NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/culture/hongkong/14838

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 12.6 KB | 270 lines

Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!pa.dec.com!mok
From: [e-mail] (Charles Mok)
Subject: SCMP: What now, Mr Patten?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: AHKCUS
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:35:02 GMT
Lines: 259

What now, Mr Patten?

CHINA says no, the Business and Professionals Federation says no, and
many observers believe Chris Patten has no chance of implementing
reforms that can survive the 1997 change over.  CHRISTINE McGEE examines
the political impasse and finds out why the Patten camp still believes
it can win.

South China Morning Post. November 14, 1992.

IN a political environment where voters are still acquainting themseles
with their power to influence decisions, the anti-Patten forces have
done their utmost this week to grab the high political ground from under
the Governor's feet.

Doomsday scenarios for this democracy proposals dominated the news
bulletins and front pages as the Beijing leadership escalated its attack
on his blueprint via its enduring propaganda campaign, and it has had a
tangible effect.

Polls that returned record approval ratings for the new governor during
the summer have begun to soften in response to daily anti-democracy
barrage from Beijing.  During the last three weeks, a more damaging view
of Chris Patten has emerged.  His previously enamoured electorate - the
silent majority - seem to be suffering some doubts about the future of
their political romance with the man.

This morning, after the New China News Agency - the mainland's de facto
embassy in the territory - announced that the Legislative Council had no
power to override an agreement between Britain and China on Hongkong,
ratings published in the Chinese press have fallen further.  Slightly
more than 43 per cent of the electorate now supports Mr Patten and his
proposals to enfranchise all Hongkong voters.  Six weeks ago, as he
packed out his first public forum on his Legco address, more than 60 per
cent agreed with his blueprint.

Meanwhile, set against Legco's historic backing for greater democracy
this week, the attacks ebbed and flowed with the grace of a symphony;
Beijing, one day theatrically furious at the 32-21 vote in favour of
the reforms, fading seamlessly to a Legco chant from the pro-China
forces keen to remain in office post-1997.

Last Monday, before the Legco debate, the criticism reached a public
climax when the normally reticent chairman of the Business and
Professional Federation Vincent Lo Hong-sui held a press conference to
denounce the reforms.

"We should now be proceeding full-steam on a smooth transition - and
this requires close co-operation between two governments instead of the
major confrontation we have on our hands," said the boss of the
construction group Shui On.

"We urge the two governments to resume their discussions and resolve
their differences in the best interests of Hongkong."

To add weight to the day's pronouncements, the Chief Executive of the
Bank of East Asia and Legco banking representative David Li Kwok-po
declared the Governor a victim of poor advice at an internaional
business forum.

"I basically seem to think the Hongkong governor will need to have
stronger advisers on China," he told delegates attending an American
Chamber of Commerce seminar on Greater China.

The blueprint conformed to the letter of the Basic Law, he said, but the
spirit has "definitely" been broken.

Is Mr Patten, as many critics suggest, in serious political trouble?  Is
it conceivable that one of the smartest politicians in Britain could
have boxed himself into a corner so soon after his splashy arrival in
July?

Is he, in fact, leading Hongkong on a road to nowhere now that China has
made it clear that it does not accept the territory's citizens have the
right to move the goal posts on democracy three years after the Basic
Law has been signed?

To the pessimists, and include among those companies with investment in
China, the answer is an unqualified: "Yes, the honeymoon is over."

In their view, Mr Patten has made a number of mistakes of style and
substance that have infuriated Hongkong's old guard and prompted a
nostalgic yearning for the low-key days of former governor Lord Wilson.

To these observers Governor Patten is uninformed about China and shows
insufficient interest in learning Beijing's political ways.

While a bored electorate might have welcomed Mr Patten and his
Westminster-style politics as a breath of fresh air, his critics believe
that effect already has been soured.

He stands accused of miscalculating the depth and weight of the
opposition to his plans and remaining insensitive to China's real
agenda.  This, in turn, has created a credibility gap for the Governor,
and by collarary, the capacity of the administration to introduce change
in the lead-up to 1997.

If Mr Patten loses out to Beijing, the argument goes, the electorate
won't back him, and he will then be reduced to the status of a lame-duck
leader.  International business will react to this lack of confidence
and could contract their vital pattern of trade and investment in
Hongkong.

Once the economy begins to soften, with investors asking questions
about its future under a leadership in conflict with its sovereign
masters, Singapore, Indonesia, and even China, will in future become
more attractive centres for international investment.

That gloomy scenario sees the fiscal stability of the territory
threatened, unemployment rising, inflation climbing to unsatisfactory
levels, and discontent festering in the community.  Mr Patten will be
blamed for any decline in living standards and China will say: "We told
you so."

He will be perceived as ineffective, his support will be further eroded,
and he may be forced to resign from office.

If this worst-case scenario occurs within  the next two years, Britain
will have to appoint a new governor, who could not attempt to change the
rules.  Within 30 months, the through train so dear to Beijing's heart
will be assured of thundering to convergence in 1997.  The electorate
will be cowed into political obedience, for the sake of a peaceful
relationship with China, and the commercial relationship so crucial to
Hongkong and China will mature uninterrupted by political interference.

Mr Patten, however, has a different view of events.  He keeps returning
to the community to ask if they like his blueprint for greater democracy
or not.

He is not in the second month of community discussions on the proposals
and he has anticipated that the dialogue with China and locally will
result in criticism, contaminated frequently by local economic
self-interest..

The truth will emerge at the end of the process, and if it happens to be
in support of China's view - that is, no more directly elected seats and
no re-structured functional constituencies - he will reckon with that on
the day.

"If you accept your first obligation is to the community then you have
to take the good news and the bad news.  The fact is the Government
wants people to take responsibility for their actions otherwise you
won't get it right," one well-placed government source said.

Whether the Governor and his team can get it right, however, is not
conditional but essential, according to both Mr Patten's friends and
opponents.

THIS week, he won the first skirmish in the Legislative Council, but
everybody knows that a battle is looming, most particularly Chris
Patten.  He will arrive in London tomorrow morning, armed with
international messages of goodwill and go immediately into discussions
with the Foreign Secretary Mr Douglas Hurd, and informal meetings with
the British Cabinet.

He has been told that whatever the outcome of British Prime Minister Mr
John Major's own political problems, the cabinet has closed ranks in
support of his Hongkong blueprint.

His future electoral base also seems secure.  The British media has
endorsed his programme and his political marketing techniques, and he
has retained all-party support for the battle, which could continue with
contact, if not personally, with Chinese Vice-Premier Zhu Rongji, who
will meet Mr Hurtd, and perhaps Mr Major, on Monday.

So what then are the options for Mr Patten now?  It is expected that
Legco will vote on a final version of the reforms blueprint early next
year; at the latest in March.  With Government House expecting a
majority for approval, it is anticipated that Beijing will become more
strident in its attack on Mr Patten and inevitably, Britain.

In this heightened emotional environment, Mr Patten seems faced with
three options.  All of them are a gamble in a situation where China is
dealing with a new style of leadership in Hongkong and at a time when
its own economic future is tied so closely to the territory.

Options one, considered possible, is that the designated leadership in
beijing will be succeeded by liberal politicians such as Mr Zhu, who are
more sympathetic to Hongkong and more influenced by the pragmatics of the
territory's economic links with Southern China.

In these circumstances China may tolerate a change in the spirit of the
Basic Law to allow Hongkong to continue along its prosperous economic
path.

The second option is regarded as more likely and is one that Mr Patten
is believed to have considered.  If his final blueprint survives the
Legco vote, the Government will have 20 months for discussions,
negotiations, and possibly a referendum on the proposals before the next
elections in 1995.

Skilful dealings behind closed doors could produce a deal between
Beijing and Britain that would maintain international confidence in the
economy and provide a compromise for an electorate that could be
intimidated by Chinese threats to dismantle any new democratic reforms.

Likely changes are a revision of the plan to multiply the membership of
the nine new functional constituencies by scores of thousands and alter
the proposal for members of the Election Committee to be made of elected
District Board members.

The third option has been taken up with gusto in recent weeks by one
faction of the business community, conservative electors and, of course,
Beijing.  This strategy would require Mr Patten to withdraw his
blueprint immediately, but timed to save face, if we are to avoid a
head-on collision with China.

Advocates of this position argue that Beijing will not change course on
the Basic Law and that it is a waste of everyone's time to consider it a
possibility.

If Mr Patten does not back down, Beijing, London and Hongkong will
become locked in a fruitless struggle which has one inevitable end -
Chinese sovereignty over Hongkong after June 30, 1997.

WITH this framework in place, business leaders argue, Hongkongers would
avoid the likely threat of economic and political sanctions against the
territory.  At least 63 per cent of Hongkong's trade and investment is
now tied up in the largest untapped market in the world - China's 1.2
billion residents.

If Beijing so chooses, joint business ventures with Hongkong could be
cancelled, leases could be difficult to negotiate, other nations beside
Britain could receive more favorable political treatment.  In short, if
Beijing is miffed, Hongkong will receive a long-term economic cold
shoulder.

What then will Mr Patten do?  The Government believes that the goal
posts were moved forever after the direct elections last year and that
events since then have reinforced their instincts about Hongkong's
preferences for its political future.

The business community is divided about the blueprint and there is clear
support for the proposals from non-aligned legislators, the UDHK and a
group of independent appointed councillors.

Senior Executive Councillor Baroness Dunn is believed to be in the
Patten camp, as are a number of members of the territory's oldest hongs
and a significant number of the new 18-member Business Council.  Swire
Pacific chairman Peter Sutch and Jardines' Nigel Rich declined to
endorse the BPF's position paper although they are members of the
organization.

If the final Legco vote goes his way, the Governor will have some
breathing space and a period for calmer voices to prevail.

Privately, diplomats in Hongkong understands that Government House has
been surprised by the Chinese reaction to the October 7 address.  It was
expected the pitch of the attack would be more robust and personal than
it actually was.  The weaker response has been seen as an indicator that
China has not closed the door on all discussions on the nature of
representative government before 1997.

Mr Patten believes if he can deliver a greater level of democracy to
Hongkong citizens in 1995, that in uitself will produce another
sea-change in voters opinion.  Beyond that he makes no prediction except
to say he remains convicted he and his blueprint for reform are no mere
passing show.