{"id":1469,"date":"2014-06-13T15:05:48","date_gmt":"2014-06-13T15:05:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/?p=1469"},"modified":"2014-06-13T15:05:48","modified_gmt":"2014-06-13T15:05:48","slug":"q-and-a-anson-chan-on-beijings-pressure-tactics-in-hong-kong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/q-and-a-anson-chan-on-beijings-pressure-tactics-in-hong-kong","title":{"rendered":"Q. and A.: Anson Chan on Beijing\u2019s Pressure Tactics in Hong Kong"},"content":{"rendered":"

By MICHAEL FORSYTHE JUNE 12, 2014 6:01 AM<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Anson Chan, former chief secretary of Hong Kong.
\nVictor Fraile\/Reuters<\/p>\n

Anson Chan served as the No. 2 official in Hong Kong in the last years of the British colonial administration as well as in the first four years of the government following the territory\u2019s return to China in 1997. During her time in office she was often referred to as Hong Kong\u2019s \u201cIron Lady\u201d and regarded as one of Asia\u2019s most powerful women.<\/p>\n

Now her focus is on ensuring that the terms of Hong Kong\u2019s return to Chinese rule are honored, and that the people of Hong Kong will be able to freely choose the region\u2019s chief executive by 2017 under the terms of the governing \u201cBasic Law.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ms. Chan, 74, has been increasingly critical of the current Hong Kong leaders and what she sees as growing interference from Beijing. Several months ago, she heard that the British banks HSBC and Standard Chartered had pulled advertisements from one of Hong Kong\u2019s most popular newspapers, Apple Daily. The paper alleged that the decision was a result of pressure from Beijing, which was angry at the newspaper\u2019s critical coverage.<\/p>\n

In an interview, Ms. Chan talked about letters she exchanged with top executives of the banks, and what she sees as increasing control from Beijing, which had guaranteed Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy until 2047 under the \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d formula. Edited excerpts follow:<\/p>\n

Q.
\nOn the pulling of advertisements, hasn\u2019t this been going on before with Chinese state-owned enterprises and local companies that do business with China?<\/p>\n

A.
\nIn a way I don\u2019t condone it, but I understand that local Chinese enterprises, particularly those that want to do business in China, feel they have to acquiesce. But an international bank like HSBC and Standard Chartered, if you act this way, it is the first step down a very slippery slope. What happens the next time they call up and say we don\u2019t like you doing business with certain clients? Are you also going to cave in?
\nIf an international bank with a huge presence in most parts of the world behaves like this, what sort of message are you giving to people in Hong Kong, who are desperately fighting for faithful implementation of \u201cOne Country, Two Systems\u201d protection of our core values, maintenance of the rule of law and all the rights and freedoms that we currently enjoy? What chance is there for the average man on the street in Hong Kong? And what sort of message are you sending to other countries where you operate?<\/p>\n

Q.
\nThe banks are saying that these are based on commercial considerations, are you satisfied with their answers to your letter?<\/p>\n

A.
\nThey did not deny that they had withdrawn advertisements from Apple Daily, did they? And they certainly did not provide the assurances that I was seeking.<\/p>\n

You have to ask a bank like HSBC, \u2018Why do you withdraw advertisements from one of the most popular newspapers in town? What would prompt you to do that?\u2019<\/p>\n

I think it\u2019s very telling. You have not, first of all, denied that this has happened. I asked you to provide an absolute assurance. You did not. What conclusion am I to draw from this?<\/p>\n

Q.
\nWhy is the Chinese government focusing on Apple Daily?<\/p>\n

A.
\nApple Daily is about the only still fairly independent newspaper that dares to speak its mind in criticizing Beijing, in criticizing the S.A.R. government. There are not all that many newspapers now that dare to do this. You see increasing self-censorship on the part of the printed media, even television.<\/p>\n

In the past at least they did it behind the scene and very quietly. Now, one of the things that worries us is that they so blatantly interfere and they don\u2019t even bother to disguise the fact that they are interfering.<\/p>\n

Q.
\nWhy is this?<\/p>\n

A.
\nThat is because they are intent on showing who is the master. And they don\u2019t think that there is very much we can do about it because you can see this not only in the way they deal with Hong Kong, but in the way that they deal with a lot of other issues. They are becoming more and more assertive because everybody gives them the impression we badly want to trade with you and have investments with you. Unfortunately, money talks.<\/p>\n

If you roll over and you pull your punches, you\u2019re just going to encourage them to demand more the next time around. At what point are you going to say, enough and enough?<\/p>\n

If the bank really thought this through, surely from the bank\u2019s point of view, you need an unfettered press. You need up-to-the-minute accurate information to make informed business decisions. But if you have a press that can be easily gagged, it doesn\u2019t serve HSBC\u2019s interest, and it certainly doesn\u2019t serve shareholders\u2019 interests.<\/p>\n

As China grows economically stronger and it feels increasing economic muscle, and they think they can get away with flexing this economic muscle, then that is what they will do.<\/p>\n

Q.
\nWhere does this go, does it have something to do with the Occupy Central movement, which has threatened a sit-in protest in Hong Kong\u2019s central business district should new rules for the election of the next chief executive fail to meet international standards?<\/p>\n

A.
\nNo, it has been going on for a while, and Occupy Central is just the latest thorn in their side. [The White Paper issued by Beijing this week] is the clearest sign yet that they intend to tighten their grip over Hong Kong, that they are redefining what is meant by a high degree of autonomy and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong. If they can, they will rewrite the Basic Law.<\/p>\n

Q.
\nBut polls show the Beijing government is losing support of the populace in Hong Kong, especially among young people. Aren\u2019t they concerned?<\/p>\n

A.
\nThey don\u2019t seem particularly concerned as yet. They think that, in the end, because we look to them for economic largesse and whatnot, that we will just as usual say, \u2018Well, what can we do, we\u2019ll just have to accept it.\u2019 But if they do this, they have badly miscalculated, because, as you say, the younger generation are not nearly so tolerant. They are very worried about what they see going on now, this chipping away at Two Systems, eroding our core values. Because if this continues, even the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary will be compromised and, when that goes, what else remains for Hong Kong? How can we continue to play a role in sustainable economic growth in mainland China and in helping our country modernize? We\u2019re only able to perform this role because there is this concept of One Country, Two Systems.<\/p>\n

Q.
\nDo you think Occupy Central movement is exacerbating the tensions?<\/p>\n

A.
\nOccupy Central undoubtedly has touched a raw nerve. Some in Beijing, egged on by people here, see that as a direct challenge to their absolute authority over Hong Kong. Ever since the Occupy Central idea was mooted, they have done everything they possibly can to demonize Occupy Central, to roll out opposing forces, to exaggerate the so-called economic consequences.<\/p>\n

Q.
\nAre you going to be out there supporting Occupy Central?<\/p>\n

A.
\nThe architects of Occupy Central have made it quite clear. It is a last resort, only to be invoked if the government forces us to accept a set of proposals that are clearly not genuine universal suffrage \u2014 in other words, the outcome is preordained. Only and only if that happens, will there be Occupy Central.<\/p>\n

If the government says they are so concerned about Occupy Central, it is very easy to avoid it. You just do what you are supposed to be doing, which is deliver genuine universal suffrage, which is a solemn promise that Beijing has made to the people of Hong Kong and which is in our Basic Law. No more, no less.<\/p>\n

I am personally extremely disappointed and in many ways very pained to see what is happening to Hong Kong barely 17 years after the handover. There are still 30-odd years to go before the 50 years is up. But if we continue down this road, then I don\u2019t think you have to wait until 2047, because One Country, Two Systems will be long gone before 2047.<\/p>\n

We have to think about people here who have no alternatives. They are not rich like some people in Hong Kong who, if things go wrong, can just up and go elsewhere. For many people they don\u2019t have this choice. I think it is incumbent upon every one of us who can do something to at least arrest the rate of deterioration, to continue to do our best.<\/p>\n

Q.
\nWill you participate in Occupy Central?<\/p>\n

A.
\nMy sincere hope is that there will be no need for Occupy Central. I will say this: If, at the end of the day, the S.A.R. government and Beijing force the people of Hong Kong to accept a set of universal suffrage proposals that are patently false, where there is 100 percent certainty for mainland China as to who is going to be elected, then Beijing cannot blame the Hong Kong people if there is mass mobilization.
\nFrom: http:\/\/sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com\/2014\/06\/12\/is-now-the-time-for-hong-kong-to-stand-up-to-beijing\/?smid=tw-share<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By MICHAEL FORSYTHE JUNE 12, 2014 6:01 A … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,370],"tags":[372,317,90],"views":907,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1469"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1469"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1469\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1470,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1469\/revisions\/1470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinesepen.org\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}