RACE is the most complex and sensitive of subjects. I touch upon it with hesitation. My intention is to make a single point; one, I believe, of great importance to Hongkong. That point is: we must keep race and politics separate. We must not politicise race. We must not racialise our politics. If we do so, we create a volatile mixture which may easily explode in our faces.
It may not be easy to resist the temptations of racial chauvinism, especially when we are so soon to close a chapter of history which was often written in deeply racial terms. But at the very least, public figures should be capable of setting an example rather better than that of Mr David Chu, one of China's ''advisers'', in the South China Morning Post of March 29. Commenting on the choice of Sir David Akers-Jones to join the second group of Hongkong advisers to Beijing. Mr Chu said: ''There are many Hongkong people who, after years of Western influence, don't feel they are Chinese and don't have a good feeling of being Chinese race. For example, Christine Loh is probably less Chinese than Sir David.'' One of my first reactions on reading these sentences was to hope that Sir David Akers-Jones would wish to dissociate himself publicly from Mr Chu's sentiments. However, since Sir David has not to my knowledge done so, and since I do not wish it to be thought that Mr Chu's views may be considered ''fair comment'', I want to put my own response on record.
In a literal sense, Mr Chu's remarks are absurd. In a political context, they are dangerously misleading.
Mr Chu argues, in effect, that some ideas and beliefs can be categorised as ''Chinese'' or ''not Chinese'', and that the people who hold them can be categorised as ''more Chinese'' or ''less Chinese'' in consequence.
Mr Chu chooses ''Sir David Akers-Jones'' and ''Christine Loh'' as examples of people who have become ''more Chinese'' and ''less Chinese'' respectively. Is it, perhaps, Sir David's conservatism, his support for ''convergence'' and his opposition to rapiddemocratisation of Hongkong which Mr Chu wishes to endorse as properly ''Chinese''? And is it, my own liberalism, my opposition to one-sided ''convergence'' and my support for rapid democratisation which are being deprecated as not properly ''Chinese''? The personal rudeness and intellectual vulgarity inherent in such an approach should require no further comment. Unfortunately, in the circumstances, comment is essential.
If one were to do Mr Chu the favour of presuming that, when he said ''race'', he meant, in fact, ''culture'', then his comments would become no less rude, but slightly more rational.
My reply would be that my culture is the culture of Hongkong. I am proud that it should be so. The social, economic and political culture of Hongkong differs from that of mainland China, not least because Hongkong has spent the post-war years evolving according to the principles of liberal capitalism, and not those of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.