Where politics has divided the Beijing father and Hong Kong son, a tender touch may heal
Stephanie Cheung likens Hong Kong's dispute with Beijing over democratic reform to a family quarrel between father and son. Hence the need for the chief executive in the role of mediator
This year, the Hong Kong SAR turns 18, an exciting age when the world is at one's feet, and all tomorrows are filled with possibilities. New ideas abound, with the inexhaustible energy to make dreams come true. Eighteen is when the gawking and diffident teenager comes of age, to take on the mantle of adulthood, make contracts and vote.
Now is the time to see how the infant has grown under protective parents into a young man eager to make his own decisions, and try out his own ideas instead of having them foisted upon him.
The Federation of Students has repeatedly explained that the Occupy protesters are seeking self-determination, not independence. Action speaks louder than words. A delegation from the federation sought an audience with the highest authorities from Beijing to discuss constitutional reform. Such a move can only be consistent with acceptance by the federation (and the supporting protesters) of Beijing's sovereign rule over Hong Kong.
In the same way, a young man may wish to decide whether to attend college, and what degree course to take, even against his father's wishes. But that does not mean he wants to sever his relationship with his family. Nor does it necessarily imply a lack of love, or disrespect for his dad.
As a parent, we at times feel upset when our children do not follow our advice, which we believe to be correct and wise. Sometimes, we feel the child is being inconsiderate and we brand him spoilt and selfish. The hurt to us as parents can be very deep, and threatens to break the family relationship. That is when it would be important to have a sensible third party to remind us of the love for the whole family, and to put the differences into context instead of exaggerating them further - to see the bigger picture for the benefit of all.
This third party may be a family member or a trusted friend, who holds the best interest of us and the child at heart and who cares enough to let go of his/her own preconceptions to try and understand both the son and father. In other words, a person like a mother.
In Hong Kong's case, such a role should be played by the chief executive, who is in the unique position to explain the Hong Kong son to the Beijing father, and vice versa. To do so, the chief executive needs to have a genuine interest, concern and empathy for the son, namely, the people of Hong Kong, and take the time and effort to understand his motivations, underlying thoughts and aspirations. It is not enough to stand on the side and speculate about how he feels and thinks.
During the protests, the chief executive merely delegated responsibility for meeting the protesters to his three-member group on constitutional reform. They held one meeting, and then even rejected a letter, claiming the students had nothing new to say. The government acted as if it had fully understood the entire thinking and aspirations of the Umbrella Movement. With such thinking, how could the mother properly explain the son to the father?
Also, if the mother merely repeats to the son what the father says, she cannot be a competent intercessor. To do so would be a disservice not only to the son, but also to the father, who needs a go-between who understands how to communicate his views. Therein lies the value-added for having a chief executive.
It is tempting for the father to want his wife to fully understand his views, but he must not forget that she must also be a good translator. She can only be such if she speaks the language of the son as well.
The present striving for genuine democracy to choose the chief executive results from the poor track record of those chosen by Beijing to intercede between the father and son.
It is understandable for Hong Kong to be getting impatient to choose someone who can fulfil that role. After all, if the 2017 election is not done properly, we would need to wait until 2022. The best news recently came at the turn of the year, when Rao Geping, a Chinese delegate of the Basic Law Committee, said on December 30 that the pledge of 50 years without change could be extended if the disparity between the mainland and Hong Kong was still apparent in 2047.
Even 100 or 200 years of transition to "one system" would not, in his view, be abnormal, as long as it is understood to be a transitional system. It's not known how much Rao's views represent mainstream Beijing, but it is at least an indication not lightly made.
With the potential for a new lease of life beyond 50 years, we can then say, "Take it easy, son. Let's put aside our differences and work together to get Hong Kong right - for the benefit of the whole family."
