Twenty years ago, Hong Kong people's support of the students demonstrating in Tiananmen Square hardened China's view about the risk of democratic development in the territory. Hong Kong's Basic Law, adopted by the National People's Congress eight months after the bloody crackdown on June 4, 1989, stipulates that the ultimate aim of universal suffrage should have regard to 'the principle of gradual and orderly progress'.
Last year, Beijing finally agreed that, subject to satisfactory arrangements, the earliest date for the election of the chief executive and the formation of the entire legislature by universal suffrage would be 2017 and 2020, respectively. But will the reaction of the Hong Kong people towards the 20th anniversary of June 4 cause the central government to have second thoughts about honouring its promise?
This year a record number of people filled every space in Victoria Park for the annual candle-light vigil to commemorate the Tiananmen tragedy that resulted in the killing of peaceful demonstrators. Earlier, a poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong showed that 60 per cent of respondents supported the vindication of June 4 - that is, China should admit the wrongdoing and make amends. This is in sharp contrast to the view of Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen that we should have an objective assessment of the event because Hong Kong has benefited from the mainland's economic reforms.
The government is committed to consulting the legislature and the public later this year on the electoral arrangements for the chief executive and the legislature in 2012. The democrats will play up Mr Tsang's gaffe and ridicule the representativeness of the 800-member Election Committee. They will also press for a genuine form of universal suffrage: for example, no pre-screening of candidates in the election of the chief executive, and the abolition of functional constituencies.
The demand for full and true democracy is likely to have more support from the public this year, particularly from the post-1989 generation that has been awakened by the controversy stirred by the remarks of Mr Tsang and some student leaders sympathetic to Beijing's position. The worry is that the central government is not in the habit of succumbing to pressure for more democracy. That Hong Kong people remain intransigent over June 4 two decades after the event may reinforce Beijing's concern about losing control over the outcome of the election of the chief executive and members of the legislature when they are all returned by universal suffrage. Will our support for the June 4 cause turn out, once again, to be a curse in our pursuit of democracy for Hong Kong?
This year's June 4 commemoration will also have an impact on Hong Kong in other respects. We take for granted that Hong Kong can continue to hold annual commemorative events, while such activities are strictly forbidden on the mainland. But there is no room for complacency. Denying the entry of sculptor Jens Galschiot and a number of June 4 student leaders to attend the commemorative event does not bode well for Hong Kong's claim to be a free city.