Long live the Hong Kong spirit - Paul Zimmerman

It all started with a phone call from a friend who said that the Yuen Long crocodile, being held captive at Kadoorie Farm, was showing signs of severe stress. She has yet to take a bite of the best meat money can buy, and is slowly turning black. Remember that our crocodile is smart and free-spirited. She evaded captivity for a long time and showed great defiance by sitting on top of a trap.

We agreed that the crocodile was a great metaphor for Hong Kong's spirit, and would provide a much-needed lighter note for July 1. So we called a sign maker on the eve of the march and ordered a Free The Croc! banner. The response from the crowd went through various stages, from surprise to reflection and cheering. Three people, however, felt differently.

One exclaimed angrily that our irreverent slogan was an insult, and that we ought to take the struggle seriously. Another made clear that the crocodile could never be set free because it would grow big and attack people. Another called us communists, identifying the marchers as dangerous crocodiles much in line with a recent advertisement in the <I>Ming Pao </I>newspaper, warning that tourists will stay away because Hong Kong is now a dangerous place on July 1.

Clearly, from the positive but concerned attitude on display, nothing could be further from the truth. All other marchers not only showed great concern for the crocodile, they also clearly saw the call to free the croc as a plea to safeguard our core values and free spirit. The metaphor is striking.

As for the well-being of the croc, if we can ensure that Hong Kong remains in its natural habitat of freedom of expression, transparency, and rule of law, then the city will prosper for the benefit of China as a whole. But with the decisions made about the croc's future, we are struggling to find what the appropriate environment is. How do we make sure it does not become a big and frustrated threat?

Hong Kong is not eating the greasy bites of economic growth offered by Beijing. Similarly, Hong Kong does not function well when its spirit is held captive. More than anything, this year's march was more about who did not join in response to perceived fears and threats.

Movie stars are afraid of being banned in the mainland, foreigners are worried about sending the wrong signal that Hong Kong is manipulated by foreign powers, and many professional groups which had joined now believe that we can achieve more constructive solutions by working behind closed doors.

There is a great danger in the breakdown of our core values, and specifically freedom of expression. Hong Kong's system of governance was already demonstrating system failures and a lack of flexibility in adapting to new challenges. The development of great ideas is hampered by outmoded consultation models, a dysfunctional Legislative Council and an Executive Council trying to get things done by working around rather than through the system.

On top of this we have to learn how to manage our relationship with Beijing and deal with a rapidly changing economic and demographic environment. Without open debate we will not be able to create an efficient competition of ideas for the best solutions.

In democratic countries, political parties and their research teams develop issues and clear positions for the public to consider. Without elections, and with freedom of expression limited, how are we going to improve our public governance systems so that Hong Kong makes efficient, legitimate and mature decisions, which are sustainable and for the benefit of all? How do we set the conditions for a frank, creative and open debate without having to be afraid of being bitten in the back? How will our appointed leaders convince themselves, and Beijing, that as long as Hong Kong's spirit is kept free, the people of Hong Kong will deliver?

Paul Zimmerman is executive director of MF Jebsen International, principal of the Experience Group, a policy and strategy consultancy, and chief co-ordinator of Designing Hong Kong Harbour District.