From: mok@pa.dec.com (Charles Mok)
Subject: Independent Editorial: Peking vs Patten
Organization: AHKCUS
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:49:37 GMT

From: ttong@attmail.com
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:44:23 GMT

                  Copyright 1992 The Independent, November  19, 1992, Thursday
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE; Page 24
HEADLINE: Leading Article: Peking vs Patten
 
    CHRIS PATTEN, the Governor of Hong Kong, continues to be the object of
vilification by Peking's propaganda machine for his proposals to introduce a
greater (if still modest) measure of democracy into the colony next year. Even
Zhu Rongji, the ''moderate'' economic reformer and former mayor of Shanghai
just promoted to the Politburo Standing Committee, attacked the Patten plans
on his visit to London this week.
    Mr Zhu went so far as to suggest that if Mr Patten persisted with his
reforms, the Sino- British agreements on the orderly transfer of the colony's
sovereignty to Peking in 1997 might ''go with the wind''. The unsubstantiated
claim of the Chinese is that the proposals contravene the Joint Declaration of
1984 and the Basic Law laying down Hong Kong's post- 1997 constitution. John
Major responded by assuring Mr Zhu of Britain's desire for continued
co-operation with  China,  while strongly supporting Mr Patten's proposals.
    Is there genuine cause for alarm? Or is the huffing and puffing of the
Chinese dragon just a matter of hurt pride and passing paranoia? What is not
in doubt is  China's  capacity to damage Hong Kong's economy and create
serious political tensions there. Already all 60 members of the colony's
Legislative Council are said to have been warned by agents of Peking that if
they vote for Mr Patten's proposals, they will lose their posts in 1997. The
thousands of Hong Kong businessmen who trade with the mainland and tend to
favour propitiating Peking have had their arms twisted. The campaign has taken
its toll, too, on the colony's volatile stock market.
    The appeasers' strongest argument is that a smooth handover depends on
working with the Chinese and not antagonising them. Ergo, since Mr Patten's
proposals have angered Peking and put that co-operation at risk, they stand
condemned as misjudged. The logical conclusion of that argument is that
nothing should ever be done which annoys the men who ordered the butchery of
Tiananmen Square.
    Sadly, that principle often seemed to guide the Government's approach in
the pre-Patten era, when secret diplomacy was the rule. Mr Patten and Mr
Major, to their credit, reckoned it was no longer good enough for the people
of Hong Kong. Hence the Governor's long process of open consultation, and his
decision not to clear his proposals with Peking before going public.
    It was probably this last omission that most stung the old men in Peking.
In reality, the Patten proposals are in some respects helpful to them. They
strengthen rather than weaken the power of the chief executive, now the
Governor but post-1997 a Chinese appointee. Although they broaden the
electoral basis of the Legislative Council, they unobtrusively debar
politicians, such as the out-and-out democrat Martin Lee, from the Executive
Council. The chief effect of Peking's propaganda war is to make the package
look more democratic than it is.
    Ultimately the Chinese know that if they seriously damage Hong Kong's
economic and social fabric, their own economy will suffer, and the much
greater prize of Taiwan will resist reunion with the motherland. Logic
suggests that once a (perhaps marginally diluted) version of Mr Patten's
proposals has been implemented, they will taper off a campaign that is
potentially self-defeating.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong