The Economist: Five years in China

After five years of Chinese rule over Hong Kong, the territory's chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, has taken his biggest step yet to reshape the political structure he inherited from Britain. On July 1st, the anniversary of the handover, a team of political appointees will take over the policymaking roles hitherto played by civil servants. The new “ministerial system”, as it is dubbed, may strengthen Mr Tung's power. But it will do little to make his lacklustre administration more popular.

CHINA’S president, Jiang Zemin, will be the guest of honour at the celebrations marking the fifth anniversary of Hong Kong’s reversion to China in the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, the same venue where he watched the British flag being lowered in 1997. The ceremonies will include the swearing in of Mr Tung for another five-year term of office, as well as the formal appointment of his 14-member ministerial team. Although Chinese officials say that the end of British rule heralded a new era of democracy in Hong Kong, no one dared to offend China by standing against Mr Tung when nominations for his job were solicited in February (even if they had tried to stand, pro-democracy politicians would have won scant backing in an electoral committee made up largely of China's supporters). Neither the public nor the legislature had any say in Mr Tung's choice of “ministers”.

Officials say the new system will make policymakers more personally accountable for their decisions and protect civil servants from political pressures. But while this may sound like a step towards the kind of system practised in many democratic countries, in reality it will not ensure that Hong Kong's policymakers become any more accountable or the civil service any more neutral than they are today. The legislature will have no power to remove the “ministers”. And many pro-democracy politicians argue that the new system will put even more political pressure on top civil servants, who will no doubt be anxious to please the appointees above them. One reason why Anson Chan, Hong Kong's chief secretary, or senior civil servant, left her job in April last year was her belief (though never stated publicly) that the proposed ministerial system would lead to the politicisation of the civil service. “The effect of the new ministerial system is that Mr Tung is even more powerful than before. But then even though he is a dictator, he is really a puppet of Beijing,” says Martin Lee, leader of the Democratic Party, the largest in Hong Kong's legislature.

The new system could well make life easier for the central government in Beijing. Constitutionally, it has the final say over the appointment of top officials in Hong Kong. After the handover in 1997, it accepted all of the officials who had been appointed under the British—not because it liked all of them, but because it wanted as smooth a transition as possible. But privately, officials in Beijing feel the Hong Kong civil service has been slow to swing round to their way of thinking.

In spite of these changes, few expect any big policy shifts—at least not imminently. But pro-democracy activists, who generally admit that the past five years of Chinese rule have been more benign than many had expected at the time of the handover, do fear that life may get tougher in the years ahead. During his first term, Mr Tung avoided taking action on a requirement in Hong Kong's constitution, drafted by China, that the territory pass laws prohibiting crimes such as secession and subversion, as well as banning local groups from having political links with foreign organisations.

The government is clearly worried about the impact such legislation might have on Hong Kong's image abroad. But Donald Tsang, Mrs Chan's predecessor, says the government is likely to promulgate the required laws during Mr Tung's second term. “I do not think we should put this off forever. Sometime we have to face the music,” he says.

Chinese officials will certainly be glad to hear him say so. They do not appear to want a sweeping crackdown against dissent in Hong Kong, but they would like legislation in place that would give them a freer hand. In an interview this week with a Hong Kong television station, China's deputy prime minister, Qian Qichen, suggested that the Falun Gong spiritual movement could be in breach of future anti-subversion legislation if it continued to contact “foreign forces”.

In the next five years, Mr Tung will also have to examine possible political reforms to be introduced in 2007, the earliest date when Hong Kong's constitution allows for a fully directly-elected legislature and chief executive. But here, too, the prospects are bleak. In another interview this week, Mr Qian said he was against rapid moves toward full democracy. “One cannot have Hong Kong emulating the systems of other regions,” he said. Mr Tung and his ministers would surely agree.