown looms in Hong Kong. Beijing
has stripped the city of the high degree of autonomy it promised in a 1984
treaty with the United Kingdom. Local residents are preparing a campaign of
civil disobedience in protest. Yet London has failed to express even mild
criticism of Beijing's treaty violation.
The people of Hong Kong overwhelmingly want to
elect their next Chief Executive, a reform that until a month ago seemed within
reach. On Monday university and secondary students began a week-long boycott of
classes to demonstrate for democracy. A new poll from Chinese University shows
that one-fifth of the population is considering emigration because of the city's
uncertain future.
This turmoil is the result of Beijing's shock
decision at the end of August to rig the 2017 Chief Executive election with the
most antidemocratic system tabled by its local supporters. Only politicians who
receive majority support from a committee packed with Beijing's supporters will
be allowed to run....
As a signatory to the Joint Declaration, only the
U.K. has the legal standing to protest Beijing's broken promises. So how did
London respond? For four days, the Foreign Office said nothing. Finally it put
out a statement even more abject than silence: "We welcome the
confirmation that China's objective is for the election of Hong Kong's Chief
Executive through universal suffrage." Martin Lee, Hong Kong's doughtiest
fighter for democracy, rightly summed up London's attitude as "kowtowing
to Beijing for 30 pieces of silver."
It's true Britain's power to influence developments
in Hong Kong is limited. Yet Beijing's xenophobic bluster shows that it still
fears a principled statement from London to defend the territory's autonomy.
Chinese media routinely accuse pro-democracy politicians of being funded by
foreign "black money"—even as Beijing pumps money into local puppet
groups.
When Margaret Thatcher agreed to return Hong Kong
to Chinese sovereignty, she defended the decision on grounds that the U.K.
would hold Beijing to its treaty commitments. Count that as one more
Thatcherite legacy her successors have failed to honor. -- Hugo Restall,
This news 3 weeks ago says that Britain did write to
Beijing and the latter was upset.
The letter from the Beijing foreign affairs
committee said the British probe, announced in July, would be a “highly
inappropriate act which constitutes interference in China’s internal affairs”.
It urged lawmakers to “act with caution on the issue of
Hong Kong, bear in mind the larger picture of China-UK relations and Hong
Kong’s prosperity and stability, stop interfering in Hong Kong’s affairs and
cancel the inquiry on UK-Hong Kong relations.
------------
See also:
John Cowperthwaite, Statistics and Central Planning, January 23, 2014
Free Trade 32: Hong Kong's Unilateral Trade Liberalization and John Cowperthwaite, February 12, 2014
Lion Rock 12: Bill Stacey on Free Markets, Big Government and Hong Kong, March 10, 2014
Hong Kong's Corporate and Forest Jungle, June 10, 2014
FDIs, Hong Kong Democracy and China Communism, July 10, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment