Banyan

Wolf in pig’s clothing

Even the most rigged of elections in Hong Kong can be troublesome

Feb 18th 2012 | from the print edition

XI JINPING, China’s leader-in-waiting, has a lot on his plate. Politicians in Hong Kong say that among many tiresome bureaucratic chores before he set off to receive tribute in America was chairing a “co-ordinating committee” on Hong Kong and Macau affairs. Hong Kongers were watching closely, looking for the white smoke over Beijing that would identify their next leader, to replace the outgoing Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, a civil servant under British colonial rule, who in 2005 became Hong Kong’s second post-colonial “chief executive”. No smoke was detected. Unnervingly for some, Hong Kong does not yet know for sure who is supposed to win the “election” to be held on March 25th.

The inverted commas are because this is less an exercise in electoral choice than an elaborate ritual to cloak a decision taken in Beijing. The electorate is a committee of 1,200 voters (out of a population of 7m). Some are politicians; most are chosen by “functional constituencies” to represent sectoral interests. Their main job is to carry out China’s decision on who runs its special administrative region of Hong Kong.

Until recently that seemed fairly straightforward. Beijing, with a few words in the relevant ears, had made its choice clear. It had anointed Henry Tang Ying-yen, who years ago forsook his family textile business for the chief-executive apprenticeship chain, through the Legislative Council and senior government jobs. But as the two-week nomination period for the election opened this week, it seemed likely that two further candidates would receive the endorsement of at least 150 election-committee members, and so qualify as candidates. Chinese officials have indicated that one of these two others is also acceptable.

The other, Albert Ho Chun-yan, is thus a no-hoper. From the Democratic Party, which China dislikes, he is not the party’s most popular member. Even if he were, some Democrats admit, he might flounder, since voters accept that the chief executive should be someone whom China can do business with.

The acceptable new candidate, Leung Chun-ying, known as C.Y. Leung, however, is a cat among the pigeons, or as described in the local press, a wolf (mean and aggressive) to Mr Tang’s pig (complacent and a bit dim). Long regarded with popular suspicion as a “pro-Beijing” politician and closet Communist Party member, he has challenged Mr Tang, and is trouncing him in opinion polls. His lead may well be confirmed as part of a scheme by pollsters at the University of Hong Kong to hold a “virtual” online election two days before the official ballot. In the absence of a clear hint from China, even the most loyal of pro-Beijing parties in Hong Kong does not know which way to jump.

Three explanations are offered for the confusion. One is that Hong Kong has become a skirmish in the factional struggle as China’s leaders vie for influence ahead of their own leadership transition at the Communist Party’s five-yearly congress in the autumn. Mr Tang is favoured by “princelings”, like Mr Xi himself; Mr Leung is said to have the backing of the Communist Youth League from which sprang Hu Jintao, the present party leader.

A second explanation is that Mr Tang is an exceptionally hopeless candidate. Few others could have managed to turn Mr Leung into the popular choice. Many in Hong Kong regard Mr Tang as incompetent and as the undeserving, privileged beneficiary of inherited wealth: the sort of amiable, vaguely trustworthy duffer who would have thrived under the British. It has not helped that he has seemed to take the chief executive’s job for granted—failing to elaborate policies, take part in debates or do anything much at all. “Waiting for the emperor’s yellow robe,” is how Emily Lau, a Democratic Party politician, describes his approach. And efforts by Mr Tang’s campaign to fling dirt at Mr Leung have largely backfired: in response has come a succession of allegations about his own private life and record in office. The latest scandal, about illegal building work at a house owned by Mr Tang’s wife, may even force him to abandon his campaign.

The third possibility is that Mr Tang represents the status quo at a time when many in Hong Kong think the government has done a bad job. They grumble that, since the territory reverted to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, inequality has widened and housing has become even less affordable.

Of late there has also been fury at the perceived abuse of a loophole in Hong Kong’s constitution, which gives all babies born in the territory the right to permanent residence there. In 2010 over 45% of births in Hong Kong—40,000 babies—were to mainland Chinese mothers. Hospitals can no longer cope. More than 130,000 mainland children born in Hong Kong since 2001 have the theoretical right to an education there. Mainlanders are blamed for shortages of baby formula and rising property prices. A decision to make it easier for them to drive here has raised concerns about road manners and congestion. Mr Tang has said it would be good for integration. That is precisely the fear.

An alarming precedent

Opposition to Mr Tang could be seen as an opportunity for China—or as an elaborate pre-scripted farce. To foist Mr Tang on Hong Kong, when it clearly does not want him, might cause real anger. It would also install an incumbent who might struggle for re-election in 2017, when China has promised “universal suffrage”, though how candidates prove their eligibility is yet to be decided. So by securing victory for Mr Leung, China could win kudos for taking popular opinion into account, yet still install a loyal chief.

Letting Mr Leung win, however, would bring its own problems. It would alarm the tycoons China has always seen as its best friends in Hong Kong. Bar a couple of exceptions, these billionaires are all for Mr Tang, perhaps fearing that Mr Leung’s policies might erode the value of their land holdings. A Leung victory would also set an alarming precedent: once China’s anointed ones start losing elections, who knows where it all might end?

Economist.com/blogs/banyan

from the print edition | China

Wolf in pig’s clothing

Feb 24th 2012, 18:47

I fall in the gloomy mood when I see Hong Kong’s politics for the time being.

I first directly touched Hong Kong’s politics when Tung Tee-hua faced the political crisis in 2005. This year’s autumn, both of Donald Tsang Yem-kuen and Alan Leong Kah-kit, with the former president Jiang Ze-min and the former Lianoning Party’s chief Li Ke-qiang who is about to be the next prime minister, visited Taipei to persuade the contention “One China, Two Sytem” to Taiwan’s Chen Shui-bian, also nodding to me to say hello. Intrestingly for me, that time also can be seen as the start of 2007’s election of chief executive.

In 2006’s winter, these two were the only that got the poll. Time Magazine printed very big HONG KONG mark on ten year’s commemoration, reporting both of thoughts and Lai Zai-ing, the tycoon of entertainment, who always shows off for how he uses English ability to become rich. The unique style of Donald Tsang and Alan Leong reflected seperately on the site of candidate’s headquarter and website’s mainpage. Until now, I admire Tsang’s way to deal with public affirs (including hating despicable Ma Ying-jeou together with me) while Leong logically understands Hong Kong's society from little to huge. Tsang defeated Leong in 2007’s election by 649-123. This peaceful process ensured the continuity of Beijing’s absolute reign in Hong Kong.

However, the above cannot provide the whole stability in Hong Kong when it comes to the discrepency between Hong Kong and mainland China. After the incident happened on January 15th because of a dispute originated from mainlanders’ illegal behaviour, some Hong Kong ‘s resident posted various comments on websites. Moreover, according to last week’s survey in Peking University, Dr. Zhou Chi-feng indicated that the paradoxical talk which was put forward just after four days by a stupid professor, Kong Ching-dong, made this incident become more rapidly horrible problem or be transformed into the seperation concerned.

Therefore, the question of how mainland China gets along with Hong Kong returned the main issue in this election in addition to the existence of boring competition between Henry Tang Ying-yen and Leung Chun-ying. That is to say, more unstable factors adding to this election may result in the decline of Hong Kong’s democracy and the confusion about the national recognition. Also, the questionable scandal on Tang one month ago affects Tang’s poll of number but not too much.

Whether Tang or Leung can be elected as next chief exeuctive, the key point to this election still rely on Beijing’s thoughts. What Xi prefers Tang’s nomination while Hu wants to appoint Leung is not the first time I have ever seen the conflict between the fourth and fifth generation in China’s Communist Party. Unlike the last election played by two courteously well-educated “Sir”, Tang and Leung lacking of the practical blueprint lead to a light gray colour in next month’s election.

While I wished a happy birthday to Alan Leong several days ago, some mutiple change to Hong Kong's politicians and enterprenuers, none of whom claims in the clear direction of Beijing. As I chatted with Alan Leong, (maybe) truly, only Renminbi’s prestige is in front of their eyes although I humoursly admit that I am the similar kind of them. Yeah, it’s a pity of Alan Leong for cold chair at the corner of Hong Kong, but the poitical exercise still needs to work no matter who gets this seat.

For instance, on one hand, Beijing’s measure to Hong Kong is not decreasing but increasing for the tighten; on the other hand, the control of mainland and Hong Kong's migration needs to re-check, and the reason isn’t wholly due to the chief executive's name but the common sayings in Hong Kong. In my view, there are some conflicting with Beijing for the growing background, from my another Hong Kong friend’s mouth.

    Recommended

    5

    Report

    Permalink

筆者每次寫到香港都是快樂的回憶，不是政治上，而是寫作技術及社會面。這是寫香港的第一篇，後來隨著雨傘運動和民主加本土及建制的政治版圖變動，寫的次數有變密集了些，而像韓國政治經濟就不太寫了。香港就是商業中心，NY-LON-KONG即是時代雜誌2009年正式給予紐約、倫敦、香港全球三大都會區的稱呼，就算新加坡在金融規模後來居上，香港的經濟活動在亞洲仍佔鱉頭，香港的人平均壽命是全球最長的，股票IPO規模在2016年是第三年是全球最大的。除此之外，一提到香港是觀光地點及美食天堂，還有風起雲踴的影視娛樂業。年輕一代的有很怡人的香港首席模特兒陳靜Dada Chan、陳瀅Jeannie Chan、袁嘉敏Candy Yuen、周秀娜Chrissie Chau、朱晨麗Rebecca Chu、陳凱琳Grace Chan，有阿旦鄧洢玲Elaine，和很出風頭的演員陳潔玲Christy Chan、林潁彤Bella Lam、黃家慰Candy Wong和方敏婷Natalie Fong。和老一代從邵氏兄弟影業，永遠開懷的名主持人曾志偉，周潤發、周星馳與成龍，黎智英的蘋果新聞娛樂與他所創的佐丹奴GIORDANO公司、有點台灣竹聯幫背景的劉長樂所開的鳳凰衛視及TVB家族群，新聞有周嘉儀 Venus Chow 和陳嘉倩 Katherine Chan 可以看，近日又有台灣過去的很會吃很會報的李亞蒨Grace Li，讓香港影視娛樂仍然有雄厚資本及成熟度。

除了看一年年的香港娛樂圈節慶聚會的星光閃耀，就是看香港政治嚴肅的一國兩制和民主政治進步的矛盾。這篇筆者六年前所寫的，當時是曾蔭權最後半年任期，法律原因不能連任，由稍具草根，親胡錦濤的梁振英及親習近平的唐英年與泛民主派的何俊仁三個競選並由後人稱「狼英」的梁振英勝出：如今人事更迭，林鄭月娥已經成為特首過半年而民建聯老主席譚耀宗晉身中國人大常委。香港的泛民主派以及新興的本土政團，和原來的親北京建制派三塊在去年選舉大致使香港政治慢慢走向制度內的托利和惠格黨模式。香港最近雖有看衰的移民潮，有更多的麥難民和更大的貧富差距和失業率，雖說社會運動風起雲湧，但並不是亂序的事，恆生指數並沒有跌破兩萬點，反而在新興創業有了突破，傳統產業如藥品業也獲利增加。

2005年前任香港民政長官的曾蔭權在後來六月就任特首後的九月時來台訪問阿扁總統，之後數次提出政改方案受數次泛民派反對，北京中央也表明高度自治權來自中央授權。雖然包括民建聯和自由黨等親北京建制派也不太喜歡曾蔭權，2007年在市民民調八成情況下連任，擊敗泛民派的梁家傑。2007年也是香港回歸中國十週年，那年的選舉是唯一一年沒有爭議，即民意和選舉委員會的民調落差最低的特首選舉。曾的行政能力很好，雖然做了不少調整稅制如銷售稅的開徵，和環保政策的失敗，但香港的居住舒適度仍優於日韓、中國大陸和新加坡及東南亞，內政各項指標繼續向前行。

筆者寫這篇時候的香港不小心沾上傳聞中共四、五代不合的問題。當時是胡溫體制的最後一年，時人仍然以政治，其實並不是完全西化的，而是公共行政和管理面上來比較，梁略勝一籌，並不能只有財經面向。香港當時仍偏以功能代議制而非普通選舉，而當時的社會氣氛稍偏向民主自治，尚未有如今形成氣候的香港民族自決等口號。當時胡溫對香港的控管還沒有今天這麼積極和嚴格，言論上偏消極提及制度的重要性而非發命令和價值判斷。今天的香港感覺上每一天都是作特別行政區的最後一天，而北京又沒有具體上提出和諧和港民共存的方法，很擔憂五十年不變的諾言消逝，屆時才有足夠互動和習慣融合。筆者最後一段小感慨梁家傑沒有當過這協調者的特首角色一次，而又在2017年時宣佈不再連任九龍東立法會議員，徒留一遺憾在一國兩制的人事面上，這是曾和好險有連任的李克強總理在他第一任開始時提過的悄悄說。

*補充一篇2月4日的文章

Hong Kong and the mainland

Dogs and locusts

Old divisions find a new expression

Feb 4th 2012 | HONG KONG | from the print edition

DESPITE a plethora of festive new-year dragons and a few days of holiday, it has been a season of ill will in Hong Kong. On January 15th a young Mandarin-speaking girl dropped some dried noodles she had been nibbling on a Hong Kong underground train. Perhaps her family, from mainland China, did not know that eating and drinking is banned on the spotless metro. When a local Cantonese speaker objected to the noodle-eating in bad Mandarin, a quarrel erupted. The whole incident, recorded on a mobile phone, was soon viewed online by millions in Hong Kong and in China.

“That’s what mainlanders are like,” was perhaps the nastiest thing said by any Hong Konger in the metro carriage. But soon a well-known loudmouth professor at Peking University was suggesting that some in the former colony were “British running dogs”. This caused some Hong Kongers to take to the streets to protest. On February 1st another group took out a full-page advertisement in a Hong Kong newspaper complaining about mainland “locusts” swarming into the territory; it called for the government to stop the “infiltration”.

In the past two months Hong Kong has seen a spate of related protests: one against the thousands of expectant mothers who pour in from the mainland to give birth in local hospitals; another involving a march against Dolce & Gabbana, a prominent Italian retailer, when it was thought to be favouring shoppers from the mainland. Though Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, a border still runs between the territory and mainland China, and access from the mainland is restricted. The Hong Kongers’ broad complaint is longstanding: they see hordes of mainlanders putting a strain on public resources. Mainlanders in turn feel that Hong Kongers are arrogant and disloyal to the motherland.

In this section

·         Pay and play

·         No power to pacify

·         »Dogs and locusts

Reprints

Related topics

·         Politics

·         Government and politics

·         World politics

·         Asia-Pacific politics

·         Chinese politics

What has changed drastically in the past few years is that the old fear of poor mainland Chinese swamping Hong Kong has been washed away by floods of rich mainland shoppers. Where once Hong Kongers disdained their countrymen from the mainland as Ah Chan, the derisory term for a bumpkin, they are now more likely to hear themselves disparaged as Kong Chan, Hong Kong bumpkins, by mainlanders flush with cash.