& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Historic handover

After the Lion Dances, the Rest is History

9 Although a few colonies remain ■ often called'dependent territories' (by Britain) or 'overseas territories' (by the French) - the handover of Hong Kong effectively brings down the curtain on the era of European colonisation.
On the eve of the handover of Hong Kong to China, the stock market was booming and property prices soaring. The political rows between Britain and China showed no sign of affecting the colony's progress. So was Britain right after all to try to inject some democracy into Hong Kong at the 11th hour? Derek Ingram of Gemini News Service examines the pros and cons.
AS power in Hong Kong slips away from Britain to China at the stroke of the midnight hour, to quote the eloquent words of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on India's independence just 50 years ago. the rest is history.
It is now left to the academics to pick over the bitter arguments of the decolonisation process.
Did Britain play it right after the British and Chinese premiers of the day. Margaret Thatcher and Zhao Zlyang, signed the Memorandum of Understanding in 1984 that decreed the unique "one country, two systems” formula for Hong
was it sensible for the British at the last moment — just two years before the handover — to introduce wide-ranging democracy after ruling the
colony autocratically for 143 years?
Was it reasonable to expect the Chinese to incorporate this most powerful economic component as part of their country under a form of government that was substantially different from the way it was in 1984?
The so-called Basic Law agreed between the governments in 1990 is clear enough. It says that ”the socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.”
The Chinese argue that the British changed the rules and that what they were being asked to inherit In 1997 was not what was agreed.
In the early 1990s the last colonial governor. Chris Pat-
ten, set about widening the . franchise to elect a Hong Kong legislature that had been nominated in the past.
Beijing attacked him personally for this. But he did not act alone. The authority came from the government in Lon-
The new policy deeply divided the British diplomatic establishment. Sir Percy Cradock, former ambassador to Beijing and adviser to Thatcher for the 1984 talks, broke ranks and vehemently opposed the British move.
One point seems clear: the policy was not adopted as an attempt to make up for past political sins against the Hong Kong people or to put a better shine on British rule in the colony.
The calculation was this: it was best to move Hong Kong a little way along the road to democracy, even at the last minute, in the hope that some of it would stick in the years to come and even Influence the development of China as a whole.
The Chinese plainly saw it as an attempt to poke democracy through their back door and they were not wholly wrong to do so. They reacted angrily, snubbing Patten on several occasions and giving him a most uncomfortable time.
But the British held their line to the end. refusing to
recognise the transitional council that Beijing assembled cheekily over the border to make new laws even months before China assumed sovereignty.
The Chinese do not intend the transitional council to become the permanent legislative body. Witnin a year they will hold new elections under differ-, ent rules hnd they have said the ' Democrats — members of the Democratic Party who won 19 of the 20 directly elected legislative seats in Patten's polls — will be able to stand.
The Democrats include fiercely independent figures such as Martin Lee and Emily Lau, and Christine Loh, who has now formed a separate party. All will be out of office at midnight on 1 July, at least for the time being.
But it may be that when the dust has settled and 1 July is just a memory of fireworks, lion dances, laughter and tears, some of the Patten policy will have stuck.
It has certainly not affected optimism about Hong Kongs future. The stock market continues to boom, property prices have never been higher and there has been no mass exodus of the privileged, although some have prepared boltholes abroad just in case something goes wrong.
Nor do many of the appointments made by Patten's successor. he new Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa. indicate any intention to tear down the temple.
Patten's Number Two, Anson Chan, remains in place as Chief Secretary. So does Financial Secretary Donald Tsang. Andrew Li, the new Chief Justice, is highly respected. So are Elsie
Leung, the Secretary for Justice, and Lily Yam. the new head of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Most significantly, the Chinese have appointed Ma Yuzhen to head their foreign ministry in Hong Kong. Ma is a veteran with wide experience and understanding of the West. He was a popular ambassador in London for* many years-with wide1 contacts.
What has happened in Hong Kong cannot be seen in isolation from what is happening on the mainland. Hong Kong has already become an economic Ewer house for the mainland.
aggressive entrepreneurs are driving along China's development with mind-blowing speed.
It is said that Hong Kong people do not care about politics and democracy, only about making money. However, they have grown up in a different and freer environment from that of China. Many are people whose families fled from the communist regimes in China. Their outlook is different from that of the mainland Chinese.
Although the Basic Law says the socialist and capitalist systems will ride in tandem, the reality is that China is fast becoming capitalist. It is a one-party state that is not really s clallst in the original sense of the world and certainly not communist.
Understandably, the Chinese leadership fears political infection from Hong Kong that could lead to an erosion of its own power — even to multi-partyism.
It may not have been wrong for Patten and Co to move things along a bit in Hong Kong. The verdict is for history.