Hong Kong democracy stalwarts should stop calling on foreigners to intervene in local affairs
Tian Feilong says Hongkongers ought to rethink the direction of their fight for democracy, and focus efforts now on developing a national vision and identity based on the Basic Law
Recently, four people associated with the Hong Kong democracy movement testified at a US government hearing on Hong Kong, at the invitation of the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China. They are: Martin Lee Chu-ming, the founding chairman of the Democratic Party; Chris Patten, the last governor of British Hong Kong; Joshua Wong Chi-fung, an icon of the city’s young localists; and Lam Wing-kee, a bookseller better known as a target of the mainland government’s cross-border law enforcement effort.
Advertisement
In their statements, the four generally agreed that Beijing has damaged Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” framework; that democratisation has come to a standstill in the city; and that the US government should intervene. The results of the hearing will help the US Congress revise its US-Hong Kong Policy Act and consider proposed legislation on human rights and democracy in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong pan-democrats have two salient traits: they reject legitimate state intervention on the one hand, and yearn for illegal foreign intervention on the other. At the same time, Lee is trying to remake young Joshua in his own image, in the hope that the activist can inherit his leadership mantle to further the cause of democracy in Hong Kong. This is unlikely.
The Basic Law and “one country, two systems” have been implemented here for two decades with considerable stability. As China continues to develop and cross-border integration continues apace, the Martin Lee style of democratisation cannot be sustained, particularly with other countries becoming less inclined to intervene.