I always wonder what is
the rationale Hong Kong residents have when they are faced with the evidence
that China is progressively chipping away at Hong Kong’s way of life (freedom
of expression, rule-of-law, separation of powers, etc. All the good stuff in a
free society).
One of the pundits,
Michael Chugani, has made his position clear in his SCMP comment on the
suggestion that tickets for the Express rail might be payable in RMB:
"Are
you serious, Mr Secretary? Do you really want to pursue the folly of using
China’s renminbi as the currency to buy express rail tickets in Hong Kong?
Unthinkable as it may be for many Hongkongers, that’s exactly what Transport
and Housing Secretary Frank Chan Fan said two weeks ago.
These
were his exact words at a press conference about the railway’s logistics: “How
about the kind of currency that we are [to be] using? Should it be the Hong
Kong dollar or should it be renminbi?”
I
can think of only two reasons for Chan’s astounding remark: he wasn’t thinking
straight, or he is unfamiliar with the word “mainlandisation”.
Either
way, it again proves that our officials have an inborn knack to shoot
themselves in the foot.
Mainlandisation
is anathema to many Hong Kong people. But it’s an inevitability that’s already
eating away at the feel and culture of our city. Mainland developers have
humbled local property tycoons in snapping
up land.
Mandarin has become a fixture in our finance sector. Even Hong Kong icon Cathay
Pacific has lost its
blue-chip status to
a mainland firm on the Hang Seng Index.
Do
we want to hasten the process by requiring Hongkongers to pay in renminbi for
express rail tickets at West Kowloon?
The
HK$84 billion Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong
Kong Express Rail was
built with Hong Kong dollars and paid for by local taxpayers. Its terminus is
in West Kowloon, which will remain part of Hong Kong even after a section is
placed under mainland jurisdiction.
Call
me a localist if you will, but I am ruffled by the thought of having to pay in
renminbi for a ticket on a railway built and paid for by Hong Kong.”
Sure, but these are
details. The important part and the character of Hong Kong is not the fact that
it is using the Hong Kong dollar to pay for a train ticket.
“Don’t
confuse my brand of localism with that of the lunatics who equate it with
self-rule. Independence is never going to happen, but drilling that into the
brains of such people is mission impossible.
My
definition of localism is accepting Hong Kong as a part of China but keeping at
bay the kind of mainlandisation that dilutes our city’s character and culture.
Many local stores, particularly high-end ones that cater to mainland tourists,
already accept payment in renminbi.
But
the express rail is not a store. It is a taxpayer-financed government entity
intended to showcase Hong Kong as an international city efficiently linked to
the world’s second-largest economy.”
Oh, so, now it is quite
clear; for Chugani, mainlandisation is the irrelevant details. The big things
that made Hong Kong what it is, he does not seem to understand or care for. What
is now Hong Kong was the land nobody wanted before the Brits took it over, and
then enshrined the principles of free enterprise, rule-of-law,
freedom-of-the-press, freedom-of-expression, an independent judiciary, no
communism… That is what makes Hong Kong what it is.
I am not saying that colonialism is preferable, that's not my point at all. But for sure, everything that a CCP-ruled China will be bringing is the antithesis of the Hong Kong character.
“But joint
immigration at West Kowloon does scare many Hongkongers who fear being arrested by
mainland officials on Hong Kong soil.
Opposition
legislators have fanned this fear, insisting that joint immigration violates
the Basic Law. They have used, and intend to
continue using, every trick in the Legislative Council rule book to stall local
legislation that will allow
joint immigration.
Some
in the opposition have even ridiculed the express rail link as a pricey
showpiece that benefits business elites rather than ordinary Hongkongers.
Does
Chan really want to throw them more red meat by considering renminbi as the
fare currency? Such a move will play right into the hands of the opposition.
What next, they will ask. Charging renminbi for plane tickets to the mainland?
What happened to “one country, two systems”?
It
is, of course, a given that passengers travelling from the mainland to West
Kowloon should pay with renminbi. I don’t even mind if passengers to the
mainland are given a choice of either currency.
But
choosing renminbi as the only currency? No sir, Secretary Chan. Banish the
thought here and now.”
See, that’s the crux of
the problem with people such as Chugani. Either because of ignorance or
naivety, he believes that his idea of the Hong Kong character will survive
within China even if the core of Hong Kong political, economic, and legal
system goes. It cannot, because it is the Hong Kong character! Let’s see how
content Chugani is when the only thing left of Hong Kong is Cantonese opera and
pineapple buns.
As such, he is silent enabler; thinking that if we go quiet, the Chinese government is going to keep the status-quo. Unfortunately, the evidence of the past few years support the exact opposite. And no, they are not all related to the Occupy movement (abducted booksellers rings any bells?)
I think that quite the
opposite; China will accelerate the complete removal of the Hong Kong character
unless the silent-enablers wake up and voice their dissent.
P.S. On a side-note,
the SCMP has taken to refer to Hong Kong as a 'City' instead of a 'S.A.R.' lately…
2018-MAR-01: Another enabler, Alex Lo, reveals himself clearly in his latest viewpoint:
"The city’s limited democratic system cannot be reformed any time soon. But at least we can aim to maintain the status quo and not give Beijing reasons to interfere.
(...)
After all, it is our constitutional duty under the Basic Law to maintain China’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and to realise universal suffrage in Hong Kong. This way, we may yet earn back Beijing’s goodwill, and lay the groundwork for future political reform."
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2134981/too-late-pocket-first-xi-seeks-abolish-term-limits
"The city’s limited democratic system cannot be reformed any time soon. But at least we can aim to maintain the status quo and not give Beijing reasons to interfere.
(...)
After all, it is our constitutional duty under the Basic Law to maintain China’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and to realise universal suffrage in Hong Kong. This way, we may yet earn back Beijing’s goodwill, and lay the groundwork for future political reform."
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2134981/too-late-pocket-first-xi-seeks-abolish-term-limits
