I made this discovery when I was having dinner with a friend of mine, Junning from Kunming, China.

“Do you think that China will have universal suffrage within your lifetime?” I asked.  Junning’s answer was completely unexpected: “Yes.”

A succession of Chinese leaders from Mao zedong (far left) to Hu Jintao (far right). Photo by !/_PeacePlusOne

To him, it was quite simple.  The future changes in leadership will bring about new ideas and will provide for a natural departure from the country’s conservative past.

Junning argues that China’s modern history has progressed towards a more liberal society.  “Look at the Cultural Revolution, that was Mao’s doing, Tiananmen was Deng Xiaoping.  Now, the two latest presidents Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, they’re opening up China’s economy.”

According to Junning, the next generation of Chinese leaders will be a lot different than the ones preceding them.  “They will be more liberal,” he said.

Ever since that conversation a week ago, I couldn’t get over the fact that he was that optimistic about the political situation in China.

My pessimism is derived from the Communist Party’s efforts to continually push back the date of universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

Having been pushed back from 2012 to 2017, the issue of Hong Kong’s universal suffrage will be the major political issue that will be dealt with by China’s future generation of leaders.

With pressure from Beijing, many in Hong Kong fear that universal suffrage will go unrealized even with new leadership.

However, if things in the political realm turn out the way Junning expect them to go, then Hong Kong will act as successful model for Chinese democracy.

In this scenario, the new generation of liberal leaders of China will speed up the process of political reforms in Hong Kong.  The city would then translate into a test bed for Chinese democracy.  Sooner or later, universal suffrage would be implemented in China.

There however, aren’t many signs pointing in this direction.

My greatest fear as a Hong Kong resident is that I won’t have a place to call home 38 years from now.

2047 is the year that marks the end of the ‘one country two systems’ arrangement.  This treaty is the reason why pro-democracy advocates can still push for universal suffrage and for journalists, to be critical towards the government without the fear of prosecution.  Without it, Hong Kong’s legal, political and economic qualities will be no different from any other large city in China.

The success of Hong Kong’s proposed 2017 vote will depend on the next chief executive’s ability to win over both the majority of the legislative council and future CCP leaders.  Here is where I wish that Junning’s predictions would be realized.

For now, we can only wait and see.

Many forms of censorship exist in Mainland China and Hong Kong but differ greatly.

piranha download dvdrip

According to the Chinese government, bullog.cn contained “harmful comments on current affairs.”

In an age of Internet interactivity, an age-old tradition of censorship is constantly enforced in China.

To the disappointment of many Chinese netizens, the most liberal blogging website in China, bullog.cn, was shut down on January 9th due to “harmful comments on current affairs.”

In a crackdown where most sites were shut down for the distribution of pornographic images, the reasoning for shutting down bullog.cn was unspecific.

“I got an e-mail from the Beijing Communications Administration this afternoon, saying the Web site contained harmful comments on current affairs and therefore will be closed.” bullog.cn founder Luo Yonghao told the Associated Press.

There remains a liberal voice within the vast Chinese population in this media age.  However, this voice is under constant threat of being silenced by the government and self-censorship.

Hong Kong’s pro-democracy advocates have a different type of threat to worry about: death threats.

Before being put off-air, popular radio talk-show host and current LegCo legislator Raymond Wong decided to put his show on hiatus in 2004.

Political pressure stifled the ability to speak freely and critically he said.

Pro-Beijing businessmen “had used coercion and offers of bribery to try to silence him,” Wong said in a interview with Next Magazine.

From the same broadcasting station, pro-democracy talk-show host Albert Cheng also put his show on hiatus in the same year due to the growing amount of threats that he received.

Having been seriously injured in an attack in 1998, Cheng said that he could not risk another attack.

“I am not afraid of people in power, but I shudder at the threat of violence.”

Though Cheng and Wong received these threats some time ago, this form of intimidation still serve as a major hindrance to the freedom of speech in Hong Kong.

A banana was hurled in the direction of chief executive Donald Tsang while he was giving his annual policy address in October 2008.

To some, the banana is a tool for change. Photo courtesy: Jason Gulledge

The man who threw the banana peel was Raymond Wong Yuk-man, a legislator and chairman of the radical and newly formed League of Social Democrats (LSD).

Nicknamed “Mad Dog” because of his extreme and aggressive criticism of the Hong Kong and Chinese administrations, Wong is well known for his work as a radio host and for his anti-communism views.

Wong was elected to one of the five seats within his constituency of Kowloon West in 2008.  He amassed 37,553 votes, which was the second highest amount of votes received within the constituency.

Did the people of Kowloon West vote him in because they wanted to see political change by the way of flying fruit?  The answer is a mixed one.

The Ming Pao Daily wrote, “the actions of the League of Social Democrats is the most concrete evidence of the deterioration of the Legislative Council.”

Wong’s actions were generally seen as a blemish on Hong Kong’s legislative culture by the members of the executive council.  There however, were signs of support for Wong’s actions from some legislators.

Though praising Wong for having the courage to throw the banana, legislator Margaret Ng wasn’t sure how the action was received in public.  “I don’t suppose the community really believed throwing bananas was the fast track to problem solving.  Otherwise, the price of bananas would have rocketed.”

Chan Wai-yip, legislator and co-founder of the LSD provided justification for Wong’s actions.  “Pan-democrats have failed to gain democracy over the past 20 years and therefore, a path of political resistance is necessary.”

This action and the many more that will follow will calculate “the bottom line” of the citizens’ tolerance to extreme actions according to Chan.

To Wong, throwing the banana was exactly the sort of thing he thought voters would want him to do.  “To oversee the government and to check the advance of the unholy alliance between bureaucrats and business tycoons, these are the clear mandates we receive from our voters.”

For better or worse, Wong’s actions has changed and added intensity to the politicking within the Hong Kong Legislative Council.

In an attempt to minimize the impact of avoiding talks on universal suffrage, the government tried to gift-wrap its decision with something that’s on everyone’s mind: the failing economy.

Chief executive Donald Tsang is taking heat from democratic politicians Photo: Youtube

Moving quickly to counter the economic problems that Hong Kong is facing, chief executive Donald Tsang has put everything related to political reform aside and put economy first.  This strategy for sure, will work towards solutions for an ailing economy.

But wait.

Though not directly elected by the people of Hong Kong, didn’t Tsang dangle the promise of undying efforts to achieve universal suffrage before the masses during his campaign in 2007 to win over popular support?

Seems like Tsang isn’t keeping to his word.

Using the global financial crisis as an excuse, Tsang is pushing back public consultations for universal suffrage, which were supposed to have started July of last year, until the end of 2009.

At a recent chief executive question and answer session on January 15th, pro-democracy legislator Lee Cheuk-yan said that this move breaches citizens’ trust in the government.

“First of all, we are not dropping the public consultations, we are only postponing the consultations for one quarter” Tsang said at chief executives questions and answers on January 15th.  “It is important to prioritize between what is urgent and what is not.  These are the actions of a responsible government.”

Postponement has become a tactic that the government is taking for granted in matters of political reform.  This can be seen with the postponement of democracy from 2008 to 2012, and then from there, under the guidance of Tsang, to 2017.

“All the promises that you’ve made about political reform, you’ve not achieved a single one.  How are you going to face the people of Hong Kong?”  Lee asked Tsang.

Almost with a sigh, Tsang used an all-encompassing response to questions of that nature to respond Lee.  “Everyone please remember, that during my current term, that we’ve worked out (with Beijing) a viable timetable towards universal suffrage.”

Less and less time lies between now and the end of Tsang’s term in 2012.  If Tsang can push back developments for democracy to the end of this year, what’s there to guarantee that he wouldn’t postpone it to the end of his term, or even, leave it to his successor?

It seems like this government is feeding a vicious cycle with excuse upon excuse with no signs of stoppage.

The emergence of the controversial Article 23 in Macau may be a factor in the legislation’s future in Hong Kong.

A draft of Macau’s Article 23 was unveiled on October 22nd 2008, which bans treason, theft of state secrets and subversion of the state.

Macau's economy is fueled by its tourism and gambling industries

The draft had many similarities to Hong Kong’s proposed version of Article 23, which was shelved indefinitely due to mass unpopularity in 2003.

Like Hong Kong, Macau enjoys its special administrative region status and also has its own mini-constitution.  The two cities also make up the entrance of the Pearl River Delta, an economic gateway into China.

Macau’s population however, has low political awareness when compared to its neighbouring city. This makes the region an unlikely base of subversion and reactionary activity according to Macau political activist Lei Kin Yon.

“Macau is a very closed and conservative society, where there is no tolerance to criticism,” Lei said in an interview with Macau Closer.

Regardless of the different political atmosphere between the two neighbouring cities, Beijing wants Article 23 to be implemented in Macau as soon as possible.

“The delivery of the anti-subversion law has been a longstanding promise to Beijing who wants the enactment of Article 23 here to place pressure on Hong Kong to do likewise,” said Macau Legislator Leong Heng Teng in the Macau Business Magazine.

It is predicted that the law would easily pass through Macau’s legislative process. The less affluent Macau residents have a “high acceptance for the central government,” Macau political commentator Larry So man-yum said in the South China Morning Post.

In agreeing with Leong and So, Lawmaker Pereira Coutinho said, “Macau will be used as an example [for Hong Kong] and will demonstrate there is no problem with the regulation.”

In a statement by the Hong Kong Journalists Association, the claim that the implementation of Article 23 in Macau would serve as a model for Hong Kong was retorted. “Whether or not the Macau legislature passes this Bill is of no relevance to Hong Kong and, therefore, should not be followed by the Hong Kong SAR Government in the foreseeable future.”

“The legal systems, the outlook and the interests of Hong Kong and Macau people are completely different,” stated the HKJA.

The Hong Kong government’s response was largely apathetic to the political developments in Macau and stated that their priorities were to solve the financial crisis and to improve peoples’ livelihood.

However, not everyone in the Hong Kong legislature was willing to watch from the sidelines.

Nine democratic legislators which made up a group of more than 20 Hong Kong democracy advocates planned to demonstrate against Article 23 on the streets of Macau on December 21st, 2008.  They were declined at the Macau border.  “They told us we have broken Macau security law, but they could not be more specific,” deputy chairwoman of the H.K. Democratic Party Emily Lau said.

Funnily enough, only 2 months ago, Edmund Ho Hau Wah, Chief Executive of Macau made a statement at a press conference where he said ‘chanting a few slogans, writing a few articles criticizing the central government or the Macau government, these activities won’t be regulated by this proposed law.”

“Hong Kong people should not be misled into thinking that the question of the timetable and road-map for full democracy has been settled” - Albert Ho (above)

Recent events point to a shift towards the left within the government of Hong Kong.  This may be seen as a weakening of the pro-democracy camp by the year 2017.

A tsunami of Chinese national patriotism followed the protests in Tibet, the earthquake in Sichuan and the Olympic games in Beijing.

These events swept the country up in nationalistic fervour in the months prior to the September 2008 Legislative Council elections in Hong Kong.

Given the circumstances, it was predicted that the pro-democracy camp, made up of separate political parties and independent candidates, would fare poorly against Beijing supported politicians.

The democratic candidates faired better than expected in that election. Most importantly, they held on to the 21 seats in the legislature in order to retain their ability to block the government from revising the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

In total, democratic candidates who had 26 seats preceding the 2008 elections, won 24 seats out of the 60-seat legislature.  Public voting and business groups selected 19 of the 30 seats and labour unions chose 5 of the other 30.

The question now is, will they be able to maintain these 21 seats by the year 2017?

2017 is a year of great importance to the city.   Hong Kong residents were promised universal suffrage by 2017 and it now is up to the pro-democracy legislators to hold the line and to supervise the implementation of an extensive political reform for the years to come.

However, there is a catch.  “Whether it is 2012, 2017 and 2020, universal suffrage will still have to be supported by two-thirds of the incumbent legislators and consented by the Chief Executive” Albert Ho, chairman of the Hong Kong Democratic Party (HKDP) explained.

With Pro-democracy politicians now facing an increasingly pro-Beijing government, the battle for the guarantee of universal suffrage and a fair electoral system by 2017 just got more difficult.

“Hong Kong people should not be misled into thinking that the question of the timetable and road-map for full democracy has been settled,” Ho said.

One of the obstacles along the road-map for democratic politicians may be the appointment of Jasper Tsang, former chairman of the pro-Beijing political party, The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) as the President of the Legislative Council in October 2008. This is a clear sign that the shift towards an increasingly pro-Beijing government has been gaining momentum.

The September 2008 election was also marked by the decision of notable democrats such as Martin Lee, the founding chairman of the HKDP and Anson Chan, who served as Chief Secretary under both the British and Chinese to not run for the current legislature.  The two dropped out to make way for the next generation of pro-democracy politicians.

Both of them admitted that the next generation would have a difficult path towards a democratic Hong Kong.

"I will resolve the question of universal suffrage totally, completely, within my next term." - Donald Tsang (pictured above)

“I will resolve the question of universal suffrage totally, completely, within my next term.” said Donald Tsang in an interview with Time Magazine, while campaigning for re-election as Chief Executive of Hong Kong in March, 2007.

If kept to his word, Tsang should be able to realize the ultimate goal of the region’s mini-constitution: the right to vote for all legislators and chief executive by the end of his term in 2012, but that is unlikely to happen.

Within the first two years of his term, Tsang’s efforts to bring universal suffrage to the region has been pushed back by Beijing from the year 2012, to a tentative 2017.

Beijing’s decision, which came in the latter half of December 2007, did not comply with Tsang’s self-imposed deadline and sparked major criticism from many Hong Kong residents.

Sadly, the chief executive seemed perfectly satisfied with Beijing’s decision.

“The timetable for universal suffrage has been set.  Hong Kong is entering a most important chapter in its constitutional history,” Tsang said in responding to Beijing’s decision.

Instead of following up by continually pressuring Beijing for an earlier date to Hong Kong’s universal suffrage, the Tsang administration approved the design and construction of a new base of government operations within a month of Beijing’s decision.  Maybe this was their way of patting themselves on the back and saying “a job well done” for agreeing upon a date that is way past the end of Tsang’s term and rejected by many local residents who were promised democracy by 2012.

The approved plan, which will abandon the traditional British styled chambers of the current LegCo building, will move the legislative council and important government offices, including the chief executive’s office, to the new complex by 2011.

This move is seen to be an unnecessary move and a waste of money by many of the government’s critics.

Hopefully the new “glass-wrapped” LegCo chamber complete with its ability to involve residents in the “lively debate of an open and trasnparent government,” as claimed by its developers, will instill a sense of urgency for the Tsang administration in the last year of its 5-year-term.  If not, Mr. Tsang may just have to win another election to see his promise through.