北京曾多次反對港英政府引入選舉
傑安迪 2014年10月28日
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/10/28/world/asia/28hongkongspan/28hongkongspan-articleLarge.jpg
1997年，英國將香港主權移交中國。早在上世紀50年代，英國的多位殖民總督就尋求在香
港推行普選，但最終因為中共領導人的壓力而放棄了努力。
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2014/10/28/world/28hongkong2/28hongkong2-popup.jpg
香港最後一任殖民總督彭定康積極倡導在該地區實行有限的選舉，引發了北京的激烈反對
。
北京——反對香港親民主抗議活動的人，普遍會以這個問題還擊：在英國剝奪香港民眾自
治權的那麼多年裡，普選衛士身在何處？這種反問在中國內地尤為常見。
「150多年間，自詡民主典範的英國沒有給過香港同胞哪怕一天的實在民主，」共產黨的
喉舌《人民日報》在前不久的一篇評論文章中說。「直到1982年至1997年香港回歸前的15
年間，港英政府抱着『不可告人』之心開啟了香港民主的『超速發展』之路。」
但英國國家檔案館(National Archives)最近公開的一些文件顯示，從上世紀50年代開始
，管治香港的殖民總督多次尋求推行民眾選舉，但迫於北京的中共領導人的壓力，最終放
棄了那些努力。
這些用打字機打出的文件，是香港兩家報紙的記者請求公開的一批外交檔案的一部分。檔
案顯示，中國領導人極力反對香港實行民主的前景，以至於威脅稱，如果倫敦試圖改變現
狀，就會入侵香港。
檔案顯示，主管香港事務的中國高官廖承志曾在1960年表示，「我們將毫不猶豫採取積極
行動，解放香港、九龍和新界。」他提到的這些地區當時處於英國的管治下，現已歸還中
國。
另一份文件記述了早前兩年的一次會議。在那次會議上，周恩來總理告訴英國的一名軍官
，任何在香港引入哪怕一點點自治的嘗試，都會被視作「非常不友善的舉動」和「陰謀」
。周恩來表示，這種做法會被認為是讓香港走上獨立道路的手段。
這些威脅達到了預期的效果。在隨後的幾十年里，英國沒有為在香港引入選舉民主做出多
少努力。
除了證實中國最初反對香港實行民主的時間，比廣為人知的早了幾乎半個世紀之外，這些
文件連同前殖民地官員已經公開出版的敘述，也突顯出隨着上世紀80年代初，雙方開始討
論香港的未來，北京的態度變得愈發激烈。後來到上世紀90年代初，最後一任香港總督彭
定康(Chris Patten)開始大力倡導在香港實行有限選舉時，北京的公開反對變得更加強硬
。
最後，彭定康無視中國稱民主會招致混亂的論調，賦予了香港民眾選舉30名立法局議員的
權利。當時的立法局共有60名成員。當時的新聞報道稱，時任香港事務主管的中國高官魯
平對此舉感到極度憤怒，稱彭定康「在歷史上，要成為香港的千古罪人」。
今天北京的批評人士稱，英國在1842年就接管香港，然而在民主的遊戲里卻姍姍來遲。這
一點，北京的批評人士說對了。
在上世紀50年代推行民主的衝動之前，英國已被趕出了印度，並且正在努力阻止多個殖民
地的反抗。「當時，英國正在全世界許多英屬殖民地推行民主，當時的觀點是，對香港也
應該一視同仁，」香港大學法學院副教授賈廷思(Danny Gittings)說。
遭到北京的拒絕後，英國直到上世紀90年代，香港即將脫離英國管治時，才取得共識推動
民眾選舉。歷史學家稱，英國希望民主能讓香港民眾鎮靜下來，並確保英國投資的穩定。
當時香港人對於回到實行共產主義的中國治下感到焦慮不安。
在當時公開發表的言論中，彭定康曾表示，他認為香港人理應在本地的治理中扮演一定角
色。他在1992年對記者說，「香港人完全能夠以負責、成熟、剋制和理性的方式，在更大
程度上參與自身事務的管理。」
彭定康最近為抗議者的訴求所做的辯護，招致了《人民日報》的攻擊。該報的評論承認他
上世紀90年代在推動民主方面起到的作用，但又提出，他的目的是製造在內地與香港之間
製造「不小的隔閡」。
為了塑造歷史敘事，中國媒體最近發表了大量評論文章，這可能恰恰增強了許多香港活動
人士的決心。他們表示，這種高壓手段讓他們想起了自己為之奮鬥的政治自由和新聞自由
。這些自由在中國其他地方都不存在。
香港科技大學的政治學者成名(Ming Sing)說，「北京面對這麼多香港人無恥地說謊，我
個人非常震驚，因為香港人清楚地記得過去的英國政府和中國政府之間就民主展開的角力
。」
中國並未兌現出兵香港的威脅，其中一個原因是，他們希望「一國兩制」的模式可以促成
台灣的和平統一。台灣是一個自治島嶼，中國聲稱對其擁有主權。北京也沒有興趣破壞香
港極為成功的經濟。在中國內地基本上隔絕於工業化國家的當時，香港是從事外貿和獲得
硬通貨的重要渠道。
「我們希望收回的，是一個發展良好的香港，而不是一片廢土，」上世紀60年代初，廖承
志如是說。
儘管對在家門口實行民主明顯心存疑慮，但北京在1990年承諾，在收回香港主權後，將通
過普選產生香港領導人。《人民日報》1993年援引魯平的話說，「將來香港如何發展民主
，完全是香港自治權範圍內的事，中央政府不會幹涉。」
但在1997年，香港移交後不久，中國就廢除了彭定康新推行的立法會選舉。面對太多民主
，中國乾脆「另起爐灶」，正如魯平早些時候暗示的中國可能的做法。
然而此後，直接選舉的議員達到35名，比彭定康的規定還增加了五人。（立法會的另外35
名成員由職業團體或特殊利益團體遴選。）
同樣，北京還指出，它承諾允許香港人從2017年開始，通過普選產生領導人的做法，也比
英國統治香港時更為民主。
但在8月，北京為這次選舉頒佈了新的規定，要求由一個1200人組成的委員會對候選人進
行審查。這1200人多數是親北京人士。
該制度可能比英國統治下的制度更加民主，但卻不是香港民主人士期望的不受限制的自決
。
「回顧歷史，共產黨似乎做了許多不打算履行的承諾，這也是人們如此憤怒的原因，」約
翰·霍普金斯大學(Johns Hopkins University)社會學者孔誥烽(Ho-fung Hung)說。他上
世紀80、90年代在香港長大。
然而實際上，對於佔領香港街頭一個多月的民眾來說，這些關於歷史的爭吵並沒有太多意
義。
現年19歲的婚慶攝影師馬克斯·唐(Max Tang)正待在政府總部外的一個帳篷里。香港回歸
中國時，他還是個蹣跚學步的孩子。
「香港在移交中國之前的做法並不重要，」他說。「這是我第一次擁有表達民主訴求的機
會。我們的要求很簡單，我們想要選擇自己的領導人。」
http://cn.nytimes.com/china/20141028/c28hongkong/zh-hant/
英國國家檔案館(National Archives)最近解密的外交檔案:
The secret history of Hong Kong’s stillborn democracy
http://img.qz.com/2014/10/prince-charles-tony-blair-jiang-zemin-zhu-rongji1.jpg
China's contention that it's giving Hong Kong more democracy than the Brits
ever did is a little disingenuous.(Reuters)
By Sep. 29, peaceful protesters had been clogging Hong Kong’s downtown for
less than a day, but to the Chinese Communist Party this already smacked of
ingratitude. Here’s an excerpt from an editorial that ran that day (link in
Chinese) in the People’s Daily, the party’s official mouthpiece, entitled “
No one cares more about Hong Kong’s future destiny than the entire Chinese
people”:
Since 1842, when Hong Kong was reduced to being a British colony, our fellow
citizens of Hong Kong were but second- or third-class citizens suffering
unequal treatment. During the 1950s, anti-colonial liberation movements
roiled its colonies and Britain bought off its people’s will, and yet Hong
Kong’s political reform plan was unfairly dismissed as “excessively
dangerous.” In 150 years, the country that now poses as an exemplar of
democracy gave our Hong Kong compatriots not one single day of it. Only in
the 15 years before the 1997 handover did the British colonial government
reveal their “secret” longing to put Hong Kong on the road to democracy…,
creating a not inconsiderable gulf between the mainland and Hong Kong. Yet it
was only after the handover—and thanks to none other than the Chinese
central government’s diligence—that Hong Kong could begin to hope that
within just two decades it would get to elect its chief executive through
universal suffrage. Who has the real democracy, and who has the fake democracy
—compare the two and judge.
Of course, this argument doesn’t change the fact that the Chinese government
’s version of “universal suffrage” requires that Hong Kong voters pick
from candidates Beijing has essentially selected for them, reneging on past
promises.
That aside, the Communist Party’s new pet argument seems to make some sense—
or at least, it would have until recently. In the last couple years, however,
the British government has declassified a cache of colonial records that tell
a very different story.
Take for instance this document, which describes what British
lieutenant-colonel Kenneth Cantlie relayed to British prime minister Harold
MacMillan about his conversation with premier Zhou Enlai in early 1958:
http://img.qz.com/2014/10/cantile_1958_vjmedia-com-hk.jpg
(British National Archives)
In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern
themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter,
in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,”
told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not
hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New
Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:
http://img.qz.com/2014/10/liao-chengzhi_vjmedia-com-hk.jpg
(British National Archives)
These documents—which, perhaps unbeknownst to the People’s Daily, Hong Kong
journalists have been busily mining (link in Chinese)—show that not only
were the Brits mulling granting Hong Kong self-governance in the 1950s; it
was the Chinese government under Mao Zedong who quashed these plans,
threatening invasion. And the very reason Mao didn’t seize Hong Kong in the
first place was so that the People’s Republic could enjoy the economic
fruits of Britain’s colonial governance.
This revelation suggests that the Chinese government’s current claims of
democratic largesse are somewhat disingenuous, says Ho-Fung Hung, sociology
professor at Johns Hopkins University.
“The whole argument that Beijing’s offer is better than the British’s—it
no longer holds,” he tells Quartz. “Beijing can no longer say there were
bad things during colonial times because it’s now been revealed that it was
part of the force that maintained the status quo in Hong Kong. Beijing is
partially responsible for the lack of democracy in Hong Kong before 1997.”
It’s long been known that in the 1980s, once the Brits knew they were going
to be leaving and tried to speed up democratic reform, the Chinese government
threatened them not to, notes Hung (a point to which the People’s Daily
editorial obliquely refers).
http://img.qz.com/2014/10/thatcher-zhao-ziyang-1984.jpg
British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese premier Zhao Ziyang
exchange signed copies of the Hong Kong handover agreement in Beijing on Dec.
19, 1984.(AP Photo/Neal Ulevich)
In the early 1980s, when prime minister Margaret Thatcher began negotiating
with China’s leaders—president Deng Xiaoping and premier Zhao Ziyang—what
grew into the Sino-British Joint-Declaration of 1984, Britain had leverage.
Treaties signed in the 1800s stipulated that the Brits were only to hand back
the northern swath of Hong Kong called the New Territories—and not Hong Kong
island or Kowloon (i.e. the major financial and commercial areas), which
China also wanted. Beijing also needed the handover to go smoothly in order
to convince Taiwan, an independent island state that it nominally laid claim
to, that the “one country, two systems” approach could work. In addition,
Hong Kong was still a major financial center and trade hub for China too.
But China had leverage too. In fact, in 1982, when negotiations began, the
Hang Seng Index was already shaky due to fears that if China took over, the
Communist Party would gut Hong Kong’s rule of law or nationalize wealth,
causing the market to crash and capital to flee:
http://img.qz.com/2014/10/1024px-hang_seng_index_colorcorrected.jpeg
(Wikimedia Commons)
The Brits needed to calm markets and ensure financial stability. That meant
making sure the handover agreement protected British financial interests. But
as documents from Thatcher’s archive declassified in 2013 reveal, it also
meant publicly cooperating with China. In the following memo (pdf, p.3),
Thatcher tells Deng that the issue wasn’t what happened in 1997, but what
everyone in 1982, when they were talking, expected to happen:
http://img.qz.com/2014/10/thatcher-worried-about-market-in-1982.png
Thatcher’s handwritten margin notes appear to refer to the Cultural
Revolution and the Gang of Four trial, both of which were socially
disruptive.(Margaret Thatcher Foundation)
And here’s an example of Beijing’s threats to British diplomats on
preserving Hong Kong’s status quo, from the same memo recording Deng and
Thatcher’s discussion (p.10):
http://img.qz.com/2014/10/deng-to-thatcher-on-time-and-forumla-of-handover.png
(Margaret Thatcher Foundation)
What the documents from even earlier show is that this showdown—Brits
floating democracy, Chinese leaders threatening to invade—had been going on
since the 1950s, three decades before we previously knew.
Why did neither ever happen? Hung says that the Brits wanted to make sure they
’d protected their economic interests before they departed, much the way
they did in Singapore and Malaysia. And when Mao founded the People’s
Republic of China in 1949, he and Zhou Enlai decided not to seize Hong Kong—
which the British at the time expected—because the capitalist territory was
their lone source of foreign exchange and a strategic portal for
manufacturing trade that would eventually drive China’s double-digit growth.
As the newly declassified documents reveal, China’s leaders explicity wanted
to “preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong” so that the People’s
Republic could “trade and contact people of other countries and obtain
materials” it badly needed.
Both the British and the Chinese governments benefited from the nearly
50-year deadlock of Hongkongers seeing neither democracy nor an invasion. But
as the recent protests eerily hint, this limbo can’t endure forever.
http://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/