LC Seminar on "HK After 9 Years" (#215, Topic P)

Today at noon, there was a seminar on "Hong Kong after 9 years" at the Library of Congress. Being of great interest to me, I took time out from my research on the Opium War to attend it. After a few words in English, the speaker, an activist from HK, turned the podium to an interpreter who read an English version of his speech, synchronized with a PowerPoint presentation, also in English, on key words being read. (His speech, in Chinese, was available at the entrance; I got a copy.) The tone of his presentation was quite critical. During the Q&A period, the speaker came to the podium, speaking in Cantonese, with the interpreter doing the English-to-Cantonese (for the speaker's benefit) and Cantonese-to-English (for the benefit of non-Chinese-speaking members of the audience) interpretation. There was time for only 4 or 5 questions (since most attendees were LC staff members, who had to return to their posts after the lunch hour); after two LC staff asked questions, I could not contain myself and asked the third one. Since the first 2 questions were polite and irrelevant (suggesting that they had never been to HK), I felt that I had to tune down. I asked: "I am curious. Before HK was returned to China, was there democracy? Was there demonstration?" As to the former, he was forced to admit that there was none. As to the second part of my question, its lack of specificity (I meant demonstration against UK) allowed him to mention one demonstration, against mainland China, in 1994. (I happened to be in Beijing to see the demonstration there, as well as in HK to see the demonstration our speaker talked about. He exaggerated the magnitude.) My question seemed to open the door for tougher questions; indeed, a young lady, probably an LC staff member from China not too long ago, first chided him for not appreciating his being a "lost son" returning to his biological mother and being treated better than her other offsprings, and then asked him, point blank, whether he preferred to have HK still in UK hands. He argued that, as a lost son, he expected better treatment; as to the query, he had to answer in the negative. In his presentation, he used the word "enemy" at least four times -- twice in the reading and twice in the PowerPoint presentation. The very use of this word betrayed his negative answer. All in all, his audience was less than friendly. I presume he would be making similar presentations at the Hill, to more receptive audiences.