Print

Mail

wiki links

Hong Kong: more than a bunch of clippings

July 1 marked the 11th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China. On June 30, Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) issued a study of Hong Kong’s situation on the 11th anniversary of the handover.

The report discusses Hong Kong’s development over the past year, condemning Beijing’s strong interference in its affairs and possible changes to the “one country, two systems” formula. But the report ignores inconvenient truths that politicians and bureaucrats are unwilling to face, and these deserve public attention.

An opinion poll by the Chinese University of Hong Kong showed that 37.9 percent of residents are satisfied with Hong Kong’s overall development, while 13.2 percent were not. The approval rating rose for three consecutive years after chief executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) stepped down in 2005. Also, 41.8 percent of respondents were confident about its development over the next decade, while 13.8 percent were not.

As for the “one country, two systems” formula, 50.7 percent agreed that Beijing had abided by the policy, while 11 percent disagreed. The number of those who approved has exceeded those who disapproved for the past few years. Polling also showed that 57.3 percent of respondents were positive toward Beijing’s Hong Kong policy, while 8 percent were negative.

In terms of political and economic development, the results of an April opinion poll showed that 45.6 percent of respondents were optimistic about Hong Kong’s political future, while 15.4 percent were pessimistic. Also, 40.4 percent were optimistic about economic prospects, while 24 percent were pessimistic.

In terms of assembly and freedom of speech, almost half of the respondents were satisfied with the Hong Kong government’s handling of relevant cases, while 16.7 percent were dissatisfied.

The results of these surveys show a completely different picture of Hong Kong. Why does the MAC report appear so different from reality? There may be three reasons.

The first is limits on access to information. The report is based on facts, but these largely consist of second-hand data gathered from newspapers, magazines and other media outlets.

The government’s study of Chinese and Hong Kong affairs lacks depth: Such newspaper-clipping research is not only skewed but also inadequate in formulating in-depth policy.

The second reason is political manipulation and bureaucratic maneuvering. The MAC is a government agency, and its mission and stance reflect political attitudes. It thus portrayed Hong Kong as a “city of sadness” and a “birdcage democracy” under Democratic Progressive Party rule, but now has drastically changed its tone with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in power. To fulfill the needs of those in power regarding cross-strait relations, bureaucrats tend to arrive at conclusions before weighing the evidence.

The third reason is a lack of knowledge of Hong Kong’s society. Take the territory’s democratic development, for example.

The pursuit of immediate all-round democratization is the wish of the political elite and the middle class.

But because of matters involving economic development and government efficiency, the general public is hesitant when it comes to democratization. So there is a gap between the elite and the ordinary citizen.

If Taiwan only observes the attitudes of the elite, it will be unable to grasp genuine public opinion and thus misjudge the entire situation.



Jackson Yeh is a project coordinator with the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
This story has been viewed 788 times.