The right-of-abode question turned on the Court of Final Appeal’s recent interpretation of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution. Taking a broad interpretation of the law, the court’s ruling could have resulted in the sudden influx of well over a million mostly mainland Chinese immigrants. In responding to the judgment, Hong Kong had four options–none ideal. First, accept the consequences. Second, the court could reverse its ruling–following a precedent set by many foreign courts. Third, request that the National People’s Congress, which is legally charged with interpreting and amending the Basic Law, to change the relevant codes. Last, ask the Congress to explain the original intention of the law.
Personally, I was prepared to accept the court’s decision in order to preserve the sanctity of the judiciary. However, it was clear from day one that Hong Kong’s people were unwilling to bear the burden of an increased population. A reversal of the ruling wasn’t feasible: such a move would have been viewed as succumbing to political pressure. That left only two choices, both of which involved Beijing’s reluctant intervention.
To those who drafted the Basic Law, it should be clear that the court misruled. No one has yet been able to counter an eloquent article refuting the ruling by Sin Por Shiu, head of a local think tank (available at www.octs.org.hk). Since there is nothing wrong with the Basic Law, it shouldn’t be amended. Moreover, if it can be changed once, the fear is that it may be changed again. The only viable solution, therefore, was to seek an explanation of its original intention. That indeed was done. Unfortunately, the Hong Kong government’s strong-arm tactics unnecessarily alienated many in our city.
The alleged favoritism in the Cyberport Project was another government mistake. I should make my own position clear: as a property developer, I was a victim of that blunder. Subsequent discussions with the government have convinced me that there was no intentional foul play. Perhaps it was simply a case of an entrepreneur’s pulling the wool over the eyes of a senior official. The business community objects not to the project itself, but to the way it was done–not going through the normal procedure of open tender. The government all but backed down when confronted by 10 of the city’s major business groups in an uncharacteristic show of unity. Officials promised not to repeat the mistake. The businessmen, for their part, vowed to keep a watchful eye on the government.
With both incidents subsiding, the question remains: has Hong Kong fundamentally changed for the worse? All things considered, I do not believe so. No doubt other troubling issues will surface. The “one country, two systems” formula governing Hong Kong is an untried concept, and the Basic Law could not have been expected to foresee all possible developments.
To avoid serious mistakes in the future, our civil servants must improve. Idealized for years as a way to ensure a stable transition, some have become the most haughty officials anywhere. With Hong Kong’s recent troubles, from chicken flu to the Asian economic crisis, the local press has begun to run them down. They are neither as good as described pre-1997 nor as bad as they are portrayed today. Though quite efficient, they must adapt to a more open and dynamic society. They should also maintain the long-held tradition of loyalty to the head of government. A few don’t seem to be part of the team; perhaps they still prefer to work for the British. But if they are unable to win over the chief executive, they have only two alternatives: follow instructions or quit. Both routes–and no other–are honorable.
On the positive side, with a fiercely independent legislature and an aggressive press, Hong Kong today is much more transparent than ever before. Recent concerns about press freedom are overwrought. No whiff of foul play will go unnoticed. The protest by the 10 businessmen would have gotten us blacklisted by the colonial government. Only the naive or uninformed would say that things were better in the old days. With the stroke of a pen, the government granted special privileges, such as extra areas for property projects, to companies with British ties. Former attorneys general repeatedly declined to prosecute offenders connected to the establishment. A British soldier who allegedly killed someone was allowed to leave the territory. Such things would be virtually impossible now.
Ultimately, the best gauge of Hong Kong’s political and economic health is the private sector. Irrespective of political convictions, local and foreign businessmen have so far continued to invest. But Hong Kong cannot afford to be complacent: investors everywhere are fickle. Only if Hong Kong sticks to its transparency and a level playing field can we stay competitive–and hope to get ahead.