Museveni: Demos won’t topple me, we will defeat the West

In Summary

President Museveni on Saturday summoned journalists to his country home in Rwakitura, Kiruhura District, announcing government will not suspend fuel taxes or subsidise the high food prices which are “good” for farmers. Promising to crack the whip on any illegal demonstrator, a rather relaxed and jovial Museveni said he has “nothing” to discuss with his main political challenger and FDC party leader Kizza Besigye, and vowed nobody can topple him using unconstitutional means. Our Senior Reporter Tabu Butagira’s question prompted Mr Museveni to pronounce himself as a possible candidate, not for future prosecution over unpunished killing of civilians allegedly by members of the armed forces, but the Nobel Peace Prize for managing Uganda “very well”. Below is an abridged version:-

Ronald Ssekandi, Xinhua: Your Excellency, there have been demonstrations in town about the inflation and I am seeking your comment as the Head-of-State?
It is true inflation is going up. It was about 5 per cent; it is now going towards 11 per cent. The main factors seem to be food and fuel. There was some unreliable rain from August 2010 to January. Some of the crops did not do well.
There is also bigger food demand in the region. You people with your [Forum for Democratic Change party leader, Kizza] Besigye only think about the town people. When food prices go up, yes people in towns suffer but farmers are very happy. Farmers are wondering what Besigye is talking about. That prices have gone up is good for them.

This Besigye man during campaigns said the government has brought down the commodity prices. Now the agricultural commodity prices have gone up, he is complaining! What sort of person is Besigye? But anyway, that is Besigye. He does not make any sense to people who are serious. Yes, food prices have gone up but this is temporary because the rain is coming. So the problem of inflation will come down. In the long run, the solution to all this fluctuation is irrigation which we shall embark on in the 3rd or 4th year of the new government. We will first deal with electricity and want to increase the supply to 3,800 megawatts by 2016. Then work on the roads before launching irrigation.

Fuel is coming from abroad. In the next 2-3 years, we shall have our own fuel coming from Lake Albert. But up to now we are importing. I hear the price of a barrel of oil has gone to $135 (about Shs300,000). If you add on transport, by the time a litre of petrol gets to Eldoret, Kenya, it is about Shs2,300 per litre of crude petrol. Then you add other costs on the way, plus a small Shs850 tax of government. Now I hear a litre of petrol is Shs3,500. You can see that much of that is before Eldoret. The tax on diesel is smaller; Shs530 per litre.

Some people are saying we remove the tax. First of all the tax is small; it is not the main cost. Besides we need tax money to build those roads and develop the country. And we cannot subsidise consumption. When you get people who subsidise consumption, then you know that those people are headed for trouble. What I would call upon the public is to use sparingly some of this resource. Don’t drive going to bars… Therefore; the consumer must be sensitive and responsible for their personal budget. If things are expensive, then use less.

Now Besigye says he is going to demonstrate against inflation? Will the world prices go down because Besigye has demonstrated? We are going to deal with him; there will be no demonstration in Kampala. He will not. If you want to demonstrate, work with the police and they say; ‘pass here.’ The problem is that Besigye does not want to coordinate with the police. He wants to hold demonstrations without reference to anybody. If you come and demonstrate in my farm here, I will spear you.

We are seeing increasing neo-colonialism lately in Africa. The West is pushing out Libyan leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi from power. What is your comment on this development?
Europeans and Americans intervening militarily in Africa is a new phenomenon. Our immediate reaction was when our African Union Peace and Security Committee, of which Uganda is not a member, met in Addis Ababa before the UN Security Council March resolution was passed on Libya, opposed the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.
However, African countries (South Africa, Guinea and Nigeria) voted at the UN in favour of the resolution. When I spoke to President Jacob Zuma of South Africa, he told me that they voted for the resolution to put pressure on Gaddafi.
But when the Western countries started bombing Libya instead of concentrating on protecting civilians, then the Africans got together. So the present position of African Union is ceasefire in Libya, then talks. I have had a lot of problems with Gaddafi but when it comes to foreigners interfering in the affairs of Africa without the permission of the African Union, I cannot support it. The position of Africa is; leave Libya to the Libyans to solve.

Tabu Butagira, Daily Monitor: Mr President, I am impressed you are encouraging dialogue in Libya. You worked in the past very closely with Dr Besigye; he was your personal physician in the bush. Why is it impossible for you, the two principals, to sit and talk so we don’t have this unnecessary tension and deaths during demonstrations?
Discuss with Besigye what? What are we going to discuss? Discuss what now? May be you could give me the idea. What politics? We don’t want to form a coalition government with Besigye because I have got too many NRM people to deal with. We are the majority in Parliament.
So discuss what now? Possibly, there is already an Inter-party forum created so that if there are some issues like how to organise elections, or things which affect all the parties, we can discuss them in that forum. (A journalist interjects: but both of you don’t attend). But I am the one who launched it in 2006. I can attend it any time; it is attended by the parties’ secretary-generals. I can attend; there is no problem at all. But we cannot discuss politics. What we can discuss are some national issues, for instance, oil, government funding political parties, Somalia, et cetera. But bilateral discussions between NRM and FDC parties; I don’t see what that would be because we don’t want to form an alliance with FDC. What would the discussion be about?

Tabu Butagira, Daily Monitor: Since September 2009 pro-Kabaka riots, followed by the Kasubi Tombs burning riots in March 2010 and again on Thursday in Gulu District, people have died allegedly of gunshot wounds. But there is no prosecution and a culture of impunity is developing among the armed forces because they know they won’t be punished. Does it worry you that perhaps when you are no longer the president, you could be prosecuted for the deaths of civilians since you are the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces?
I doubt very much, Mr Butagira, that in the world, that there is any group that is as accountable as NRM. Because since we came from the bush, we have condemned 123 soldiers to death because of killing civilians. I doubt if anybody has got such a record in the world. The Kasubi riots you are talking about, we don’t know who actually shot people. Because of the indiscipline of some people it is not easy to know who shot. That is what happens when you create this type of situation.
Museveni being worried about being prosecuted afterwards, I can see myself getting Nobel Peace Prize for managing the country, especially the army, very well.

Maurice Mugisha, NTV Uganda. On the demonstrations in Kampala, I would like to pick your mind is it really just about the food and fuel prices or is there another plan by the opposition.
I think it is more about the bankruptcy of the opposition. Because what other plan (chuckles)? (A journalist suggests mass uprising to topple the government). Aaaaaaaah! We had elections, the opposition lost. You think you can change that by anything else? There is no other plan. If they had other plan, it is an idiotic plan. It will never work. I always read this rubbish in the intelligence reports – that Besigye is planning this, Besigye is planning that. He is planning nothing, nothing, bure, bure bure (Kiswahili word for nothing). It is not possible, theirs is idiocy.
For us we shall deal with it for you because you entrusted us, very capable hands, to deal with that idiocy. It is true they are using any pretext to cause trouble but to cause trouble for nothing.
Unfortunately, you the media become accomplices. You are giving live coverage to Besigye’s idiocy as if it was a football match. That encourages some of those shallow people to think that this is the way forward. His plans are like unfertilised eggs.

Shifa Mwesigye, The Observer: What is your reaction on the brutal way in which the police handled the public; picking them from their homes and tear-gassing school children, and shooting at a pregnant woman (Brenda Nalwendo)?
I need to study each case; I haven’t studied it very carefully. Was this pregnant woman in the demonstration? (Journalists say she was going for antenatal checkup and got trapped). The police and I are preoccupied with controlling Besigye from passing through crowded places where 300 people move with him – of course he has no control over them - and they begin stealing things other people are selling.
That is why we have politely begged these people; if you want to demonstrate agree with the people so that we can see which route to pass.
Of course, some of these police may also be indisciplined. I have given orders to everyone to know what to do. Why do you follow somebody if they have gone into their houses? Leave them. Unless you saw somebody killing someone and in this case you follow to arrest him.
In Gulu District, three people were killed because the police there were not prepared and the army that came in is not used to this type of civilian issues and that is how we ended up losing some people. But we are going to be ready everywhere in the country to stop this nonsense.

You saw the embarrassing way in which former Ivory Coast President Laurent Ggabgo was ousted and picked from his home. What is your reaction to that? Doesn’t it worry you?
The issue of Ivory Coast is a complicated story because there are long-standing conflicts between some political groups in the North and South. I have not been following it myself until when I went to South Africa, just before the February 18 election, when President Zuma briefed me because he was on that committee. It was clear that this was a complicated situation, it wasn’t so simple.
Eventually the AU committee which was involved recognised Alassane Ouattara as the one who had won the election. They recommended that he leads the formation of a government of national unity. Before that happened then the French came in (and) I have not known how they came in or under whose authority they came.
Foreign troops coming into Africa without the permission of the AU is not accepted. We are going to deal with it. Because when it happened in the past, the results were always negative.
Can the European troops go and intervene in Africa? No, they will not. Because we will not allow it and if they want another Vietnam, they will get it.
My reaction is it will stop. We defeated colonialism in the past, and this one also will be defeated. So those traitors who are banking on that, they would rather get something more useful for themselves to do.

Grace Matsiko, AFP: Could you give us a background to the acquisition of the Shs1.7 trillion fighter jets and have they arrived in the country yet?
The second-hand planes we have been buying and overhauling have got a limited range. Like the other time we went to operate against Joseph Kony’s LRA rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo, we could not reach him quickly. That’s how he survived and fled. So we acquired the jet fighters for two reasons; complete our plan for a smaller but better equipped army which we started in 1991, and secondly to give ourselves a better capacity so that we have a longer arm. You think it is a bad idea? Peace is the foundation for the economy to grow. Thirdly, because this is new equipment, we are now going on holiday, we are not going to buy new equipment for the next 20 years.

Daniel arap-Moi, WBS TV: Parliament last week exonerated your key ministers implicated in the Chogm scam and the media quoted you as directing the Prime Minister to punish these people. No action has been taken. What is your take on the talk that your government has no political will to fight corruption?
I only fight wars I am clear about. I could see there were some suspicious things but there was no proof. My original advice to these people who are involved was that why don’t you leave the investigations to IGG? But because people were fighting political wars so that the one you hate politically is smeared, they continued. That political ‘shadow-boxing’ has now concluded with nothing. If some money was stolen, is it the work of Parliament to investigate? Why not get the professionals such as the IGG, accountants and the police to catch the thief properly. It is just a circus. The IGG will continue (with the Chogm investigations) and if the IGG finds out; you will see what I am going to do.

Joshua Mmali, BBC: The Activists for Change group is promising to push with the demonstrations every Monday and Thursday?
(Museveni interrupts: Activists for Change; what change according to you BBC?)
Mmali: Maybe you could ask them, Your Excellency. But how exactly are you going to deal with them because they are going to carry on with the campaign?
No, they will not. The law of Uganda will stop them. If they think they will change the government of Uganda unconstitutionally, are you one of the witnesses to prove that? If you are a witness, I can even charge you with the offence of misprision of treason. If you want to demonstrate peacefully, inform the police. But there will be no illegal demonstrations.

Siraje Kalyango, BBC Kiswahili. It is said your May 12 swearing-in ceremony will cost Shs3b and if that is true, why don’t you do a simple ceremony at Parliament?
Parliament has approved Shs3 billion but I have told some people to tell me if we really need all that three billion. If we don’t, then we shall use less, save and do something else. But I have invited quite a number of African leaders. This is just not for ceremony; this is for business.

So you can call that swearing-in “economic swearing-in” (laughs heartily). You are just talking about things you don’t know. If only you could have some little humility and know that there are also some intelligent people somewhere who plan things, you could save yourself a lot of trouble. Since we hosted Chogm in 2007, I think we are now earning something like $1 billion from Tourism annually.

You think when I bring foreigners, I bring them to only look at them? It is business. These people are the ones who control decisions in their country – when they come, we discuss politics and business. When a man like Museveni is chairing a meeting, this man is not known to be an idiot (chuckles). But somebody comes, talks as if all the other people are fools except himself! Hmmnnn! Be careful! But of course these bureaucrats can use it (swearing-in budget) to put something here and there which is not necessary and I totally agree. That is why I told Parliament you study it quietly; do not go to the newspapers.

Halima Othman, Uganda Radio Network: As President, does it concern you that we don’t have fuel and food reserves unlike in the past?
Uganda has financial reserves which are easier to look after than grain reserves because grain reserves, there is a cost involved in keeping it. If it became absolutely necessary to buy food, we would buy it. There are people who are arguing that we should interfere with the export of food to neighbouring countries, which is a wrong argument because it will suppress us, we the farmers.
That means you will deny us selling to all these buyers in the region and you will make us your slaves to keep selling to you the ones in Kampala only. This will turn Ugandan farmers into ‘captives’ - that we only sell food to these Kampala people who are playing matatu (cards). That will discourage farming.

Opposition Leaders Arrested in Uganda.

Besigye being lifted to a Police truck-up after his arrest on Monday.

TWO opposition party leaders, Col. Kizza Besigye, Nobert Mao, and over 10 other politicians were yesterday arrested and charged with inciting violence as they tried to hold a alk- to-work?demonstration over rising commodity prices.

Sabiiti, Kansiime, Busingye, Katuntu and Oguttu before the Nakawa court

The politicians, who were arrested from various places trying to alk?into Kampala city, were later in the day charged in Kasangati, City Hall, Nakawa and Mwanga II courts.

Before the arrests, there was a standoff between the Police and the politicians, who insisted on proceeding with their walk. They argued that it was their constitutional right. But the Police said the demonstration was illegal.

Besides Besigye and Mao, others who were charged with disobeying lawful orders, committing traffic offences and inciting violence included MPs Abdu Katuntu, Mathias Nsubuga, Wafula Oguttu, Jack Sabiti as well as opposition activists Kenneth Kakande, Elvis Kintu, Moses Kataabu, William Kamulegeya, Robert Kwesiga, Moses Kasibante and Robert Sendaula.  


Besigye, the FDC president, was intercepted in Kasangati after walking for about two kilometres from his residence. He said he was walking to his party headquarters in Najjanankumbi on Entebbe road, about 20km away.

At one stage, Besigye defiantly sat in the middle of the road, ignoring orders to go to the nearby police station. He was bundled onto a pick-up truck, whisked to the station and later taken court.

Mao, accompanied by several party big wigs, was intercepted in Ntinda. Amidst exchanges with the police, he was made to board a Police patrol vehicle and taken to Kira Road Police Station.

The Police had to fire teargas to disperse opposition supporters who had gathered and were cheering the politicians.

Besigye was charged with inciting violence and disobeying lawful orders before Grade one magistrate James Ereemye at Kasangati Magistrate court in Wakiso district amid tight security. He spent about five hours in detention at Kasangati police station before he was taken to court.

Led by the resident state attorney, Ivan Nkwasibwa, prosecution said Besigye incited violence when he walked from his home in Kasangati on Gayaza road, mobilising supporters to take part in the protest.

He also allegedly refused to obey orders from a police officer when he was asked to leave the place, but chose to sit in the middle of the road, disrupting traffic flow at Lutete village.

Besigye denied the charges and his lawyer, David Mpanga, applied for bail. He was released on a non-cash bail of sh10m.

His four sureties, who included the FDC secretary general, Alice Alaso, Rubaga mayor-elect Joyce Ssebugwawo, FDC executive director Wycliffe Bakandonda and Judith Kabanda were given a non-cash bond of sh5m each.

Besigye will return to court on May 11 when his case comes up for hearing.

The alk to Work?protest was launched by a new pressure group, Activists for Change, last week.

The opposition politicians vowed to walk to their places of work every Monday and Thursday until the Government comes up with a plan to reduce prices of essential commodities and fuel.

Ugandan Oppositions Demonstration in DC.

HONG KONG’S AUTONOMY SLIPS AWAY.

The death of long-time political activist Szeto Wah of lung cancer early this year provided an opportunity for Hong Kong to show the world that it is truly autonomous except in matters of defense and foreign affairs—an opportunity that was unfortunately not grasped.


Two leaders of the Tiananmen Square student protest of 1989, Wang Dan and Wu’er Kaixi, both of whom now live in exile, asked to visit Hong Kong for the sole purpose of attending the funeral to show their respect for Mr. Szeto who, as chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China until his death, had each year sponsored a well-attended march and a candlelight vigil to commemorate those who died in the military crackdown on June 4, 1989 and to call for their vindication.

Since the Hong Kong Basic Law, proclaimed by China in 1990, gives Hong Kong autonomy in immigration matters, it was technically up to the territory rather than Beijing to decide whether to allow such visits. But, of course, the Hong Kong government is highly sensitive to Beijing’s feelings on all matters.

Almost immediately, it became known that Wu’er Kaixi’s chances of getting a visa were poor. Hong Kong government officials privately recalled that he had been allowed to enter the territory in 2004 to attend the funeral of the Canto-pop singer Anita Mui Yim-fong, who had supported the 1989 democracy movement. However, they said, instead of adopting a low profile as promised, the former student leader gave a speech at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club and accepted media interviews. It was clear that they felt his word could no longer be trusted.

Different Case, Same Result

Wang Dan, however, was a different case. Unlike Wu’er Kaixi, who had fled the country after the military crackdown, he was arrested and imprisoned twice and eventually was deported. So he had not left China illegally and was not wanted for any crime. Besides, he declared that he would refrain from talking to the press or making public statements and, in fact, would leave Hong Kong immediately after the funeral service, not even spending the night.

Hong Kong officials were evidently seriously considering his visa request. They held negotiating sessions with the democrats regarding the activities that Wang Dan would engage in during his visit and sought to confirm his pledge that his sole purpose was to honor Szeto Wah, whom he held in high respect.

In some ways, this was similar to the situation in mid-2010, when the Democratic Party proposed an amendment to Chief Executive Donald Tsang’s political reform package. After the Chinese government had given its blessings, the Hong Kong authorities conducted talks with the Democratic Party to clarify whether its legislators would
vote for the package if the Tsang administration accepted the party’s proposed amendment. Once it became clear that there was a deal, the Tsang administration announced acceptance of the amendment and the Democrats stuck to the bargain, ensuring passage of the package in the legislature.

This time, it appeared, the process was similar. Hong Kong officials pressed the democrats for a commitment on the restrictions that Wang Dan would be under if they allowed a visit, and that commitment was made. Secretary of Security Ambrose Lee said in the legislature that Hong Kong “will not reject a visitor’s entry application purely because of his religious belief or political stance.”

But, in the end, Wang Dan was denied a visa. He reacted by calling “one country, two systems” a lie. The impression, inescapably, is that the Chinese government withheld its blessings and Hong Kong was left to “decide” that it would not permit a visit by Wang Dan.

This was an opportunity missed, by both Hong Kong and Beijing. If the Tiananmen Square student leader had been allowed to visit and attend the funeral of Szeto Wah, it would have sent a signal to the whole world that there was an autonomous government in Hong Kong 13 years after the handover and an enlightened government in Beijing 21 years after the massacre.

Neither Yes Nor No

Earlier, the new director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council, Wang Guangya, was asked in Beijing whether a visit by Wang Dan would be allowed. Instead of saying yes or no, he responded that the matter was in the hands of Hong Kong officials and expressed confidence that they would “handle it well.” In reality, the only reason why Hong Kong would deny such a visit is fear of Beijing’s anger over such a move. So if Beijing had wanted to signal that it had no objection, it could have signaled this by saying something to the effect that “the matter should be managed pragmatically and appropriately.”

Those were the exact words used by another Chinese official, Wang Yi, when he wanted to show that the mainland was not opposed to Taiwan negotiating the equivalent of free trade agreements with other countries. Beijing knows how to make clear its position on sensitive issues without having to openly declare its consent—or its opposition.

The decision to deny Wang Dan a visa was a reflection of the limited degree of Hong Kong’s autonomy, regardless of what the Basic Law may say. No Chief Executive is likely to take any action knowing that it would anger Beijing, even if theoretically he has the right to make such a decision.

The travails of Donald Tsang’s political reform package last year also reflected the changed political environment in Hong Kong. Because of a decision made by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee in 2009, the chief executive was not allowed to increase the proportion of directly elected members of the legislature, which is currently 50%, with the others elected by special interest groups known as functional constituencies.

In an attempt at political reform that stays within the NPCSC decision, Mr. Tsang proposed creating a new functional constituency that consisted only of directly elected members of District Councils—local bodies responsible for such things as advising on parks, libraries and other local affairs. He proposed that elected district councilors would in turn elect five members to serve in the Legislative Council.

The Democratic Party went one better. It proposed that instead of limiting the electorate of this new functional constituency to district councilors, roughly three million voters—anyone who did not belong to an already existing functional constituency—would elect the five legislators from the ranks of district councilors. Then followed highly visible discussions between the Democratic Party and the Liaison Office, which is the Chinese government’s representative body in Hong Kong.

Donald Tsang on the Sidelines

The Tsang administration was edged out, since it could not decide if the Democratic Party’s proposal was consistent with the Basic Law. Chinese officials in Hong Kong and Beijing suggested loudly that it not only violated the Basic Law but also the 2009 decision of the NPCSC.

Ultimately, the central government decided to accept the Democrats’ proposal, probably because otherwise the political reform package was doomed and Donald Tsang’s ability to govern Hong Kong would be put in doubt. But because the negotiations were conducted by the central government, it became obvious to everyone who was calling the shots in Hong Kong—and it wasn’t Donald Tsang.

More than 13 years after Hong Kong’s reversion to Chinese sovereignty, there has been visible narrowing of the autonomy promised to the former British colony. At the same time, there has been much change in the attitude of the Hong Kong people. While in 1997 many people wanted to keep the mainland at arm’s length, today there is a keen awareness that Hong Kong needs to hitch its wagon to the Chinese red star now that the mainland has the world’s second largest economy so as to grow along with it.

Moreover, while 13 years ago China’s policy was to allow maximum autonomy while reining in its own supporters, today there has been an 180-degree turn and the administration of Chief Executive Donald Tsang has tacitly agreed to give pro-Beijing individuals in the community—such as deputies of the National People’s Congress and members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference—positions of influence by appointing them to advisory committees. What caused the sea change was the mammoth demonstration of 2003, when over half a million people marched amid a prolonged recession to protest against a national security bill that many feared would erode their basic rights and freedoms.

Today, the economy is booming and Financial Secretary John Tsang declared in his budget address in February that, instead of the HK$25 billion (US$320 million) deficit that he had predicted last year, Hong Kong had actually enjoyed a surplus of HK$71 billion (US$910 million). In order to ensure a buoyant economy, the government and leading business people want Hong Kong to do what has traditionally been anathema to capitalists: adopt a five-year economic plan or, rather, join the mainland’s 12th five-year plan, 2011-2015. So, while the Basic Law stipulates that under the policy of “one country, two systems” Hong Kong is not meant to practice “the socialist system and policies” of the mainland, the territory has argued aggressively to be included in the mainland’s five-year plan.

Joining a Socialist Plan

Five years ago, during the drafting of China’s 11th five-year plan, Hong Kong elbowed its way in and obtained one paragraph in the document in which Beijing voiced its support for maintaining Hong Kong’s status as an international center for financial services, trade and shipping as well as for the development of logistics, tourism and information services.

For the 12th five-year plan beginning in 2011, there has been much closer coordination between Hong Kong and the mainland, with experts from Beijing’s National Development and Reform Commission being invited to Hong Kong for discussions. Hong Kong officials also held talks with representatives of neighboring Guangdong province about the territory’s role in the new plan.

In 2006, voices were raised against Hong Kong being included in China’s five-year plan. For example, Tony Latter, a former deputy chief executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, wrote an article in the South China Morning Post headlined “We don’t ‘do’ planning.” Now, there is hardly a dissenting voice. Nonetheless, Qiao Xiaoyang, deputy secretary general of the National People’s Congress, in a speech February 17, attacked “a small number of people” who, he said, “treated Hong Kong as an independent or quasi-independent political entity.”

Mr. Qiao, addressing Hong Kong deputies to the National People’s Congress as well as local delegates to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in Shenzhen, discussed the issue of Hong Kong’s inclusion in the five-year plan. “To discuss the issue of including Hong Kong in the national strategic planning,” he said, “we must have a correct understanding of the position of the ‘one country, two systems’ policy in the national development strategy and a correct understanding of the indispensable relationship between Hong Kong and the country.”

The senior Chinese official, who has often handled issues involving Hong Kong and the central government, criticized the reluctance of some officials in the years immediately after the handover to strengthen economic cooperation with the mainland. He said that in the future, Hong Kong should formulate its economic development strategy based on that of the mainland but he insisted that the major power of decision would rest with Hong Kong.

Some details of the plan were release March 5 at the annual session of the National People’s Congress. In addition to reiterating pledges of support for Hong Kong to raise its status as an international financial, trade and shipping center, the plan designates it as an offshore hub for renminbi business. The plan also pledges support for developing the new pillar industries identified for further development by the Tsang administration. These are education, medical services, testing and certification, green industries, innovation and technology, and cultural and creative industries.

One early test of Hong Kong’s new relationship with the mainland may lie in a proposal to better integrate the cities surrounding the Pearl River, known as the Action Plan for the Bay Area of the Pearl River Estuary. Involving Hong Kong, Macau and Guangdong Province, the idea is to further integrate the cities in the Pearl River Delta and improve lifestyles through establishing open spaces with recreational activities. However, few Hong Kong residents were aware of the plan before it was disclosed and quite a few reacted negatively to it. The Deputy Director of Planning, Ling Kar-kan, rejected claims that the mainland was planning Hong Kong’s future development and insisted that the Planning Department would listen to public views on the proposals, which are to be completed by the second half of the year.

While it is not necessary to agree with Wang Dan that “one country, two systems” is a lie, it is certainly true that Hong Kong today does not enjoy the high degree of autonomy that its people had hoped for in 1997. Hong Kong still is different from the mainland in its independent judiciary, its free press and the freedom of its people. But, unfortunately, it is enjoying less autonomy than its people expected in 1997. In fact, quite possibly, it is enjoying less autonomy than the Chinese government had originally intended.

Frank Ching is an analyst of Chinese politics based in Hong Kong. His most recent book is “China: The Truth About Its Human Rights Record,” Rider, 2008