From: cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung)
Subject: Re: What do you think of Chris Patten
Organization: Objectivity Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 19:47:47 GMT

In article <BzE5qJ.DEK@world.std.com> afung@world.std.com (Albert K Fung) writes:
>>>cannot fight everybody at the same time. Is it fair to the people of HK?
>>>Well, .... what price freedom?

>>Actually it is .. what price democracy (not freedom)?  If you say give me
>>democracy or give me death, then I rest my case.

>No, I really meant "freedom" - freedom to choose our own form of government,
>democracy or not. The important point is that the government should derive its
>power to govern from the consent of the governed.

I agree this part and I would underline the word 'should'.  Unfortunately,
internal or external constraints do not always permit 'should' to happen.

>I don't think HKers want to "fight" China. Unless I'm mistaken, Gov. Patten's
>proposal is quite modest. I'm quite sure that HKers will whole heartedly
>welcome a more radical proposal from China.

The content of the proposal is important, but that is not really the principal
objection from China.  China objects on the ground that Basic Laws have
been violated by Patten's proposal in twisting and distorting the meaning
and common understanding of the term 'functional groups'.  From China's 
point of view, it is like unilaterally breaking an international contract.

One side note I sometimes heard in the past is that China has an
excellent record in complying with the official agreement she made with
foreign countries (despite its often-backtracking on internal affairs).
This could explain her outrage when she sees her counterpart as 'breaking
the contract' in Patten's proposal, France selling of Mirages, USA selling
of F-16s.  Now China has to 'kowtow' to USA, but don't confuse UK/France 
with USA.  UK/France is just not in the same league of USA.  China would 
yield to USA, and be quite 'flexible' with Japan and Russia, but she is 
not going to be 'bullied' by UK (in China's eyes).

Back to Patten's proposal, I have great problem with his approach and 
process. I tend to agree to the theory that this is a high-stake calculated
'gamble' initiated by UK (possibly for genuine good cause of democracy) 
where HK (for better or worst) is forced to be dragged in and become the
pawn in the game.  I suspect Patten has miscalculated the situation though.
He probably has reasoned that with the steady retreat of British capital
from HK and the steady investment of Chinese capital in HK for the past, 
China has more to lose than the British and therefore would restrict the 
reaction to the gamble in the political front only.  Recent 'kowtow' by 
China to USA is probably misread by Patten as a sign of weakness of 
China to all foreign powers. 

>Being human, I'm bounded by all its inadequacies. That includes a less than
>perfect way of evaluating individuals. For those that do not have a history,
>I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. For those that have a history,
>I cannot help but to look at their records. I placed Gov. Patten in the
>former category and I put the Chinese Gov't in the latter category simply
>because HK has a very bitter collective memory of CG and Gov. Patten has
>barely started his job.

>I myself an my family suffered quite a bit from "HK born, HK raised" gov't
>officials. For the past 100 or so years, HK has been run by business and
>"community leaders" who's priorities are highly questionable. What does a

Fair enough, but I just want to caution the limitation of personal
experience [perhaps from Kowloon City as stated in your other posting
if I have not mistaken], and I would encourage you to find out more 
about these local officials.  

>prosperous lawyer know about pain? What does a wealthy doctor know about
>suffering? What does a well to do businessman know about poverty? 

Well, I think Chairman Mao would love what you have written :)
Now, isn't Martin Lee a lawyer, and Sezto Wah a headmaster, Christine Loh 
a businesswoman, all of them are doing quite well in their field?  

One of the irony of democracy is that it is mainly the elite who 
can 'climb' to positions of power to help the poor.  The elite,
whether the democracy advocates, government officials, professional,
themselves could of course (and very often do) come from the poor and
middle class families.  The education and hiring system in HK works 
reasonably well in bringing about this kind of 'class migration'.
So it is not all surprising to find a prosperous lawyer has a close
relative living in public housing or other even-poorer environment.
These elite may or may not remember what poverty is, but they could
have exposure to what poverty is like if they are willing to try to
find out.  It depends on the individual.

The other side of the coin is that poor people often don't have the 
exposure to the problems and complexities facing business, community,

>>Killing [the witch], well, that seems to be a revolution to me :)  Is a
>>revolution really what we need?
>
>This is not the moral of the parable. The key is the "courage" that the
>cowardly lion did not realize he had, not the "witch" which is merely a
>transcendent ......

Sure, I was half-kidding only.  I think the key is how to differentiate
that from, say Don Quixote.   Sure we know what a lion could do,
but what happen if the subject is not a lion, but, say a rabbit.  Is it
wise for a rabbit to show his courage by taking on a wolf?  

>Some other minor points:
>
>1. CG is not merely a totalitarian mother who wants to take back HK, she is
>   a known abuser who had beaten your brothers senseless and then told the
>   whole world that they were just seeing things! Is it too much to ask for
>   some assurance that she will not do this to you before she closes the door
>   behind you?

I don't disagree, but my point is the assurance wouldn't mean much until
you have a truly democratic China which respect personal right, simply 
because it is a much bigger neighbor and also it is 'one country, two systems',
not 'two countries, two systems'.   (Perhaps I am too much a pessimist, but 
recall the process called Finlandization even when Finland and USSR are two
separate countries.)

>2. I'm not sure how long this prosperity in S. China will last. It appears to
>   be investment driven and export oriented. May be those netters who have
>   knowledge about this can shed some light on this?

Indeed so. Most of the export is to USA (mostly through intermediaries 
in HK), and that is why normal trade relationship with USA is so important, 
and IMHO, one of the reason of China's willingness to accommodate demands 
from USA.  IMHO, it is interesting that CG sees economic reform as a means
of survival for CG, but many others (myself included) see the
success of economic reform will spell the demise of the party (i.e. as the
party we know today).

>3. The "French wine" episode was an authorized response (by GATT) that
>   President Bush undertook at the request of his trade representative.   
>   Earlier, the US Congress passed an enabling legislation authorizing Pres.
>   Bush to participate in the GATT talks and be abide by the outcomes.

Thanks for the info.

>Regards,
>Al Fung

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!

-cw-