Why are Hong Kong businessmen so reluctant to support our democratic and human rights? Why are they so opposed to Governor Chris Patten's reforms and to the continuation of our present Legco after June 30, 1997? After reading the open letter to Prime Minister John Major in which the Governor is condemned for his views on local tycoons, I believe the answer lies partly in their cultural background and partly in their business psychology. Although many of the tycoons have received higher education in Western countries with democratic systems, most of their education was in the fields of science, technology or business. These areas of study ignore or look down on the subjects of culture, politics and sociology. Thus, the present business tycoons have not been exposed in any significant way to the workings of democracy. They perhaps saw the failures of some of their host countries and blamed them on the democratic philosophy of government. This attitude is often stated by the Beijing authorities who are most eager to receive Western technology (especially superior weaponry), but reject the humanistic side of Western thought - a kind of selective xenophobia. Businessmen, in particular, are very ambivalent towards democracy, since modern corporations are based on a pyramidal power structure, very similar to that in the military. One fights his way to the top; or inherits it from daddy. This structure is even more accepted in Confucian societies which emphasise obedience and filial loyalty. Employees are more like obedient children. Obviously, our local businessmen will be very happy with the political systems imposed on them by their psychical and political bedfellows across the border. Western-based corporations, despite their democratic origins, actually prefer to siphon off the profits earned by free workers and invest them in the East. Even US President Bill Clinton sees no difficulty in having investment money flowing from the US, from an impoverished working class, to the communist empires of Asia. His business supporters obviously are more important to him than the unemployed US voter. The only consolation in this sorry abandonment of democracy and human rights after 1997 is that businessmen will themselves become victims of the debased society they accepted. I note that corrupt businessmen in China are punished severely, with executions often the outcome. Of course, since our businessmen are beyond reproach, they need not fear such 'Beijing-style' justice. The letter by the business associations is a sad portent of post-1997 political life. J GARNER Kowloon
