Within the first quarter of the twenty-first century, Asia is expected to be the leading region in the world in terms of economic growth. First world countries are making it a priority in their economic policies to find a place in Asia with the prospect of getting a share of this growth. The United States and European Union have clearly demonstrated that all other considerations, including concerns for human rights, will not be allowed to stand in the way of their pursuit of self-interests in the economic sphere. There is hardly any consensus in the `West’ on the extent of its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights in Asia. The language of some spokespersons is even apologetic for having tried in the past to impose `their values and views on others’. The apology is not regarding the colonial past, but about more recent times, when human rights became a criterion for judging the progress of other countries. It is against this background that the transfer of administration and other political changes will take place in Hong Kong from July 1997.
During the last fifty years, Hong Kong has achieved what remains a dream for most Asian states: economic equality with the West. It has achieved this in a much freer atmosphere than Singapore and several other Asian countries where free market economies are coupled with totalitarian regimes. However, despite such freedom Hong Kong has remained a colony, without the experience of a representative government. The result is a lack of tradition in struggling for justice. Even though a bill of human rights was introduced to Hong Kong in the 1980s, it is confined mostly to civil and political rights and does not account for a just distribution of wealth, or even basic social security measures for the relatively poorer sections of the population. It is this lack of a struggle for justice that has prevented a sense of community among the population. As Professor Yash Ghai has pointed out, “Hong Kong is a good example of that narrow sense of community. It consists of selfishness, self-centeredness and, if you look at the pattern of Chinese capitalism, it takes a rather small view of the community.”
Foreigners enjoy very little significance in Hong Kong. The mistreatment of Vietnamese asylum-seekers after 1988 demonstrated the use of sophisticated facilities and resources not to assist, but to deprive these unfortunate people of any humane treatment, and to justify such actions. They remained prisoners in camps, under conditions that received serious criticisms from the judiciary. The existence of a humanitarian tradition of any significance in this affluent city is very much questionable.
The city will go under the administration of China at a time when China itself is experiencing many paradoxes and dilemmas in terms of its communist past and modern aspirations. The fears related to this hand-over seem to arise more out of perceptions regarding the Chinese bureaucracy rather than Chinese communism, which is a thing of the past. After many decades of experiments, the development of laws and an efficient law enforcement bureaucracy in Hong Kong has been rationalized. Compared to most Asian countries, it is generally regarded as less corrupt.
Hong Kong is an open society. Social control is exercised through the use of affluence rather than the abuse of due process rights. On the other hand, the Chinese bureaucracy relies heavily on the abuse and denial of due process rights in dealing with dissent. As Hong Kong is a world centre for media and communications, it is hardly likely that such abuse of due process rights could take place in Hong Kong without receiving the world’s attention. Also, it is not possible to alter the character of Hong Kong as a media and communications centre without altering the nature of Hong Kong as a whole.
The efficiency of the bureaucracy is essential for the very survival of the way of life in Hong Kong. Most people in the city live in tall housing blocks. It is a city in which people depend heavily on elevators, electricity and water supplies. Any inefficiency leading to a few hours of failure of these services can cause chaos. This is different from the situation in a city like Kuala Lumpur, which faced an electricity failure of over one-day recently. That city is still very much reliant on ground-level resources rather than man made contraptions, which is not the case in Hong Kong. The daily running of facilities in Hong Kong has been based on incentives and sanctions offered to a bureaucracy that has had to function with a great deal of technical efficiency. Without regulatory mechanisms, the private ownership system that freely operates in Hong Kong could have many unwelcome results.
Although in the past Hong Kong remained relatively free of the political worries that bedevil other Asian countries, this situation has already begun to change and is likely to change very much in the coming years. That Hong Kong should be left alone, as urged by some, is hardly a realistic option. On the other hand, the view that Hong Kong will have to adjust to whatever consequences that may follow is also not realistic, for the reasons given above.
The debate on what Hong Kong will be in the future is part of the debate on human rights and democracy in Asia. This is neither an anti-China nor pro-China debate. Nor is it an anti-western or pro-western debate. The forces of democracy and the human rights movement in Asia can make a difference by posing the issues relating to people in Hong Kong both to China as well as to the West. At this moment issues of democracy and human rights are being discussed in relation to Burma, Indonesia, Cambodia and several other countries. Hong Kong needs to be added to this list. There is a tendency in Hong Kong to regard human rights only from the point of view of individual protection. While this is important, it is essential to discuss wider issues relating to democracy and human rights in Asia and their relevance to Hong Kong. In that light, issue may be taken with the waning interest in the West in democracy and human rights in Asia simply to establish better relationships with some in the Asian elite for the purpose of gaining some share in expected regional prosperity. Hong Kong can show, however, that people aspire not only to be prosperous, but also to be just and humane.
