Remarks by Christine Loh

Christine Loh

Asia Society
Hong Kong One Year After Transition:
Business Opportunities and Policy Challenges
Asia Society Policy and Business Conference
Seattle, June15–16, 1998

It’s good to be in Seattle. Thank you all for taking an interest in Hong Kong. It’s a great privilege for me to be here amongst friends from across the water and to see that there are so many people interested in our small community.

Perhaps I can tell you a little bit more about myself so you can kind of put me in the political spectrum. I spent twelve years trading physical commodities for the Solomon Group, now Solomon Smith Barney, so I believe in trade. I believe in markets, of the open kind, of course. I believe in small government. I believe in privatization and liberalization.

So why did I want to be in politics? For those of us who grow up in Hong Kong, and I see many faces amongst us today people from Hong Kong, we didn’t grow up knowing anything about politics. Politics was something that we didn’t see happening. Believe it or not it was only in 1993, that our Legislature threw its doors open so that our committee meetings were open to the public. You know what used to happen before? Our committees, the chair of the committees used to come out and give a ten-minute briefing to the press about what happened at the meeting. In 1993 we changed all that so of course political reporting, politics has become more exciting. It’s visible, you can see it.

I’m told by Americans that young Americans sometimes say, oh, Mr. President. That is the president. I want to be the president. For us growing up in Hong Kong, we never saw any political figures so as I was growing up, and I’m 42 years old—when I was a child there were no people I could associate with the word politics. I studied law in England at university and even there I could not put politics in its right place. I didn’t have the facility. I didn’t have the background to understand what that was. So, I never knew that I would be doing what I’m doing. This is actually something that I want to do very much.

Well, as a commodity trader I wouldn’t want to get into any business that is a sunset industry. I’m in this business, I’m in the democracy business because I believe it’s a growth industry. It’s a growth industry in Hong Kong and China and a growth industry in Asia. I want very much to be a part of that. So, I suggest to people in Hong Kong that they should invest in that process. It will bring good and solid returns in the long run.

I really think politics in Asia is going to be very exciting. Yesterday Ambassador Lambert mentioned that he thought it’s an interesting time in Asia, in Hong Kong, because there’s a generational change in business. Well, there is a generational change too in politics. There are now people like me who are young and who want to be in politics and we want to get there not by traditional patronage, but through the ballet box. This is something that is old hat for Americans but this is something that is new and exciting for us in Hong Kong. So, I’m an accidental politician. I was appointed in 1992, god knows why. But what I thought was, well, I’ll do it for three years and then I’ll go back to trading commodities or go back to doing something else. Well, I never did. I never thought that by accepting that appointment that it would change my life completely.

In 1993, at the end of the year I decided that I would run for election in 1995 and in order to do that I gave up my business career. I wanted to be a full time politician. Again, this is a new breed of people in Hong Kong. The legislature in Hong Kong is now a full time legislature but even today I think only about 10 out of 60 of the elected legislators are full time politicians. I felt very much that in order to do a good job, you need to do it full time. I certainly couldn’t hold down a job, pretend to be doing it, and be the representative of the people.

In 1995 I ran my first election. I recommend the process to anyone. It’s very sobering. It’s great fun, it’s very tiring and incredibly humbling. For somebody from my background, business background, more comfortable in a board room than standing around street corners, it was a tremendous personal experience. Now I’ve done it twice; it was even harder going in 1998. In 1997 I never thought I would be unemployed and I never thought I would have to go into the political wilderness because I didn’t choose to join the provisional legislature. But, that is what I did. In the meantime, I decided as a politician in China—and this is a daunting thought. Today I stand before you as a politician in China. I’m a Chinese politician. Today, I hold a Chinese passport issued by the SAR government. My trip to Seattle is the first time I traveled on a Chinese passport. I used to have a British passport which I gave up in order to run in the election. The passport says the People’s Republic of China. That is a daunting thought for me, but it is a commitment I’ve made because I do see the development of democracy in Hong Kong and therefore in China, as our constitutional responsibility.

The Basic Law does say that the ultimate aim is universal suffrage. I take that to mean that we have a constitutional responsibility to develop democracy in Hong Kong and, therefore, in a part of China. I never thought that in 1997 I would form a political party with people of like mind. I have to admit to you Citizens Party, we’re the smallest party and therefore arguably the least influential, but we’re there. So, I never thought that in six years from 1992 to today, 1998, that I would go from a commodities trader to being a Chinese politician.

Well, what do we want to do? This younger generation of politicians in Hong Kong. Well, we want a better society. We want social progress and we want a richer development for the human condition. This does not necessarily mean just more material gains. Human development surely means more than just buying more things. Let me tell you want we don’t want. We don’t want to be disempowered. Let me share with you what the colonial experience has done to us. I was telling you earlier on that as a child we couldn’t’ see politics, public decision making, in action. Maybe this is something completely foreign to you, that it is possible to be completely disempowered. Because we never saw politics, public decision making in action, you never associated yourself as being a part of that process. I never realized that it is possible to be so disempowered. We don’t want that any more. We want a much more participatory society.

The other thing we don’t want is the kind of structured hierarchy that comes from a confusion tradition. We also don’t want the kind of paternalism that comes from that tradition and also from British colonialism. What we also don’t want is the current political system, but perhaps what I can do is just read out for you something that is in this publication, that I believe each one of you have. To distinguish, researchers wrote this about our current political system. They say, ‘although the current system is designed to evolve, it reflects the conservative approach China has taken to the long-term tradition and assimilation of Hong Kong into the mainland. The current system strengthens the representative of those sectors of Hong Kong, society that are deemed the most trustworthy of the PRC government.’ Towards the end of the article, it goes on to say that ‘though the 1998 election has been the most expensive and universal to be held in the People’s Republic of China, they also mark a step back in the development of democratic process of Hong Kong.’

These are not my words. I thought it was convenient that I read out to you what somebody else wrote. Just as London saw the business community as integral to the success of its colony and thus brought it into the governance process, so Beijing sees the business and professional community as key to the continued success of Hong Kong. And lastly, it goes on to say ‘though the general electorate is given a voice in the legislative process, this new system gives a disproportionate amount of representative weight to the business and professional elite of the SAR. Now, you might say that somebody like Christine Loh is part of that professional and business elite. Shouldn’t I be supporting that system? No, I don’t support that system because I do not believe it to be fair. If the business and professional elite, if they truly want to test themselves. If they truly want to be in the democratic process in the long run, let them run for direct election. Let them not be given places that are so secured that certain people are bound to win. These are of course not for the 20 directly elected seats, but for the other 40 seats. That is why I do not believe the current system to be fair.

Yesterday, Ronnie Chan talked about how irresponsible politicians are in Hong Kong. Well, I have to disagree with that. My colleagues, who sometimes take to the streets, cannot be more responsible. Where else would you find the opposition asking to see the chief executive once a month so that they can exchange ideas. From time to time, of course, we take to the streets. Why? Because the entire political system is structured in such a way that we have no power. If you have no power, well, to what extent do you want us to be responsible? The whole system is skewed and therefore we need to find our voice. I suggested to you, ladies and gentlemen, that in Hong Kong the democratic camp is about as responsible as they come. We are mild. We’re moderate. This is the nature also of Hong Kong. We don’t have revolutionaries. We would like there to be a faster pace of change.

So, how do we go forward? The Chief Secretary, Mrs. Anson Chan last night said she would like to see a lot more discussion about the way forward for constitutional reform. I believe yesterday a number of speakers alluded rightly to the fact that if the ultimate aim is universal suffrage, well that’s only a voting system. We need more than that. Yes, I agree with them. We need to talk about how to balance the legislature with the executive. But Mrs. Chan didn’t tell us yesterday how we go about having this dialogue. Is this a dialogue that is going to be take charge by the government? Is Mr. Tung’s government going to fulfill what I believe to be the constitutional responsibility given to us in the basic law, which is to have a government backed constitutional convention process whereby different views from the community can come together and can debate, discuss and learn about building a political system. Or are we talking about the occasional discussion here and there. Is it going to be reliant on NGOs to spearhead that debate?

My advice to Mr. C. H. Tung is no, you take change. Please take charge. Please organize for the next couple of years a serious constitutional convention where different voices can come together, including perhaps from far away. We haven’t built the constitutional process before. If I were to say to you that in a number of years’ time all the things that you don’t like about American politics that you could have a convention and you could discuss how you want to change things. Well, that’s a very exciting process. Many people will have many different views and I’m sure all of you would want to participate and I’m sure many different sectors of society would want to contribute to that process. Well, that is what we should do in Hong Kong as well. How do we enliven that debate? How do we motivate people to want to be in that debate? How do we bring people who have more experience than we have in constitutional building, into that process?

I think that is something that those of us who are elected, we should try and put that process together, but I do believe constitutionally anyone who sits in the position of chief executive, that he or she should be duty bound to do. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any enthusiasm as yet in that direction.

So, for those of us who are younger, who are perhaps in a hurry, who want to charge on with building a better society, what sort of things do we want to do? Well, from my point of view, more open markets. Yesterday we heard lots of people tell us about how wonderful Hong Kong is, how open is our trade and how open is our markets. What they didn’t tell you is we’re riddled with monopolies in Hong Kong. Usually, these monopolies are government backed monopolies. Mr. Norman Yuen talked about Telecom and he says in a year’s time the telecom market will be completely liberalized. Well, thank god. It’s about time.

The taxpayer’s money had to be spent to buy out Hong Kong Telecom because they were going to have a monopoly arrangement for many more years to come. I regard that as money well spent. What about other monopolies? I noticed yesterday there was a gentleman in the audience who worked for CLP. I suppose that’s China Light and Power, perhaps. Well, perhaps this is a better audience for me to talk about how to deregulate power utilities. In Hong Kong we have two electric companies. They can’t compete with each other but there’s a common grid. Well, why not? Why not let them compete? Another thing that we can be doing. Banking. There is an interest rate cartel for deposit rates that are under seven days. They say that this is essential because it protects the smaller banks. Well, it’s a cartel nevertheless. I’m not sure about that and it was only about two or three years ago that they lifted interest rates for longer-term deposits. Well, I call for more liberalization there, too.

Our ports. Basically, monopolies. We should open all of that up. So, open market is a good thing. Governor Lock yesterday talked about open markets and open minds. I’d like to see Hong Kong open its mind even further. An open mind first admits what’s wrong with itself. It’s prepared to make admission. Well, what are some of our problems? Certainly in the economy. I’ve already talked about monopolies. Let’s look at the government itself. One of the things I want the government to do is to pass a law not unlike your freedom of information act. I wanted another law not unlike your sunshine law because I believe these are nuts and bolts to any democratic system. All I’ve been able to do so far is to get the government to have an administrative code. That means, in Hong Kong, the government does not believe the people have a right to government information. Well why not? Why not? Now, in government today they do have information officers throughout the government structure which I think is very good, and I’m proud to have been the person to have challenged them so that since they couldn’t bring themselves to saying freedom of information isn’t a good thing, but they wouldn’t give us a law. They decided to give us an administrative code.

The other thing that Mrs. Chan and others talked about is this Avian flu. Well, let me share with you how I look at that as an example of where Hong Kong needs to catch up. Other speakers yesterday also talked about how Hong Kong, how fast we’ve expanded over the last 20 or 30 years. That’s true. Well, when you grow very quickly and you build a very nice exterior, sometimes the interior hasn’t caught up. Our public hygiene in Hong Kong is devastatingly bad. Our markets are too dirty. We’ve had food crisis after food crisis because I think we are not clean enough. So, these are some of the things that I would very much like to do.

What does that really mean? It means a lot of business as well. What Hong Kong has got to do is we have now built the hardware, the physical infrastructure. We have now got to run that hardware to maintain that hardware with the software that must come with it. Hong Kong does not have an FDA but, we desperately need one so that food, the handling of food, educating food handlers. We should have a specialized agency that runs that. Who wants to come to Hong Kong and eat seafood if we cannot assure people that we know what we are doing? So, these are some of the consequences also of building tourism. I am very keen on that idea because I think Hong Kong has a lot to offer. We have not been able unfortunately, to catch her, that specialness about Hong Kong because, part of the problem is we reject our past.

Yesterday, one speaker said Hong Kong tends to look forward but not backwards. Well, that is one disadvantage because when you look backwards there is a wonderful story to tell and we are not telling it. I think we should be telling it. If we want people to take an interest in us, we just can’t tell them that we are a great business city, that we are very energetic in doing deals. Well, what else do you have? My election platform for the May election was that I want Hong Kong to play the same kind of role in China as New York plays for the United States. New York is a wonderful city for many reasons. It is diverse, it is international, it has depth, it has breadth. It is a financial center, a business center but, also an academic center and a cultural center.

In Hong Kong we don’t have all of those aspects. But, I suggest that in Hong Kong, we have a lot to offer. We have the great Cantonese culture that too few people know about. Our history is one of also the British empire. We have citizens in Hong Kong who are from the Indian continent and that is part too of our history. I have a sister who is Eurasian. My mother’s second marriage. They too, have an interesting history to tell but, do you ever hear it? Is it ever put forward to you as exciting parts of Hong Kong? No, but the story is there. There was an exhibition last night. Did you see anything about our environment? Our beautiful natural environment. Did you see anything about our culture? No. It makes me sad because we are not telling you our story. We are not offering you everything that we have. We are pulling down too quickly our older building and therefore, part of our culture. So, I think it is important that we look back to really see some of our strengths because it reflects in the diversity of our people.

One point I do want to make is something that Governor Locke said yesterday. And, I will read out to you this one sentence. He said he was shocked. This is in 1960. By the open holding tanks of raw sewage being pumped into the bay. Well, that was 1960. Our harbor is still a cesspit. Raw sewage is still being pumped into the harbor. I am ashamed that for a so-called first world city, Hong Kong’s environment is so poor. Citizens Party. We are keen on the environment. We want to put the environment right up there.

There was another report that I believe was handed out last night. The one in red. Well, I think there is one bit missing in there. When we are looking at U.S.–China relations. When we are talking about the U.S. President going to China, it talks about some of the things that are very difficult to achieve. WTL status, human rights, democracy. OK, what about the environment. I shouldn’t be preaching to the converted. I understand that in Washington State, that you are all very keen on the environment. What about getting the President to talk to China about developing a project to be launched in the year 2000, that is a major Sino/U.S. project? I have been trying to plug this now for some months. And, I can’t see why an environment project isn’t going to be welcome on both sides of the Pacific. Furthermore, if this idea is at all possible, I would like to see southern China and therefore, Hong Kong involved. There are many things that are possible. What about cleaning up the seas? What about developing fisheries? What about developing a first world environmental friendly transport system into the Pearl River Delta. I am just throwing out some ideas.

What is clear is that there is a lot of business to be done as well in cleaning up the environment. Maybe another wacky idea. I found out yesterday that Seattle’s twin on the other side of the Pacific is Chung Qing. Is it possible for Seattle and Chung Qing to develop a project to be launched in the year 2000 to help the environment? So, there are many things that we can do across the borders. We just need a little bit of imagination. So, for the next two years, it is only a two year term. We have a long agenda in Hong Kong. If I could just summarize them very quickly again.

Certainly to develop democracy. To increase the level of discourse about constitutional structures. How we get from here to there. Secondly, to revitalize the economy and there are so many aspects that are worthy of investment and worth of cooperation with you. Thirdly, the environment. I am sure this is something that we shouldn’t actually even be arguing about. We should be looking for a much higher level of cooperation.

To end, I just want to share with you how I actually look at Hong Kong. How is it possible for this place of six and a half million people to be so vital and so active. I ask myself that question all the time. We haven’t got much to sell except a big idea. Hong Kong represents the free spirit. And, I think that is what has drawn people to Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a self-selected community. People have come to Hong Kong from various parts of China and elsewhere in the world because they chose to go to Hong Kong. It has that special buzz, that special vitality because I think it is infused with this spirit. We are supposed to be the greatest entrepreneurial cities or one of the greatest entrepreneurial cities. Well, that is because we are free to trade, we are free to experiment. So, the idea of freedom is the big idea for Hong Kong and we must hang on to that with dear life.

When we talk about words like liberty, freedoms and democracy, these words make us warm, these words raise our body temperature a little bit. Why is that? I believe it is because it has something to do with the human spirit. Whatever culture you come from, we yearn for vitality to do our thing, to be able to express ourselves and I think that is what the 21st Century is going to be about. In my election in May, the poster that I designed was a bright, psychedelic green. The reason that is, Citizen’s Party, party color, is because we think that shocking green represents that color from young shoots. It is at that moment, that it is most vital and that it grows most quickly. The slogan that I chose for my poster, is very colloquial Cantonese but, it basically says, “Stand tall and just do it” and I think that is what we want to do in Hong Kong. Hopefully, with your help. Thank you.