[ad_1]
James To Kun-sun, 57, has been an elected member of the Legislative Council, Hong Kong’s semi-democratic parliament, since 1991. Politically shaped by the repression of the Tiananmen uprising in 1989, he was one of the co-founders of the Democratic Party, the which is still a member.
On Thursday, To and 15 other MPs resigned from the entire opposition, protesting the expulsion of four members of the joint pro-democracy alliance. This ended the attempt to establish a parliamentary system in the former British crown colony under Chinese rule. Hong Kong’s city government, dominated by Beijing, can now rule without resistance.
SPIEGEL: Mr. To, you were in the Hong Kong Parliament for 29 years, six years under British rule and 23 years under Chinese rule. What is going through your head on your last day as a Member of Parliament?
TO: I am saddened that the “one country, two systems” principle, under which reformist Deng Xiaoping initiated Hong Kong’s return to China, has failed. And I wonder why it happened this way: is it because China’s new leadership thinks so differently from Deng? Or is it because the leadership is so insecure that it cannot withstand opposition even in Hong Kong?
SPIEGEL: Which do you think is more likely?
TO: One would assume that China feels great and powerful today. But maybe that’s not the case. Perhaps the global political situation worries leaders in such a way that they feel vulnerable. And that is why Hong Kong is being crushed to protect China from its influence.
SPIEGEL: How do you personally feel that your legislative career ends today?
TO: My own career doesn’t really matter on a day like this. Young Hong Kong residents are in prison, some of whom feel compelled to seek asylum in countries like Germany. In the next few days I will have to fire my staff, the true heroes who have done with me for years what a parliament has to do: control the government. They are so good at it now that maybe I shouldn’t worry about them at all. They realize faster than anyone where the abuse of power and corruption is spreading. You will find new jobs.
SPIEGEL: How difficult was it for you and the other 15 pro-democracy MPs to decide to resign together?
TO: It is not difficult at all. This decision was made within five minutes, by the way, after the national security law was passed in the summer. If one of us is excluded, we agreed that we would all back down.
SPIEGEL: This is exactly how it turned out. Four deputies were disqualified. Why do you think Beijing made this decision?
TO: Currently it is reported that party cadres in Beijing recently watched a parliamentary session in Hong Kong on television and were simply angry. We have now passed such a strict state security law, they are supposed to have said, how can these MPs continue to be so brash? How can they continue to debate anything? From parking meter law to container ship safety and the right to vote for Hong Kong residents abroad, as if nothing happened!
SPIEGEL: The four disqualified were considered moderate.
TO: In any case, in my almost 30 years I have seen very different MEPs. To declare precisely these four as a threat to national security, two lawyers, a doctor and an accountant, is shocking. To implement an idea like “one country, two systems” between something as big as China and a city like Hong Kong, you need a modicum of courtesy. Deng Xiaoping knew: it won’t work without patience, without tolerance.
SPIEGEL: Even if you quickly came to an agreement, many Hong Kong residents weren’t. According to a poll, around half of those polled were in favor of his leaving Parliament and half against.
TO: That was before the four deputies were expelled. And for me the situation was clear from the beginning: as long as we had the slightest room for maneuver, I was determined to continue. But now we have lost even this room for maneuver.
SPIEGEL: After the withdrawal, the pro-democratic center of society has practically no parliamentary representation.
TO: Our city used to have a broad and moderate center. If you asked ten years ago who was in favor of Hong Kong’s independence, it was a dying minority. Today it is 10 to 15 percent, according to the survey. If you asked earlier who saw violence as a legitimate means in political disputes, it was three percent. Today it is 29 percent. A terrible number. It is Beijing’s failure to deal with Hong Kong that prompted this development.
SPIEGEL: Beijing has at times hinted at minimal concessions in recent years when it comes to demands for more democracy. Do you regret not having responded to these offers?
TO: We tried for 23 years and the result led us exactly to our decision: these offers are meaningless. I know my voters, they have always confirmed me in office with a very high percentage of votes. I would be condemned if I stayed in Parliament today.
SPIEGEL: What are you going to do now, what are the next steps?
TO: At the moment, our employees are being briefed on how to leave parliament, when we need to collect our furniture and vacate our offices. We will have about a month for this. I will need it because many things have occurred to me in 29 years.
SPIEGEL: And what do you do when you’re done with it?
TO: Then I keep reading the three books that I recently bought. By the way, it’s about Germany, about the Stasi archives that reached the public after the Wall fell. I would like to know more precisely how these authoritarian regimes work, under which paragraphs they accuse citizens, what the criminal offenses they deal with are called: “illegal communication with foreign elements”, for example. I’m a lawyer. I will need this information.
