From: cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung)
Subject: Re: HK democracy (was: What do you think of Chris Patten)
Organization: Objectivity Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 18:43:30 GMT

In article <C0D75K.H4s@world.std.com> afung@world.std.com (Albert K Fung) writes:
>cwc>Now while the major western powers are busy in 'normalization' their 
>cwc>relationship with China, the proposal comes just three years too late.
>cwc>One can only hypothesize: what happen if the British was pushing democracy
>cwc>in stead of the new airport three years ago?

>A pitty isn't it? But as the saying goes - "better late than never". Do you 
>not agree?

Yes, to the extent that if internal and external conditions are the same.
Unfortunately, environment has changed since TAM.  You know, doing
the same thing but at a different time does not always produce the 
same effect (Try clapping in the middle of an orchestra performance as oppose to
clapping at the end, or propose to a woman 3 years ago when she is 
unattached and in love with you vs now when she is married to another person :)

I would dare to say Patten's proposal would have universal popular support 
in HK, if it is proposed right after TAM.  The debate in HK at that time 
would probably be how far and how fast the pace should be, not whether it 
should or should not.  The issue will not be divisive among people of HK.  
I think there is also a good chance that China will go along with it if the
matter is presented in a face-saving manner to China.  Few people would question
the sincerety of UK/HK at that time.  HK has a strong case because it has 
legitimate cause to fear. China probably would like to restore HK's prosperity 
and need to keep HK as a lifeline amid boycott by the other economic powers.

At this moment, HK is the one to have everything to lose but little
to gain in this high-stake political gamble initiated by the UK.
I surely hope that people of HK could decide whether they want to become
the pawn in this political battle between UK and China.  

>cwc>The other side of the coin is that poor people often don't have the 
>cwc>exposure to the problems and complexities facing business, community,
>
>akf>Try them.
>
>cwc>It's been tried in mainland, and you could see the results. Not that I
>cwc>am saying the poor are not capable of, but it is just that they have
>cwc>no such exposure yet, and often they were not able to look at the
>cwc>matter from various angles.  

>Our interpretations of modern Chinese history are a bit different ....

Never mind.  What I was talking about is after Cultural Revolution, many 
poor worker and peasants have risen to be in charge in politics, business, 
factories, etc.  Anyway, a digression to the subject.

>cwc>Sure, but one has to play the 'game' right (perhaps at the risk of being
>cwc>called kowtowed).  Just like Suen Tze said: know yourself, know others,
>cwc>then you won't lose in a hundred battle.

>I have very high regard for the military strategist and distinguish Taoist, 
>Suen Tze. But I'm afraid you may not be heeding his advice with due diligence.
>It is very unlikely that you can really "know yourself" if you don't even hear
>the voice of your people. :)

Unfortunately, HK is very divided on this issue.  On the other hand,
I think China's stance do have popular support among people and even students
from China.

>If I remember correctly, right at the beginning of his classic, "The Art of
>War", he enunciated five dictums of strategic assessments. The first and
>foremost was "Tao". He then went on to explain:

>	The "Tao" means inducing the people to have the save aim as the
>	leadership, so that they will share death and share life, without
>	fear of danger.

>I seriously think he was a secret admirer of democracy in the feudal era ... :)

Not so fast, pal :)  He is talking about getting the support from the
people and the soldiers, and that is crucial in winning a war.  However,
there are many ways to achieve that. Benovelent monarchy is one.  Defending 
one's own country is another one.  These are probably two of the cases he 
has in mind. Of course, Nazism, Fascism, religion, sheer propaganda could all 
garner support to invade other countries or for other causes.  I would say
democracy is usually not very effective in getting people to war.

>Regards,

>Al Fung
>SoftFab International Ltd., Cambridge, MA
>Email: afung@SoftFab.COM

I don't know about you, but I feel running out of gas on this topic,
and we may have bored the other netters to death.  I would like to wrap 
this thread up, but I'll give up the benefit of the last word and
the parting shot to post the last article on this thread :)  If you 
really like to continue, let's do it in email.  It has been a 
good discussion with you.  Take care.

-cw-

P.S. I was rather busy the past few days, and may have not responded
to other threads directed to me (My site set a low expiration day
threshold).  That's OK for me since I feel it is time to wrap up
the other threads too.  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong