“China resumes control of Hong Kong, concluding 156 years of British rule,” read the headline on the front page of the New York Times on July 1, 1997, the day Hong Kong was returned to China. The report was published along with two photos: To the left, then-Hong Kong governor Christopher Patten solemnly received a folded British flag; to the right, a Chinese flag was about to be raised.
There were also two related reports on the front page. The first was headlined: “Time of uncertainty begins: Will Beijing honor vows?” It said: “For many ordinary people in the streets of Hong Kong, this was a time of celebration, not necessarily over the departure of the British or the arrival of the new masters from Beijing, but for the experience of witnessing a big moment in history.”
In his speech at the handover ceremony, then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) described the territory’s return as “a festival for the Chinese nation and a victory for the universal cause of peace and justice.” He also declared: “The return of Hong Kong to the motherland ... indicates that from now on, Hong Kong compatriots have become true masters of this Chinese land and that Hong Kong is now entering a new era of development.”
At the event, Patten also gave his last speech as Hong Kong governor.
“Our own nation’s contribution here was to provide the scaffolding that enabled the people of Hong Kong to ascend: the rule of law, clean and light-handed government, the values of a free society ... Hong Kong’s values are decent values. They are universal values. They are the values of the future in Asia as elsewhere, a future in which the happiest and the richest communities, and the most confident and the most stable too, will be those that best combine political liberty and economic freedom as we do today.”
The New York Times wrote that thousands of Hong Kongers waved Chinese flags and bouquets of flowers to welcome 4,000 Chinese soldiers when their trucks crossed the border, although some were worried about the return.
“We know that without a democratically constituted government and legislature, there is no way for our people to be insured that good laws will be passed to protect their freedoms,” then-Hong Kong legislator Martin Lee (李柱銘) said. “If there is no democracy, there is no rule of law.”
The second related report on the front page that day was headlined: “Year of the Trojan horse.” In it, the newspaper wrote: “As dawn rises for the first time over red Chinese flags officially fluttering here in a capitalist breeze, the most fascinating question is not how China will change Hong Kong, but how Hong Kong will change China — and the world beyond.”
“The central question is whether Hong Kong amounts to a colossal Trojan horse: A prize so glorious that China’s Communists cannot leave it outside the gates, but which, once inside, will destroy those in power,” the newspaper wrote.
“Yet while the impact of Hong Kong, and of time, may well be corrosive to traditional [Chinese] Communist Party ideology and dictatorship, it could help stimulate a revitalization of the party and of China itself,” the newspaper wrote.
The newspaper quoted Michel Oksenberg, an Asia expert at Stanford University as saying: “The [Chinese] Communist Party is an institution that in my opinion does need revitalization. [However,] in a curious way, the absorption of Hong Kong could help revitalize it. It could also prompt its decay.”
Prince Charles, who attended the handover ceremony as the British representative, spoke briefly on the history of Hong Kong, saying: “China will tonight take responsibility for a place and a people which matter greatly to us all. The solemn pledges made before the world in the 1984 Joint Declaration guarantee the continuity of Hong Kong’s way of life.”
He also said: “For its part, the United Kingdom will maintain its unwavering support for the Joint Declaration.”
On Dec. 19, 1984, then-Chinese premier Zhao Ziyang (趙紫陽) and then-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in Beijing. After the two nations exchanged the instruments of ratification in May the following year, the declaration was registered at the UN as an effective international legal document. The declaration was written in both Chinese and English, and the two versions are equally effective.
The declaration clearly states: “The Government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) declares that the basic policies of the PRC regarding Hong Kong are as follows: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defense affairs… The region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. The laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged... The government of the region will be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive will be appointed by [China’s] Central People’s Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.”
The declaration particularly highlighted that: “The above-stated basic policies of the PRC regarding Hong Kong will be stipulated in a Basic Law of Hong Kong ... and they will remain unchanged for 50 years.”
The people of Hong Kong trusted the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, because it is an effective international legal document registered at the UN. The New York Times reports also showed the optimism and expectations of Hong Kongers, who believed the return of Hong Kong was likely to change China.
However, in recent years, they have been shocked to discover that the so-called “high degree of autonomy” guaranteed by the declaration has been seriously eroded, and China’s promise that the territory would remain unchanged for 50 years has obviously changed over the past 17.
Many Taiwanese support the “Umbrella revolution” in Hong Kong. They are concerned about the Chinese invasion and worrying about the possibility of tomorrow’s Taiwan becoming another version of today’s Hong Kong, but their worries are only partially right.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration was registered with the UN, but China still ignores it, despite the clear statements in it. If Taiwan and China were to sign a cross-strait peace agreement, would that agreement be an effective international legal pact endorsed by the UN?
The situation in the Taiwan of tomorrow will be even worse than Hong Kong’s situation today, and other nation’s will be unable to express their concerns or question the implementation of any cross-strait agreements.
Despite Jiang’s beautiful rhetoric at the handover ceremony, the “true masters of this Chinese land” are responding to the New York Times’ headline with the “Umbrella revolution”: This indeed is the beginning of a time of uncertainty, because China does not keep its promises.
Hong Kong is not a Trojan horse because it cannot stimulate a revitalization of the Chinese Communist Party and it will not be corrosive to the old corrupt Chinese system.
Yen Ching-chang is a former minister of finance and ambassador to the WTO.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS