G7 bloc members met to deliberate upon ways to tackle the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The joint declaration released after the meeting mentioned for the first time the issues of Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the Cross-Strait and South China Sea. The Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the UK responded in a hardline manner, pointing out that during the colonial governance of more than 150 years, the Hong Kong inhabitants who had always been the targets of oppression of the British-Hong Kong government had no human rights at all. They asked in response whether these countries had ever been concerned about the human rights and democracy in Hong Kong.

Such an argument by CCP officials was put forward as early as in 1992 when Chris Patten brought up a constitutional reform proposal. Harping on the same old string, they would simply fall into contempt. It seems they have forgotten the fact that during the colonial era, it was not Britain but the CCP that hampered Hong Kong from democratizing. Upon the end of World War II, Mark Aitchison Young, then governor of Hong Kong, was back to the colony, suggesting that the city carry out a plan of high autonomy for Hong Kong named “the Young Plan”. In light of the fact that the peoples in British colonies lost faith in the UK, the country tried to roll out democratic reforms and implement high degree of autonomy in a bid to preserve the order of the empire amidst the tempestuous rising of independent movements in post-war colonies. The core of the Young Plan was a city council constituted mainly by election to be held responsible for administering the city. Having founded a government in 1949, the CCP established diplomatic relations with the UK and deliberated with the latter on the future of Hong Kong later on. The former made clear its stand on the issue that it did not have a plan to take back Hong Kong. Nonetheless, the key was that the CCP informed Britain at the same time that it would not put up with any democratic reform in Hong Kong, indicating that any plan of high autonomy for Hong Kong was tantamount to Hong Kong independence. To this end, the Young Plan miscarried. The CCP has not altered its stand a bit on objecting to realization of genuine democracy in Hong Kong over the past sixty years.

The CCP thwarted Hong Kong’s democratization for the second time in the 1988 Hong Kong electoral reform. Britain was following out a representative government back then. In 1987, the Hong Kong government issued the Green Paper: A review of Representative Government 1987, consulting with Hong Kong people about introducing direct election in 1988. The pro-democracy camp got up on the political stage for striving for direct election in 1988. The CCP accused the UK of turning the Basic Law into something useless by jumping the gun to launch universal suffrage before finishing the draft of the Law. Eventually, the two parties came to terms in secret that the UK abandoned introducing direct election in 1988 in exchange for CCP’s agreement on putting the promise of direct election in the Basic Law. What happened to the promise of direct election in the end? It’s there for all to see!

The third time took place after the June 4 incident. At that time, the UK changed its policy. In 1992, taking up the post of Hong Kong governor, Chris Patten put forward a constitutional plan of democratization, to which the CCP objected from stem to stern. So, the latter pulled down the “LegCo through train” and started again completely from scratch to set up a provisional LegCo in Shenzhen.

The second question is who is sentimentally attached to the colonial polity more. The essence of a colonial polity is “severe penalty and draconian laws”. CCP officials have repeated over and over again an accusation of oppression against the UK that prevented the colony from fighting back via stern laws. During the transition to 1997, what should be nullified were the draconian colonial laws such as the Public Order Ordinance that stifles citizens’ freedom of assembly. An amendment – no need to apply for permission to stage a demonstration of more than 30 people and a rally of more than 50 but just informing the police of an event seven days in advance - was made to the Public Order Ordinance for it clashed with the Human Rights Law. However, the draconian Public Order Ordinance got back into shape at the provisional LegCo - the police were in charge of the approval practice again, which is in fact the “letter of no objection” that has thrown a lot of Hongkongers in jail today.

If the CCP thinks that the draconian colonial laws used to repress Hong Kong people, why has it preserved them time and again? Moreover, even the Hong Kong under British governance would not draw on such draconian laws easily for Britain is after all a democracy watchdogged by the public and media, hence not allowed to mess things around. Yet, in addition to the national security law put in practice, such draconian colonial laws have been leveraged frequently to sue Hong Kong people for offences such as rioting and instigation.

Which epoch is more oppressive? Facts speak louder than words.

(Lau Sai-leung, political commentator)

This article is translated from Chinese by Apple Daily.

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play