Beijing Dangles an Olive Branch

How did Robert Chow score meetings with officials like Wang Guangya?

It's all relative isn't it.

Now that the Hong Kong pan-democrats seem completely tame next to the localists, the Chinese government has decided to grant the pan-dems mainland travel documents from now on.

But the pan-democrats aren't buying it. Leung Yiu-chung of the Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre says it is a two-pronged strategy by Beijing to break the ice with opposition lawmakers, while cracking down hard on independence advocacy.

Leung Yiu-chung isn't convinced by Beijing's olive branch

"If officials would like to talk about relaunching the city's political reform process, I would go anytime, even this afternoon, but there is no need for another sightseeing trip," To said.

What was also bizarre about the announcement was that it came not from Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, but from the pan-democrats' fiercest critic, Robert Chow Yung, who runs the pro-establishment group Silent Majority for Hong Kong.

He has managed to score meetings with Wang Guangya, director of the State Council's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Zhang Dejiang, chairman of the National People's Congress, and Chen Zuoer, chairman of the semi-official Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies.

The fact that Chow got these meetings -- one purportedly lasting as long as two hours -- shows that even Leung Chun-ying doesn't quite have the guanxi touch anymore.

Nevertheless, at least three pan-democrats who have been unable to renew their mainland travel documents for more than a decade -- Democrat James To Kun-sun, "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung from the League of Social Democrats, and Leung Yiu-chung -- have said they will not apply for permits.

Leung Kwok-hung isn't applying for a permit anytime soon

"I also found it very strange that Chow was informed before the local government. It seems Beijing has downgraded the local government," Leung Yiu-chung said.

When asked if he knew about the announcement from Beijing, Leung Chun-ying declined to confirm, only saying he had been "working hard to advocate that the central government promptly allow our pan-democrat friends [to visit the mainland]".

Hmmm... since when were the pan-democrats his "friends"?

Even Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, Hong Kong's sole representative on the National People's Congress Standing Committee didn't know about the latest development. She saw it as a gesture to the pan-democrats that "if you are not [advocating independence] there is no reason why there should be no communication [between us]".

Very interesting development, but also good on the pan-democrats for sticking to their guns. Democracy is worth much more than a travel permit to the mainland...

Rita Fan Chides Chinese Envoys in Hong Kong

Rita Fan says Chinese envoys need to understand Cantonese to know HK

Finally Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, a senior Hong Kong official has explained the fact that senior Chinese officials posted in the city don't know Cantonese has contributed to rising tensions between the mainland and Hong Kong.

She said this led to mainland envoys not having a comprehensive understanding of the social sentiment here. Fan also encouraged the local government to look at why young people were turning to pro-independence and not just criticize them.

Fan is Hong Kong's sole deputy on the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and she made the comment during a live online interview with Legislative Council President Jasper Tsang Yok-sing yesterday.

She hints Chinese officials don't go out to experience the city

"You have to live in Hong Kong to know about Hong Kong, not only staying at home alone, but going out to feel the social sentiment," said Fan, who added many mainland envoys here, like those from Beijing's liaison office, only spoke Putonghua.

"You need to feel how [Hong Kong] people feel. You need to feel and understand what makes them happy and what makes them unhappy. But first of all, you need to speak Cantonese, otherwise it will be very difficult."

But at the same time she warned young people that independence from China was not the way out.

"If they succeed [in achieving Hong Kong independence], it will sentence Hong Kong to death. And of course they will also not be able to survive. But unfortunately, millions of other innocent people will also become victims.

"But we need to understand the young people and why they have such ideas. If you just criticize them and say no to this and that, they won't listen.

Why is Fan saying this 2 years after the Umbrella Movement?

"You need to express your views in such a way that they feel comfortable to listen. No one will listen to you if you use the wrong way," Fan said.

Very interesting that Fan has come out now to say these level-headed statements -- but why didn't she say them earlier -- like YEARS earlier, back when locals were angry at having mainlanders invading the city, or even just before or after the Umbrella Movement?

Or has she tried to tell senior mainland officials that they need to understand Cantonese and they didn't listen? Is this her way of trying to get their attention in a very public way?

Fan is saying what many have thought but never said publicly, and it's about time -- oh only 19 years after the handover. It's also intriguing she points out these envoys don't go out and experience what life is like in Hong Kong either.

It is obvious language and cultural issues continue to create conflict and they are not going to go away anytime soon. But what will mainland officials do about it? Are there senior government officials from Guangdong province who speak Cantonese and can be posted here?

Even then there are cultural differences between Cantonese speakers in Guangdong and in Hong Kong.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how Beijing responds to her suggestions -- if its officials are listening...

HK Sliding Down the Totem Pole

Zhang Dejiang (centre) talks to Hong Kong delegates in this new arrangement

China analysts are reading whatever tea leaves they can find during the "two sessions", or the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in Beijing to figure out what senior leaders are thinking.

And in the case of Hong Kong, it looks like the city has been further downgraded in its importance -- according to seating arrangements.

Last December was a big clue, when President Xi Jinping was seated at the head of a long table and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was shown his place adjacent to him on the side.

This was repeated when Leung met with Premier Li Keqiang, making it a sharp contrast to previous visits when Leung was seated with the senior leaders side-by-side in comfy sofas.

Previous seating was arranged with comfy arm chairs

And this time for the "two sessions", the Hong Kong delegation was not seated in a large room, where each person had a large armchair to sit in, placed in a horse-shoe shape.

Instead National People's Congress Chairman Zhang Dejiang sat at a long rectangular table in front, while the 36-member delegation faced him like an audience. This is a new change since 1997 when Hong Kong was included in the "two sessions".

Some Hong Kong deputies sounded surprised when they saw the new seating arrangement, but when asked by the media about it, they downplayed the political significance.

NPC Standing Committee member Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, who has been a deputy since 1998 said: "I think this arrangement is the norm, because in the past it looked like we were foreign guests... but in fact just like those from mainland provinces, we are here to do our job, and not to receive courteous treatment. I think this new arrangement is better because it is easier for me to take notes."

Ching Cheong, a veteran China watcher, says there used to be a tacit understanding that Hong Kong held a slightly more significant position than provinces on the mainland.

"The latest seating arrangement signifies that Hong Kong no longer holds a special status from Beijing's point of view. Instead it is now on the same level as mainland provinces," he said.

It sounds like the city has lost its privileges and is being punished for not behaving.

But really, if the people are unhappy because they feel their local government is not working in their best interests, whose fault is that?

If the Hong Kong government tried to do things in the best interests in Hong Kong, would we see the social unrest and polarized political atmosphere we have now? But then again, it's all about the Party, right?

Sounds like Hong Kong is in the dog house...

Clarification Please

Zhang Dejiang's statements on Hong Kong's future is subject to interpretation

Ah the Chinese language can be so.... vague.

It's open to so many different interpretations which is why Chinese officials love it. They can make these pronouncements that are difficult to translate because other languages, such as English can be very precise.

The latest is the top official in charge of Hong Kong and Macau affairs, Zhang Dejiang, who spoke at the National People's Congress, saying achieving universal suffrage in 2017 is "an historic opportunity not to be missed".

However, he also warned that "a missed opportunity would not come again", creating a sense of panic that if pan-democrats veto the upcoming political reform package, then Hong Kong people would have lost their only chance at "one man, one vote".

Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai, a member of the NPC Standing Committee, interpreted Zhang's words this way:

"He said some forces have publicly vowed to vote down the package to elect the chief executive by universal suffrage in 2017... he said they are exhausting all means to obstruct Hong Kong's path to democracy," Fan said.

In meetings with local deputies yesterday, Zhang reiterated universal suffrage in 2017 must be based on the framework which was set down by the NPC Standing Committe in August.

This means two to three candidates running for chief executive, must be first approved by Beijing before being put on the ballot that every one would be able to vote for. And this is exactly why tens of thousands occupied the streets in Central, Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mongkok for 79 days.

Fan added Zhang also told local deputies that "it is difficult to eliminate the negative effects of Occupy Central... which reflected that the young people lack understanding about the Basic Law and the country".

Or is this Fan's way of explaining to Zhang that young people in Hong Kong still don't understand that they are Chinese?

Another Hong Kong delegate, Brave Chan Yung, also expressed fears that the city was missing its only opportunity for universal suffrage, and that if it was voted down this time, another chance would not come again.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said Zhang's words should be interpreted as "a warning".

However, Elsie Leung Oi-sie, deputy director of the Basic Law Committee, believed Zhang was not saying that Hong Kong's political system could not be changed after 2017.

So what did Zhang really mean?

Chinese officials can say whatever they want and then backtrack later because what they said originally was so vague that it could have been interpreted a number of ways.

And that's what we're seeing here, which is much like a dog chasing its tail -- going around in circles.

Can we get a clarification once and for all? Or perhaps Zhang is couching his words to suit possible circumstances for later?

Quote of the Day: The Battle of Language

Rita Fan chides Chris Patten for being behind the times with Hong Kong

A war of words has erupted between the pro-Beijing camp consisting of Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai and Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, and former governor Chris Patten.

The man affectionately known as "Fat Pang" says the UK has a "moral and political obligation to ensure that China respects its commitment" set out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration to "guarantee Hong Kong's way of life for 50 years after 1997".

But today Fan and Leung hit out at Patten, saying the Sino-British Joint Declaration made no provisions for universal suffrage at all, and that he should not be meddling in China's internal affairs, and adding that he was still stuck in his memories of the handover.

Excuse me -- did you say there were no provisions for universal suffrage at all? So now you're saying we have "universal suffrage" but China's version of it?

Someone who was there during negotiations of the Joint Declaration ought to tell us if this is really true or not.

Nevertheless, as said earlier, this is a war of words.

Which brings us to the quote of the day.

James R. Holmes has an article in The Diplomat out today, called "China's War on Maritime Law". The first paragraph, giving words of advice to Washington, could very well be suited to us in Hong Kong:

Never surrender to China in the battle of language, Washington. Ceding control of the words we use can be fatal to diplomacy. If you let someone define the words used in an argument how he pleases, or if you let him use terms so imprecisely that they lose all meaning, you let him establish the assumptions from which the argument proceeds. And once he sets the assumptions, he can prove whatever he wants. You will lose every time. Call it rhetorical battlespace preparation, or call it "three warfares". Whatever the name, it's a never-ending campaign for Beijing. Blunting it demands similar persistence.

Hong Kong people must define their home by their own terms. We cannot let Beijing determine it for us.

And by vetoing the electoral plan it has in store for us is the first step, because it is better than its version of "universal suffrage" which mocks the intent of voting for who we believe is the best chief executive to represent Hong Kong.

What Do We Want?

What kind of democratic system does Hong Kong want to take for 2017?

Hong Kong has been promised universal suffrage by 2017 but what form will it take?

That is the issue people are squabbling over, including the Occupy Central movement.

The pan-democrats are proposing a "three-track system" where a candidate can be chosen by a public nomination or through support of political parties in addition to candidates picked by the nomination committee.

However the pro-Beijing camp says this is a waste of time because the Central Government will not like the idea and would probably prefer to control the race by having candidates it deems as politically correct to run in the race that everyone votes.

At the 12th National People's Congress going on right now in the Chinese capital, NPC member Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai said that the pro-democrat proposal would not achieve consensus and would result in Hong Kong people missing their chance for universal suffrage in 2017.

"We should stop insisting on civil nomination and discuss, say, the composition of the nominating committee," she said. "These are much needed contents in the future political reform package."

How can we miss the change for universal suffrage? We could have a referendum by a certain deadline and then majority rules. She is trying to scare people into thinking we must follow the pro-Beijing path.

In Hong Kong, former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang says the Hong Kong government should not rule out civil nomination at this early stage.

It is very easy to see who falls in which camp based on their opinion about 2017, which the Hong Kong government is currently soliciting public opinion.

Today during the NPC, China's legislature said it will allow Hong Kong people to directly choose their leader in 2017.

"It is the hope of Hong Kong's people, as well as the long-standing stance of the central government, that the chief executive [of Hong Kong] can be returned by universal suffrage in 2017 in accordance with the law," said Fu Ying, spokeswoman for the NPC.

"Implementing universal suffrage is a big issue for Hong Kong. It is also about the future stability and development of Hong Kong," she said. "We believe [the Hong Kong government] can deal with all aspects of the issue in accordance with the law. We also hope various sectors of the Hong Kong community can work hard together to achieve universal suffrage in accordance with the Basic Law and the rulings of the National People's Congress.

"From the viewpoint of the National People's Congress, we would like to see that universal suffrage [in Hong Kong] can be smoothly implemented."

It is in what form universal suffrage will take that is the issue. Will we get to choose the nominations or will they be decided for us by Beijing?

One tends to think it will be latter, but we can't give up hope yet. While it's true in the west citizens don't get to choose their candidates -- they are picked by their political parties -- but at least they aren't endorsed by some looming authority elsewhere.

Do the Hong Kong people understand the issue at hand and really want to stand up and make the voice heard on the nomination process? Many seem cynical about this, believing it's self-defeating to even bother giving their opinions, or do they even care?

Now if the pan-democrats could stop squabbling amongst themselves and put away their iPads filled with women clad in bikinis then maybe -- just maybe -- the public might take their cause more seriously?