On April 6, 2004, the central government finally spelled out its formal response to the democracy movement in Hong Kong. It came dressed up in a legal interpretation of two annexes to the Basic Law – our mini-constitution – but the message was simple: “Beijing’s in charge.”

Patriotism: the last refuge of a scoundrel?

      It’s cropped up all over the world many times before. It’s powerful but it’s nothing new. What is it? A fake notion of “patriotism”. Here in the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region of China (HKSAR), patriotism is being used as a bulwark for political conservatism as the central government gears up for taking on the people of Hong Kong over the issue of universal suffrage. By arguing, marching and when given the chance, voting for parliamentary democracy, we stand accused by the government of being “unpatriotic”. Moreover, despite the new and apparently more liberal leadership in Beijing, there are powerful forces in the central government who remain profoundly opposed to the virus of democracy and its potential to spread to mainland China.

       History is littered with accusations of unpatriotic behaviour aimed at trade unions and their members. For example, since it’s founding in 1938, the House Un-American Activities haunted US political life by hounding trade unionists, socialists, religious sects, film makers and writers on their alleged political allegiances. The intimidation reached a high point in the dark years of McCarthyism.

      In the almost seven years since the end of British colonialism, the central government has consistently stressed that the Basic Law – the mini-constitution – is the document through which ‘Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong’. But in the nine months since last year’s half million strong July 1 March against draconian security legislation, and the political crisis it brought about, central government officials have offered some clarifications on who they mean by ‘Hong Kong people’. Being a law-abiding citizen does not qualify one for office or even a vote: only “patriotic” Hong Kong citizens need bother applying. This, in the view of the central government and their mouthpieces in Hong Kong, rules out anyone who supports full democracy, Taiwanese independence and the movement against Article 23.  Scoundrels indeed!

What’s best for Hong Kong: the Government-Business View

      Hong Kong’s government is a big business government and no friend of labour. The chief executive officer is appointed by an Election Committee of 800 worthies in an exercise that rivals our former British rulers in terms of distance and condescension towards the ordinary people of Hong Kong. Election Committee member and property tycoon Lui Che-woo recently declared his disdain for the calls for universal suffrage and apparent admiration of colonial style government. After meeting the government’s task force on constitutional reform Lui told the press that “Hong Kong is such a good economy, why should we carry out political reform…[O]ver the past 100 or so years Hong Kong has been the pearl of the Orient, what sort of things do we need to stir it up?...The best thing is to boost our economy”. Similar views have been expressed by other business leaders such as Hong Kong’s richest man, Li Ka-sing.

       In fact, these views are fairly typical of most in the business community. Instead of pressing the territory forward into the necessary political reforms, they have concentrated on blocking Hong Kong’s democratisation in order to preserve their vested interests. The business sector argues that Hong Kong is not ready for democracy and that local politicians do not understand business. One prominent business leader even warned that democracy would turn Hong Kong into a “welfare state”, causing the economy to collapse. These arguments are absurd and unfounded. What local business leaders’ fear, in HKCTU’s view, is a level playing field in which all Hong Kong people are given a voice in the territory’s governance. They have enjoyed a political free lunch for decades and they want to preserve their exclusive seat at the table.
　

Participation the Key to the Future of Hong Kong

      The struggle for universal suffrage has dominated Hong Kong’s political life since the government’s failure in 2003 to introduce a new security law. Article 23 would have seriously handicapped our capacity to organise. In fact, the proposed legislation carried the potential to subject Hong Kongers to the same political restrictions that our brothers and sisters on the mainland have to live with.

      Hong Kong’s citizens’ successful mobilisation against Article 23 and the recent January 1 100,000-strong New Year’s Day March are examples of the kind of participatory civil society that is anathema to both the central government and their puppets among business leaders here in Hong Kong. The district elections in November 2003 made it plain for all to see that when they get the chance to vote, most Hong Kong citizens vote for candidates in the democratic camp. Successive opinion polls reveal that more than 60% of respondents have no confidence in the Chief Executive. The majority of Hong Kong people register their dissatisfaction with the executive branch of the HKSAR Government in similar opinion polls. The current political system depends for its survival on the myth of Hong Kong people’s political passivity, on the notion that we care more about money than politics. We don’t.

      HKCTU believes that the recent politicization of Hong Kong is a good thing. The energy, creativity and capacity to organise in pursuit of basic rights that Hong Kong people have displayed over the last year are a testament to the bright prospects of a democratic Hong Kong, not a signal for our demise. Indeed, it is precisely because the economic position of most of Hong Kong’s workers is at best precarious that political democracy is so important. The current constitutional arrangements and the built-in bias towards business are an obstacle to the progress of Hong Kong and we will continue to fight for universal suffrage as the means through which we can peacefully remove this obstacle.

      For the HKCTU, democracy cannot be reduced to a simple cross on a piece of paper every few years or an idiot’s test of patriotism. Universal suffrage would at long last give workers a chance to elect political representatives committed to addressing the vast imbalance of power between the haves and have nots. The government denies us the right through which workers can also take an active role in building a democratic Hong Kong, such as the right to collective bargaining and secure employment.

What’s Best for Workers: the Union View

      The detrimental consequences of the current political arrangement on workers’ welfare are evident. There are no laws regulating working hours in Hong Kong. Nor are there any statutory provisions on minimum wages protecting workers from excessive exploitation. Employees are still being denied a voice at work, and labour unions are deprived of the right to bargain collectively with employers. Hong Kong has one of the most uneven distributions of income in the world. Our Gini Coefficient, a measure of income inequality, reached a record high of 0.525 in 2001. At 45 per cent of GDP, the business profits share of the national income is among the highest in all advanced economies. In the US it is 30 per cent.

      A democratic parliament is by no means the sole focus of the struggle for a more equitable society. Rather, a full democracy would be a step towards a more level playing field on which Hong Kong’s independent unions can get a fair hearing for our main demands for a minimum wage, limits on working hours, the right to collective bargaining and an effective law against unfair dismissal.

“The Actual Situation”

      The next four years are a crucial time for Hong Kong. The Basic Law makes it possible for a full constitutional review to recommend the election of the chief executive in 2007 and a fully elected Legislative Council – Hong Kong’s parliament – in 2008. The current chief executive Tung Chee-hwa poured cold water on these hopes when he told the National Peoples’ Congress – the mainland parliament – that “Hong Kong’s constitutional development cannot reach the sky in a single step. It must take full account of Hong Kong’s actual situation”.

      For the central government the “actual situation” dictates that government office should be denied to “traitorous” opposition leaders who have “wandered too far” from the official government line.

      For HKCTU, the “actual situation” is very clear. There is an overwhelming groundswell of opinion in favour of universal suffrage and the outbursts on who is and who is not a “patriot” has failed to deflect this surge and there is now growing number of core activists who are deeply involved in the issue. The chief executive’s incompetent response to the movement for full democracy has rendered his leadership largely irrelevant and the central government in Beijing is clearly making all the key decisions in what has become a straight contest between people power and the central government on the pace of democratic reform.

The Road Ahead: People versus Power

      The coming six months will bring concrete opportunities in the struggle for universal suffrage and taking advantage of them will require both unity and political skill from the forces for democracy in Hong Kong.

      Another massive demonstration is planned for July 1 at which HKCTU will again issue a call for the peaceful transition to universal suffrage. At the same time, we must ensure that the workers and students who fell in the struggle for democracy on the mainland are not forgotten. Our members will be out in force on the annual June 4 commemoration for the all those who died in the violent crackdown of 1989. And in September 2004 come the crucial Legislative Council elections in which, despite the lack of universal suffrage, the government could lose a voting majority. Watch this space!