index  |  next>>

Introduction

On September 12, the people of Hong Kong will go to the polls to elect the members of the Legislative Council. While the format for these elections falls far short of universal suffrage, the people of Hong Kong were promised the opportunity to move to universal suffrage for the elections to be held in 2007 and 2008. That promise was broken in April of this year, when the central government in Beijing ruled that there would be no large-scale changes to Hong Kong’s election format, and further ruled that all changes had to be both pre-approved and finally approved by Beijing.  This setback for democracy took place in the context of many incidents of criminal intimidation and threats against independent politicians, journalists and voters, much of it apparently emanating from Beijing.

Chief Executive Tung Chee hwa was on the record about universal suffrage for Hong Kong almost from the day he took office. In September 1997, just months after the resumption of Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong, Chief Executive Tung paid his first visit to the United States as the head of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, or SAR. Tung had lived more than a decade in the United States, and so knew how to charm the Washington officials and New York businessmen he met with on the visit.

During the trip, Tung faced criticism for recent moves to roll back human rights and democratic reforms put into place by the outgoing British colonial administration. Each time he was asked about democracy in Hong Kong, Tung had the same response: there would be slow and steady progress toward full democracy over the first ten years. After that, as per the Basic Law, any decision about how to conduct elections in Hong Kong would be up to the people of Hong Kong.

Speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chief Executive Tung acknowledged that the current electoral system had come under fire. But, he said, any such criticism was misplaced:

There are those who believe that the pace of democratization in Hong Kong is too slow. Others believe that it is too fast. I believe we have struck the right balance. As far as constitutional issues are concerned, there will always be debates - in Hong Kong, America, or anywhere else. What about after 2007? The Basic Law provides that further democratic evolution will depend on the wish of Hong Kong people and the overall environment at that time with universal suffrage being the ultimate objective.¹

Regardless of the audience, the answer was the same. Speaking to reporters after meeting with President Clinton on September 12, Chief Executive Tung noted that the President had expressed dismay over the format for the first Hong Kong elections, scheduled for May 1998. But, Tung implied, Clinton and Tung were largely in agreement. “It’s only a question as to the speed with which we are moving forward,” Tung said.²

Tung made perhaps his most extensive comments on democracy in Hong Kong during his U.S. sojourn in an interview with the journalist Jim Lehrer on the PBS newsmagazine Newshour:

…the important thing I think, Jim, for us to remember is that we have a constitution--we have what we call a basic law, which is our constitution, which, among other things, maps out for the next 10 years the evolution of our political institution--how the legislature will be elected every few years until the about 10th year and how the chief executive would be elected every time… (The Basic Law) also says very clearly that at the end of that time we are going to move into universal suffrage if it is at that time the wish of the Hong Kong people. So the ultimate aim is universal suffrage. It is all very clear.³

Asked about the possibility of speeding up the process, Tung said:

…I think we just got it about right, a 10-year process going forward, and looking at ultimately universal suffrage. … And the important thing, Jim, is this, that we care about democracy in Hong Kong. We want Hong Kong’s democratic institutions to develop. And over a 10-year period it’s all met now very clearly, and we get there.

On April 6^th of this year, Beijing made sure that, Tung’s statements to the contrary, decisions about the future of democracy in Hong Kong will not be made in Hong Kong, but instead will go first through Beijing. After months of not so subtle hints that it would do so, the central government issued what it called an interpretation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, which stated that any future changes would have to be pre-approved by Beijing. Later in the month, the central government issued a Decision ruling out universal suffrage for the 2007 and 2008 elections.

2004 is shaping up to be the worst year for civil and political rights in Hong Kong since the 1997 transfer of sovereignty over the territory.  If Beijing’s political intervention was the only thing that had happened over the past year, that intervention would be enough to raise concerns over human rights in Hong Kong. But the past year has also seen threats against prominent journalists, vandalism attacks on the offices of pro-democratic politicians, and reports of voter intimidation and manipulation. Beijing has openly questioned the patriotism of democratic politicians, and senior Chinese government officials have attacked prominent Hong Kong legislators by name, merely for exercising their basic right to express their views on recent developments in Hong Kong.

This report is based on more than twenty interviews with politicians, journalists, NGO activists, and Hong Kong government officials. It also is based on an extensive review of the documentary record of the past fourteen months in Hong Kong, including domestic and international press reports and government documents. Because of the closed-door nature of the decision-making process in Beijing, it is impossible to describe in detail the rationale behind key decisions taken by the central government. However, the statements of senior central government officials do give some indication of Beijing’s motivations. Also, the timing of certain decisions reveals some of the political factors that influenced the central government’s calculations.

It is clear that, beginning at least as early as December 2003, Beijing has taken on a more active and a more direct role in Hong Kong affairs, sidestepping the SAR government under Chief Executive Tung. This move may itself violate the Basic Law, and undermines the right of Hong Kong people to freely choose their government.  Under the Basic Law, Beijing is the sovereign authority in Hong Kong, and has full authority over those issues normally handled by a central government, such as defense or foreign affairs. Hong Kong and Beijing have joint authority over certain issues that are relevant to both parties. But a key element of Hong Kong’s promised autonomy is its separate political system, one which should be a multi-party electoral democracy. When Beijing attempts to aid one political party or undercut another, as it has repeatedly done over the past year, it oversteps its power under the Basic Law, and, in doing so, violates the rights of Hong Kong people under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.

The past ten months have seen a marked decline in the human rights situation in Hong Kong. In addition to the April 6 interpretation, the following incidents have cast a shadow over human rights in Hong Kong: