ASIAN AFFAIRS INTERVIEW WITH TSANG YOK SING

Chairman of the D.A.B - Hong Kong Legislative Councillor

Tsan Yok Sing was the leader of the D.A.B, a party established on July 10, 1992 by 56 members. Today the number of voting members is 2007. The party has 10 elected Legislators in the Legislative Council (out of 60) and 98 District Councillors. He is today an Executive Councillor to the Chief Executive, four DAB are deputies at the Chinese National People's Congress. Mr. Tsang YS is one of the two members of the DAB to be member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). In other words, Tsang Y.S is supposed to be for Beijing what Martin Lee is supposed to be for the democrats. But in the convoluted world of politics in Hong Kong, what means today being a democrat or a pro-Beijing supporter? If politicians are classified according to their ideology, then certainly Tsang could not be a democrat as he is strongly opposed Martin Lee's policies. But that narrow view framed by cold war mentality has no real basis. Both men share more in common than meets the eye. Both want the system of governance of Hong Kong to change. Both have common enemies, the bureaucracy which control the corridor of the executive power vested to Tung Chee-hwa, the first Chief Executive of the HKSAR and the business elite that claimed through one of its members, Peter Woo, that Hong Kong is his property since without the business acumen of few tycoons, it would be nothing. We asked Tsang why Hong Kong is so far unable to abandon its anti-democratic refurbished colonial system, now that the British are gone.

THE POST-COLONIAL SYNDROME OF INCOMPETENCE

Serge Berthier.- The hand over of Hong Kong to China took place more than two years ago, yet one has the feeling that Hong Kong is not convinced that the British era is over for good. There are endless commentaries about the "if" and "when" China is going to takeover the Hong Kong system, as if it was not proven that Beijing had no intention whatsoever to do so. Even politicians are still classified as pro-China or anti-China as if it were still relevant. How do you explain that Hong Kong political mindset is not really moving forward and looking at the reality of Hong Kong being a Chinese city, albeit a special one, but nevertheless very much in China and not in United Kingdom or in United States?

Tsang Yok-sing.- The historical fact is that Hong Kong was under British colonial rule for one and a half centuries, and you don't leave such a legacy overnight. I think that the return to China is only the start of a much longer period of transition than one would admit. What is in fact our political culture? It is at school that one learns the elements of politics and how to behave towards politics. But what did our society learn during all these years? The truth is that the Hong Kong people, including me, adapted to this colonial way of life, not to any democratic one.

SB.- It was said more often than not that Hong Kong was a democratic society since the British parliament which is democratically elected was very much looking after Hong Kong interests.

TYs.- I know. Because Britain was a democracy so was Hong Kong. It was nonsense to say we didn’t have elections in Hong Kong but we were taken care of our democracy in Westminster. The result is that generation after generation, we grew up with the feeling of indifference towards the Hong Kong government and politics in general. And because of what was happening in China, because of the relation between Hong Kong and China, we also grew up during half a century with the same attitude towards the Mainland.

SB.- But no one can deny that the society, with or without democratic institution, was quite free.

TYs.- We were indeed quite free, but the important point is that the people used to refer to this community as a sort of community of refugees, coming from Mainland. A community that did not belong anywhere. In such a mood, it did not feel strongly that the political setup in Hong Kong was that important. So, now where are we? We have to come to terms with this idea of the Hong Kong people looking after themselves, taking Hong Kong affairs in their hands. It is new and probably still not fully understood.

SB.- Why would it be more difficult in Hong Kong than in the ex-British colonies of Africa or the West Indies?

TYs.- Well, unlike many others former British colonies we haven’t gone through political struggle for independence.

SB.- Hong Kong could not be made independent as it is Chinese land and the New Territories were only a lease. But Hong Kong has been through some kind of struggle with people like Martin Lee, the leader of the Democrats, taking a strong stand to force the British to set up some kind of democratic institutions to the place before they left. If independence was not at stake, it was anyhow some sort of political struggle. Don't you think so?

TYs.- People abroad honor Martin Lee as the champion for democracy in Hong Kong. Again, he recently received some sort of award in that respect. Of course, the democrats went in the street from time to time but what for? A system is good only when it is compatible with the needs and the aspiration of the society. People like Martin Lee, what have they got to lose in that process? Before the hand over, he made a show of himself, saying: "I’m getting ready to go to jail". We all knew and he knew that he was simply bluffing, nothing of the sort was likely to happen. I declared in public at the time that if Mr. Lee, or one of his pro-democracy colleagues, was going to jail, I would accompany him. In fact, he invited himself to a free lunch.

SB.- Politicians are always trying to do so, that is what politics are about in general. In the case of Hong Kong, do you think it is today of any consequence, except the fact that Martin Lee is better known in the media than you are, although your party is now the largest of Hong Kong?

TYs.- It had consequences. The first one is that we haven’t got any real politicians in Hong Kong.

SB.- If I understand your point rightly, you are saying that politicians need some kind of exposure, a platform, opponents. And Martin Lee was stealing the show about democracy, which was not the issue anyway, prevented the birth of a sound political climate in Hong Kong.

TYs.- The fact is that, for the reasons I mentioned, we did not have in the past decades real political debates and therefore our history is notoriously short of political parties. Today, even if Martin Lee is receiving awards from abroad, locally all the parties are still very small. You said my party, the DAB, is the largest in Hong Kong. It is true in terms of membership, but how many are we? We have just reached 2000 members. Such a number makes us the biggest. And the Democrats do not have 2000 members.

SB.- Does it really matter? After all Hong Kong is a small place. In China, the communist party has about 40 to 50 million members, but it is out of 1.2 billion people. Hong Kong is officially only 6.8 million people.

TYs.- It has consequences. Can we expect with such narrow membership to be competent in everything?

SB.- Why not. It is not quantity but quality that matters, don't you think?

TYs.- Well, we should not presume too much at this stage.

SB.- But what is the alternative? Who else can manage the affairs of the community? Is it wise to let the civil service do the job of the politicians? After all, why would political parties be less competent than the bureaucracy of Hong Kong where promotion is basically done on seniority? It looks like your argument is that Hong Kong people are too immature, politicians included, to manage their affairs. But I don't understand. It is exactly the kind of argument that was used by the colonial powers to deprive local population of their political liberty. The argument was that the people were not yet "ready". But, then you are never ready enough on that account.

TYs.- Well, Mr. Lee Kuan-yew, one day said, when Chris Patten (the last British governor) was there, that Hong Kong was subjected to a crash-course in democracy and human rights, which will do little good. I think he was quite right, if I didn’t misunderstand him. As I said, a system is good only when it is in line with the aspiration and needs of the people. Competence is maybe not the right word to describe what is needed, maybe we should say experience or something similar. When I say we don’t have the right kind of people to manage the kind of democracy you have in the western countries, like in France or Germany or United Kingdom, I have no intention to mean that Hong Kong people are inferior to anybody in other jurisdictions, but we can only manage our problems with the means available to us right now, and nothing else will do. And to me, it’s a fact that, today, we do not have the kind of mature party politics and the structures as we see in other countries with a long history of universal suffrage.

SB.- Let's agree on the fact that you can only manage with what you have, which seems obvious. Let's say that Hong Kong has little experience in handling its own affairs. So it is a learning curve, and we should expect some mistakes due to the lack of experience. But it doesn’t mean that the political parties cannot manage Hong Kong affairs.

TYs.- Indeed, it doesn’t mean that the political parties cannot manage Hong Kong affairs.

SB.- Then, why are you not pushing for a ministerial system, which is much talked about each time the top of the bureaucracy is under fire and its incompetence exposed at one time or another, such as the fiasco of the opening of the new airport, the disastrous handling of the bird flu epidemic, and more recently the flawed power generation scheme approved by Madame Anson Chan when she was Secretary for Economic Affairs.

TYs.- All this talk about the ministerial system, universal suffrage and so on, frankly I don’t think that, today, our political parties are really up to it. Let's assume for example that we succeed in changing the Basic Law, and that Beijing agrees to the change, which, in any case, nobody believes would be possible right now, but, just for the sake of the argument, let's say that it happens tomorrow, or next year, who are going to be the ministers, which party has the competence and the strength to take over the government of Hong Kong?

SB.- Martin Lee told me as early as 1992 that he should be leading the government since his party had gathered the most support. Of course, that was in 1992 and his party was the only real political party of the day. In 2000, it looks like it is your party that enjoys the most support. Isn't it enough?

TYs.-People know the limitations of the present system.

SB.- Let's put it another way. There was much talk about democracy before 1997. It was said and written everywhere that Hong Kong people wanted democracy. Today, in 2000, what are the expectations of the Hong Kong people? What do you ask them to support when you ask them to vote for your party?

TYs.- Honestly, I don't feel any pressure coming from the people of Hong Kong for changing the political system. They want more social services and things like that, but as regards governance, they are not unhappy to the extent that they want to change it. It may seem surprising, because that is not necessarily the perception of the media, but it is maybe because expectations are generally born out of experience and so they judge by what they have been through and nothing else. Sadly or not, that is the reality. Politics are a matter of perception as you know, but it is also very much based on reality.

SB.- Is the lack of expectation then due to what I call the China factor, and what you call "what they have been through"?

TYs.- The China factor, as you call it, was in everybody’s mind. The key word in the Sino-British joint declaration and in the Basic law is "no change". People were told not to expect changes, as a protection. Today, they don’t want any change. They were afraid of reforms and so they are afraid of reforms. Everybody was saying that, with the hand over, there would be enough uncertainties, enough to cope with, not to introduce more uncertainties by changing the system. So we turned a blind eye to what it meant really to put it in the Basic Law. The problem as I see it today is that we pretended that, with the Basic Law, we were not introducing any fundamental changes in the colonial system existing there in the mid 1980s, while of course we were introducing a very fundamental change…

SB.- …such as freezing in time a system of governance that, in the past, had been constantly changing.

TYs.- That maybe, but more fundamentally the composition of the Legislative Council. It had always been an appointed one, then it was all of a sudden an elected one. But then, we were introducing a mismatch in the executive-led system.

SB.- Were the people fully conscious at government level and within the political establishment of the fault-line that was introduced in the so-called Hong Kong executive-led government system?

TYs.- Yes, but no one wanted to talk about that because, on the one hand, we wanted to change the Council to a fully elected legislature. Many of us, and more forcefully than others, people like Martin Lee and Emily Lau, believed that such a move, a legislature elected by Hong Kong people, was the way to keep Beijing’s hands away. But on the other, without anyone very conscious of it, the arguments transformed the Hong Kong existing system of the time into a myth. The Hong Kong success story was frozen in a few words: in Hong Kong when life is hard, we work harder and don’t rely on the government. Hong Kong doesn’t need the kind of welfare system we saw in the West. Then, you have to wonder under such slogan what remains for the politicians to do.

SB.- That Hong Kong was a myth abroad is to the insiders common knowledge. You are one of them, you don't need to adhere to the myth.

TYs.- But people do. You know, before the hand over, politics meant only either one of two things: for politicians like Martin Lee and Emily Lau, it was how to keep China’s hands away from Hong Kong. For my camp, the so-called pro-Beijing camp, politics was how to effect a smooth transition.

SB.- Martin Lee played on the fear of the people, especially after Tiananmen. He felt, and still feels that China is a threat to Hong Kong. Did you ever think that your way of life was at risk, that Hong Kong was in some kind of extreme danger?

TYs.- A threat was there. What kind of threat is debatable, but even for Beijing it was there, because of the difficulties happening during Chris Patten's governorship. During those five years, there were worries about the management of the transition. Would it be good or bad? No one knew. There was also the question of the establishment of the new government. So we had to work out how to smooth everything so that Hong Kong would not be harmed in anyway, by design or by error. But after the hand over, what are the issues? What is politics? What are our new missions when we have been told, no change for fifty years? I don’t know!

SB.- There will be an election next September for the Legislative Council. It will be actually the first election for a full term of the Council since the previous one was just a temporary measure to replace the Council which was dissolved on July 1st 1997 because it had been elected under electoral rules that were not recognized by Beijing. What are the issues you will defend, if you feel you have no mission, as you just said?

TYs.- We'll look at the very immediate needs of the ordinary people, at the grass-root level, especially because of the economic down turn of the past two years.

SB.- In other words, it will be an election based on bread-and-butter issues. Don't you think there are also important long-term issues to be openly debated such as the mismatch between a fully elected legislative and an executive-led government which has the initiative of the laws?

TYs.- There are indeed very serious structural problems, but no one has the answer now.

SB.- Why?

TYs.- Our political structure must evolve into something. But in the back of our mind, we know, for the time being that we cannot get it because Beijing is unlikely to accept it right now.

SB.- But isn't it self-censorship? If you don't raise the issue, if Hong Kong politicians don't raise the issue in a rational manner, who else can raise it? Don't you think it is dangerous to let Hong Kong behave as if the government is structurally sound while it is a fact that the system is badly in need of an overhaul?

TYs.- Well, when the three-tier government was scrapped with the abolition of the Urban and Regional Councils, ten out of ten of the journalists I have met told me that it was a big step back of democracy. That is where we are.

SB.- Are you supposed to believe journalists who have generally a superficial knowledge of the issues at stake?

TYs.- But their views are what matters…

SB.- Journalists are not politicians. They never pay for their errors of judgment and they ignore more often than not the truth.

TYs.- It was not only the journalists.

SB.- Gorbatchev, the last Soviet Union leader, was always acting according to the wish of the media. The price has been horrendous for the ordinary Russian.

TYs.- In any case, my party voted for the scrapping of the Councils. You touch here a point that has puzzled me since I got myself involved in politics, I kept hearing people say: "what is the truth?" The truth is what people perceive. So if everybody thinks we have a superb capitalist system, where the free market is in full play, not restricted by anything, it is very hard to dispel such a perception. People believe in their perception.

SB.- Certainly that is what politics are about. Politicians strive on perception, but when the divergence is too big to be sustained between the perception and the reality, it is generally very costly for the society, if not for the politician himself.

TYs.- My reality, at this point of time, is that the Hong Kong society will maintain some balance in the future, that the economy will keep up with the growing demand of that society. After all, the doors are open. People, in Hong Kong, come and go if they don't like it. I can't see any pressure building up.

SB.- Well, Hong Kong's economy has been in recession for two years, the education system is with part-time primary schools while US$91 billion are in the bank, it is hard to think that some kind of balance has been achieved in that sector, and if we take out the 1% that controls the Hong Kong economy, the per capita income is not that high. Can we call such a setup a balanced and equitable society?

TYs.- The disparities have always been there, and the government is taking care of it.

SB.- That is precisely where the political issues lie. Bureaucracies, all over the world, are notorious for their inefficiency. After all, the existing bureaucracy has well managed the disparities, but has not really changed the structure of the society, and the welfare costs in Hong Kong are growing much faster than the economy.

TYs.- We want to go faster! We want to maintain a fast economic growth, and I can assure you that everybody including the SAR, the political parties, the business sector want to improve our competitiveness.

SB.- How would you say the contrary? I take it as a cliche, and in Hong Kong, it is surprising that everyone is prepared to adhere to it, while overlooking the fundamental problems that are lurking at the horizon.

TYs.- What fundamental problems?

SB.- Just take one: the public finance. No party is really consistent about what it stands for. The government is currently floating the idea that to supplement the public income, a sales tax is sooner or later the only option. It is not a new idea. It was mentioned by Hamish McLeod, the predecessor of the current Financial Secretary, a long time ago. But while everyone is talking about resources, no one is looking carefully at the expenditures. A sales tax is for Hong Kong a big decision, that will shatter the myth that the Hong Kong government is small and relatively tax-free. The reality seems to be that Hong Kong is bound to be less and less tax-free. Why? That is a major political issue to be debated. Why is Hong Kong's nature changing, if as you say, Hong Kong should not change? There is no serious answer coming from the political parties. Why?

TYs.- As you said earlier, we have a narrow tax base, that has always been the case…

SB.- Indeed, but it seems Hong Kong can't afford it any longer otherwise what would be the reason for such an idea to be floated?

TYs.- Yes, but I can’t see any perfect solution elsewhere…

SB.- We are not talking about perfection but about options. The political argument between parties is always that some segments of the society want something, or try to protect vested interest, and other segments want a change, or a different split.

TYs.- Up to now, here, it is clear that the bottom line is still a minimum government, very low taxes, people working hard to improve the real livelihood, relying a minimum on government assistance.

SB.- How do you reconcile this view of Hong Kong, which was correct in the 1960s and 1970s, when the civil service was not grossly overpaid and certainly not the largest employer of the place, with what is lined up in the future? You mentioned that for the next election you will focus on the needs of the ordinary people. That means to me more social assistance of one sort or other. Take the new mandatory retirement scheme. It also means more bureaucracy, more paperwork for start-up enterprises. Take the sales tax, it also means more bureaucracy and more paperwork, while there is no comprehensive scheme as regards the streamlining of the administration at all levels. How can you think that Hong Kong will keep its original features in such a new environment?

TYs.- What can I say? I agree it’s to the politicians, to the members of the Legislative Council to decide on such an orientation. I know the system has to change, but it can only change as quickly as the political parties grow. This is a chicken and egg problem but we cannot overtake ourselves. The opportunities for the parties to grow, as you say, are from elections to elections. It is the time where you educate the electors but also the party's members. It’s a process, and when we take the Hong Kong circumstances into account, I am afraid it's going to be a long process, because, if you look elsewhere, they had to fight for their independence, which was a learning process, and we didn’t!

SB.- But when we talk about reforms, and you admit that reforms Hong Kong will have anyhow at some stage, why would a learning process be needed when all is needed is a comprehensive proposal?

TYs.- If you come out and say: "Look! We must make such and such reform", there is then a big difference between Hong Kong and other places which went through decolonization, it is the China factor.

SB.- You make it sound as if it is an overwhelming factor.

TYs.- It is definitely one.

SB.- The DAB is labeled as being a pro-China party, so is China telling you what you should do?

TYs.- No. But we all know that we cannot get away, and given the unpredictability of Chinese politics in the past fifty 50 years…

SB.- I am surprised that you say that, because Martin Lee told me exactly the same thing to justify why he is afraid of China. But to me China has a rather steady way at looking at politics and does not seem to be as unpredictable as you imply.

TYs.- I know, the fact is that many people in Hong Kong still say: "who knows what’s going to happen next day in China!"

SB.- Is that feeling going to stay for ever?

TYs.- No, change is already taking place in China and in Hong Kong as well. I may sound pessimistic to you, but in fact I’m more optimistic than many politicians in Hong Kong, just simply because I believe in the future, and in China, and that is the important thing.

SB.- I am confused. You believe in China, but at the same time, you say that you can't speak your mind because of China. Isn't it a paradox?

TYs.- Let's put it this way. How can you talk about reforms, say, such as the ministerial system? If Mr. Tung, the Chief Executive, starts talking about it, it would at once cause instability among the top officials. "The boss is thinking about the ministerial system, what is going to happen to me?". That will create problems. People would be scared not knowing what lies in the future. So I understand his position.

SB.- What position?

TYs.- Not to talk about it. What would be the point? Now, if the political parties start talking about the universal suffrage for the election of the Chief executive, which would be one way to solve the impasse, Beijing would then be uneasy. The thinking would be: "What are Hong Kong’s political parties up to? What do they want?". It would be futile for me or any of my colleagues who believe in "One Country two systems" to tell Beijing with words what is expected in such a move, because, just like before the hand over, when people expressed their fears about China’s hypothetical control after Hong Kong became Chinese, they would say: "How do you know it will work? And what if it does not work and Hong Kong drifts?"

SB.- In other words, the unknown is not acceptable, but then how can political parties be nurtured in such an environment where anything that is political in essence should be forgotten because no one can read the future?

TYs.- Well, whenever I have the chance to talk to people in Beijing, or people from Beijing, I always tell them that they have to live with political parties in Hong Kong, and that political parties are going to grow. They have to accept it. I told them that Martin Lee’s party is still very popular in Hong Kong, enjoying maybe the support of perhaps forty, fifty per cent of the population, and it would be wrong for the Central Government simply to ignore it. Now, when one looks around, one doesn’t see any place with stable government where political parties do not play an important role, it is simply irrational for political parties to be restrained to the legislature, out of the government.

SB.- That is the point but nevertheless, just twenty minutes ago, you told me it is not the right time.

TYs.- Let me assure you we are doing all we can to make sure that when that happens, we can cope. My party is spending over two million dollars training thirty of our young people in the DAB who have the potential to be a politician. But let’s stop here the discussion about when and how it is going to happen. I think we have to wait until the 2004 elections. We simply hope winning this time, in September 2000, a little bit more, but our gains are going to be marginal in terms of numbers. But I have always believed that an election campaign is exactly where you can really change the public mentality and the political atmosphere. Again we are talking about perception. Given time, perception changes. Take the Tiananmen incident, it’s maybe not a good example, but it comes to my mind, because at every election people ask us the same question: "how can you support a government which did such a thing?" What can you say in public? I would say and many of my friends would admit in private that Hong Kong people over reacted at the time, it was very emotional. Exaggerated words like massacre were commonly used, as if it were true. Sometime in the future Hong Kong people would say: "no, it was not a massacre, it was wrong but it was not a massacre. The whole incident was blown-up disproportionately." But today, can you say that? No one would say that in public.

SB.- What you mean is that you can't say anything about it without the media starting turning your ideas upside down.

TYs.- Exactly. After the coming elections in September, we will have four years ahead of us to really change the perception. We are still in what I call the hangover from the Patten errors. When you stand up and speak in public, the first question people ask is on which side does this man stand ? is he pro-China or pro-democracy ? If I say something which usually only comes from the mouth of a pro-democracy politician, then I get dashed by my own supporters. It happened again about the ministerial system we discussed. When I opened the door for a discussion about it, I got a lot of phone calls coming in: "Tsang Yok-sing! Are you out of your mind ? Why advocating a ministerial system ? That is the conspiracy of the democrats!" Actually, it has nothing to do with Martin Lee and his colleagues. It is a complex issue that can't be reduced to a one-man show. But people still don't know it.

Winter 2000

© www.asian-affairs.com