COLUMN: Hong Kong starts to see red

Eighteen days are left -- the last 18 days in a long and eventful 99 years. Then an apocalypse of sorts awaits the 600-square-mile island of Hong Kong. Hotel prices, already averaging $300 a night, will skyrocket into the quadruple digits. Flights in and out will be full. The extravagance that defines Hong Kong -- from the skyscrapers aglow with neon on the harbor at sunset to the posh hotels replete with marble and jade and caviar -- will reach its opulent apex. The economy, in other words, will have its heyday. And that is what Hong Kong really cares about, right? With its strategically located harbor in the center of East Asia and its gleaming 70-story bank skyscrapers, this last of the major British colonies is described by a U.S. travel guide as "a city geared not only to making money but feeling good about it." Because making money has in recent years become a major concern for China as well, many see little reason for the two not to prove happy bedfellows come July 1, when the mainland takes back control of its prosperous little satellite from the United Kingdom (which has governed Hong Kong since the Opium War ended in 1898). China, while officially a communist country, knows it would be incredibly foolish to enforce socialism upon the decidedly capitalist island, which is why its economic system will remain intact until 2047. But what of democracy and civil liberties and freedom of speech and say in the government? That is what the United States wants to know, and that is why Asia experts and investment bankers suddenly aren't the only ones keeping tabs on the island. Sure, Hong Kong has been preparing for the handover for about 14 years now -- but the United States never got any say, did it? Will it let a fellow democratic country fall through the cracks and become part of the bullying communist dictatorship of China? What kind of consequences could that have? Pessimists predict that the Chinese Communist Party will somehow screw up the glamorous former colony. Cynics, on the other hand, don't think "communism" (meaning a more authoritarian government and limited rights) will make much of a difference at all, because the citizens of Hong Kong are not exactly a politically active bunch. Their primary concern is making money, and if they don't have to worry about the economy changing for another 50 years, their loss of political freedoms is not going to keep them up at night. When I visited the "Fragrant Harbour" last summer, the island proved true to its money-obsessed reputation. Surrounded by the swarms of prospering citizens on the streets of Kowloon one morning (the population density in the area is, incidentally, 72,000 per square kilometer), I shared my awe with a rollerblading tourist. "I came because I was told it was an amazing place, and that I should see it before 1997, because it's going to waste away," he said. "But seeing it, I can't imagine that it could possibly just stop." The tourist (insightful for an American) was right. It would be as difficult to bring a halt to the lust for profit among Hong Kong's population as it would among Wharton's. And China has no plans for the next 50 years to change Hong Kong's economy. In many ways, because the age of imperialism is over and the island (which is 98 percent ethnically Chinese) will finally be ruled by its own people, the handover is eagerly awaited. "China is chic," The New York Times recently announced in a report on trends in the cosmopolitan city. Time and again, China has displayed its indignance to the United States's, to pleas for reform and to civil disobedience. It is paranoid authoritarianism of this sort that prompted the government to order soldiers with tanks to Tiananmen Square eight years ago this month. And the people of Hong Kong, 55,000 of whom showed up last week at the island's Victoria Park for a candlelight vigil honoring victims of the Tiananmen crackdown, have already demonstrated that they are not like their subservient mainland counterparts. When their interests are threatened, far more of them are likely to retaliate. Moreover, even purely economic interests can overlap with political ones -- the much disputed University City vending ordinance proves this much. Decisions seen as "administrative" or in the interests of the public can easily affect the economy. And when a small, one-sided contingent makes such decisions (whether in support of Jiang Zemin or Judith Rodin) without the say of the entire population, problems can arise. With any luck, the island's new Hong Kong-based (though mainland-supporting) legislature will respond to its citizens, perhaps teaching Beijing a thing or two about effective government in the process. With any luck, Hong Kong's designated leader Tung Chee-hwa will not fold to party pressure. The official plan for "one country, two systems" should not dissolve into "one country, one puppet government." Until then, the island has 18 days to partake in the party before the Communist Party takes control. The July 1 handover shouldn't involve tanks.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.