From: wing@pegasus.com (Wing Ng)
Subject: Re: HK political groups
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 23:26:30 GMT

In <1992Oct14.153611.8299@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> tlai@csri.toronto.edu
(Tony Fu-Keung Lai) writes:
> Subject: HK political groups
>
> To me,  I support "Cooperative" (Kai Luen). I think that they are
> more realistic. Hong Kong United Democrats almost does everything
> to  have a greater democracy.  But I doubt that Hong Kong  people
> easily  adjust  to this sudden democratic jump.
 
We already HAD the sudden democratic jump, we had the direct Legco
election in Sept. 1991, and 16 out of the 18 are won by democrats.
 
> Also,  it  is  a
> matter  whether Hong Kong people really care about all  political
> stuff  (for  the  time  being).
 
Typically the electorate does not care about the political process
when they are well off.  Which is sign that HK local government is
being run OK.
 
> I am  not  saying  that  greater
> democracy   is  not good.  It is just that it should not  go  too
> fast. Moreover, this big democratic jump may have adverse effects
> (e.g.  introducing  political instability) which will do  nothing
> but harm to the Hong Kong's prosperity.
 
HK is already as rich as Japan per capita, richer if you apply the
exchange rate warp correction factor.  If HK is not ready for
democracy, who is?
 
Remember it was the SUPPRESSION of democracy in '89 in the Motherland
that resulted in a big slump in HK property and stock markets.
 
> I agree that greater democracy avoids much of China's disturbance
> to HK.
 
I actually do not think that democracy in HK ITSELF can contain the
interference from a still dictatorial Chinese Mainland.  That's why
true democrats of HK must also support democracy in China.
 
And it is precisely because the United Democrats of HK also support
democracy in China that made the PRC authorities hate UDHK so much.
 
> Indeed, Chris Patten's recent report is a little bit "over".
 
I completely disagree.  I have a lot of admiration for Patten, esp.
in that by making only "minor changes" within the constraints of the
Basic Law, he has deftly turned all Legco seats into popularly elected
ones, which by the way is REQUIRED by the Joint Declaration.

Some pro-PRC people in HK accused Patten of violating the Joint
Declaration and / or Basic Law.  Patten has been saying, "you say
I violated JD /  BL, they are documents in black and white, WHERE
did I violate them."  Of course he never did.
 
Then they said he violated the "spirit" of JD.  What nonsense, "spirit"
of an international treaty must be interpreted by BOTH parties of
the agreement.  If U.K. side has a different interpretation, there
can no longer be a "spirit".
 
 
In  <1bi4akINN58v@agate.berkeley.edu> vchan@haas.berkeley.edu
(Vincent Chan) writes:
>
> In    article     <1992Oct14.153611.8299@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
> tlai@csri.toronto.edu (Tony Fu-Keung Lai) writes:
> >
IQ%Y+	PKai Luen). I think that they
> >are more realistic. Hong Kong United Democrats almost does everything  
> >to have a greater democracy. But I doubt that Hong Kong people
> >easily adjust to this sudden democratic jump. Also, it is a
>   
>      Kai Luen's goal is more moderate, compared with UD. But many
>      people  have bad impression that their members are too  pro-
>      British      and their memberships in LEGCO are not voted by
>      people.  If  they      can participate in the election  next
>      time  and win some seats,       their image can be  improved
>      and they will be more persuasive.
 
They used to be pro-British and got appointed into their positions.
Then they decided to jump ship and lean towards the PRC side.
Common people decided they are too unreliable, switching sides too
fast.  British side decided to teach them a lesson, and de-appointed
them all from EXCO.  Patten could have de-appointed them from Legco
too if he wanted, and Kai Luen would completely collapse, but that
would be going too far.
 
> >matter whether Hong Kong people really care about all political
> >stuff (for the time being). I am not saying that greater democracy
> >is not good. It is just that it should not go too fast.
> >Moreover, this big democratic jump may have adverse effects (e.g.
> >introducing political instability) which will do nothing but harm
> >to the Hong Kong's prosperity.
>
>      YES  !  There  is tradeoff between prosperity and  democracy
>      in Hongkong.
 
Please do not parrot the PRC spokespersons, why is there a tradeoff?
Look at our neighbor Taiwan:  it has become more and more democratic
since 1986 or so, and it is also getting more and more prosperous.
 
>      So,  my  questions are 1) Do Hong Kong really  need  greater
>      democracy  at  this time ?  2) Are the people in  HK  mature
>      enough to accept full democracy ?
 
In Taiwan, all legislators are elected, all local government heads
are elected, and they are talking about direct election for the
President.  Are HK people less mature than Taiwan people?  Don't
we deserve at least the same?
 
Wing