26 January, 2021

Blog

Hong Kong Student Protests At The Cross Roads

By Laksiri Fernando

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

Dr. Laksiri Fernando

Student demands for greater democracy in Hong Kong has now reached a decisive point, the crossroads so to say. The protesters overnight clashed with the anti-protesters or more correctly the other way round. The police has intervened. It is difficult to imagine that the Chinese government would cave in particularly given the events around the world in recent times and also their conservative thinking on democracy. The name given for the movement ‘umbrella revolution’ is also controversial.

There cannot be any doubt that the people in Hong Kong deserve more democracy particularly in freely selecting their Chief Executive. In other spheres, they do have most of the accepted democratic rights perhaps far exceeding some of the so-called democratic countries in practical terms. That was also reflected in the peaceful manner that the students conducted their protests even in this instance at the beginning. Could one imagine the US government tolerating their students blocking the central business district in New York for over a week?

HongDuring the last decade there had been some progress in expanding the democratic space in Hong Kong except in security legislation. This has to be admitted. There were similar protests in 2003 but those were not so maximalist. As a consequence of those civic protests two Ministers resigned and finally the Chief Executive also resigned in 2005 paving the way for change. It was as a result of these reforms that popular voting to elect the Chief Executive was fixed for 2017.

What became controversial is the selection process of candidates. Although the 5 million odd eligible voters can vote at the elections, all those who wish to contest for the Chief Executive position cannot do so. Beijing wants to retain the power to screen the candidates. Undoubtedly this is not complete universal franchise. The proposed system for elections for 2017 might satisfy the Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which gives flexibility in “equivalent free voting procedures” but not the Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which says inter alia,

“Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity….To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors…”

What is at question is ‘every citizen’s right to be elected at an election.’ The fact however remains that China has not yet ratified the ICCPR although it has now expressed the intention to do so by singing the Covenant. China considers universal franchise or full democracy as a goal but not necessarily as instantaneous right. It has allowed the free functioning of a multiparty system but it appears that Beijing does not want some personalities grabbing the position of the Chief Executive position. This has become clear from their recent positions.

What is apparent is a tension within the ‘one country, two systems’ policy. This tension is also apparent within the public perceptions in Hong Kong facing the ongoing democracy protests at present. There are those who emphasize ‘one country’ and there are those who value ‘two systems.’ The protesters in streets obviously come from the latter group. Joseph Cheng diagnosed the situation in the following manner in the Preface to his edited new publication just few months back (“New Trends of Political Participation in Hong Kong,” University of Hong Kong, 2014).

“The central leadership’s indication that it will treat the contradictions within Hong Kong in a relaxed and flexible manner is probably the key in the present circumstances, preventing further political polarization and encouraging discussions to reach compromises and solution.” (p. xv).

The central leadership here means China. However, it is questionable that whether the ‘central leadership’ would any longer treat the ‘contradictions merely within Hong Kong’ given certain developments in the international scene in recent past. First is the Arab Spring/s which destabilized several countries in the Middle East and even has given rise to the extremist Islamic State. More specifically is the democracy protests in Ukraine early this year where a pro-Moscow President was ousted. Even in the past, Beijing has been rhetorically emphasising the ghost of British colonialism and possible international conspiracies in Hong Kong.

An added reason for this concern might be the call for the incumbent (pro-Beijing) Chief Executive to resign but without giving a proper reason.

The call for universal suffrage is obviously a valid and a timely one. The question however is how to go about it. Even the British rule did not accord universal suffrage during their time to Hong Kong before the handover in 1997. Hong Kong is a technologically advanced city and if Beijing could establish similarly advanced and harmonious democratic system in the city it could undoubtedly be a feather in China’s cap. Hong Kong is not a colony (should not be) of China like during the British time and it is an integral part of China now.

There can be implications for the mainland China whatever is accorded to Hong Kong towards universal suffrage and democratic elections and at the same time China might be able to experiment democracy in Hong Kong before introducing it into China. This does not however mean that evolution of democracy in Hong Kong or China would be that smooth. There can be ruptures, change and even confrontations. Explaining the democratic developments in the West Charles Tilly once said the following (“The Formation of Nation States in Western Europe”).

“Between the development of stateness, on the one hand, and the pattern of mobilization, on the other, comes the acquisition of political rights binding on agents of government by the members of the mobilized groups within the subject population.” (p. 35).    

However, for this development to occur, there should be willingness to bargain and compromise from both sides; the government and the protesters. This is what is lacking in Hong Kong at present. After a week of protests and blocking of the business district, the threat to occupy the government buildings perhaps was farfetched as a ‘peaceful means’ of protest. It is not clear whether the decline of the offer for dialogue with the government was decided before or after the clashes with the anti-protesters last night.

Nineteen persons have been arrested who were involved in the clashes and the police say that half of them (among anti-protesters) are linked to organized crime in one district. This is not a reason however to discount those who came to the streets against the protesters as ‘all thugs or government hooligans.’ I have been watching ABC News (Australia) on the events, and a mature but an angry person saying that “we need to pursue universal franchise, but this is not the manner to do so. Blocking of the main streets is not warranted for so long.” Democracy or human rights also should take into account the dissent emerging from all sides. One may want to have full democracy ‘here and now’ and one may want to pursue it ‘gradually’ through orderly manner. Both are relevant views in democracy. The best way might be to pursue democracy within the existing structures at least far as possible.

It would be a great pity if the authorities resort to scuttle the democracy movement and demands. It would be a great tragedy if more clashes between the protesters and anti-protesters escalate or the police intervene in a coercive manner to completely suppress the protest movement. There can be many casualties. Those who organized the protests in the first place should have anticipated all the possibilities. Things should not go for anarchy.

In my view, it is completely inadequate for the international human rights or democracy organizations just to support any means of protest for democracy and oppose any dissent in its way. This is exactly what the Amnesty International has done. Now all the other organizations might follow suit. We should have guts and wisdom to point out if democracy movements are going overboard and show potential for violent confrontations. Even if to support these movements, at least there should be critical warnings. Democracy cannot be achieved or should not be achieved through violence. Naming and shaming, issuing statements and promoting students or the young to the streets are not good enough to promote democracy particularly in countries like Hong Kong or China.

The US also has come out to sermonise China and the Hong Kong administration on the matter. The US also should reflect on their actions and record on the world stage from the perspective of democracy and human rights. Within an increasing polarization of international politics, considering also the developments in Ukraine and air strikes particularly in Syria any undue pressure from the West on China would further polarize the world than resolving its problems. I have my serious doubts whether the US is pushing the world for a Third World War, knowingly or unknowingly. Given their economic setbacks, China might be a target.

If I have any influence on the student protesters in Hong Kong, I would ask them to take a step back at this stage and rework their strategies in a realistic manner. What is lacking in human rights organizations world over is the lack of strategy, road maps or well thought out plans for the promotion and protection of human rights and democracy. Just shouting from rooftops will not work.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    ‘Hong Kong Student Protests At The Cross Roads’

    They might meet Izeth Hussain there.

  • 0
    1

    Thank you Dr. Fernando

    I don’t know exactly to say whether these students protesting is right or wrong. But I can say one thing for sure: Hong Kong is as we all know, is one of the richest places on Earth, economically. What is notable is that ‘richness’ doesn’t mean anything about FREEDOM and DEMOCRATIC values for people. Freedom and Democracy is more valuable and money. Freedom and Democracy are food for mind whilst money is for material pleasure. MR destroyed Freedom and Democracy to earn money and, HE GOT NEITHER!

  • 2
    0

    Laksiri.,

    apart from all that you have mentioned., as a 20+ years in HK as a Sri Lankan born professional., I can say the turmoils is part of economic reasons too.

    Its really hard to the young graduates to move on with their life with high property prices which is highest in the world and then HK property market is controlled by 5-6 tycoons who are getting all the advantages from the HK govt as well as the central govt in Beijing.

    Unlike in Singapore the govt over there involves in a massive subsidy home ownership, its hardly happening here in Hong Kong and people are getting so much frustrated.

    Also the inflation and the prices of basic commodities have risen out of the reach of many people here and all this is fueling the anger against the government of CY Leung who is just a lackey of Beijing without any plan for the day to day problems of the people.

    • 1
      0

      ” HK property market is controlled by 5-6 tycoons who are getting all the advantages from the HK govt ”

      In this sense HK is the most ‘developed’ or ‘corrupt’. It is no less true of the London market or any other you’d care to name, though not as obvious as HK is. So what has ‘democracy’ got the youngsters there. Now they’ve even got to pay for their University education whereas their parents did NOT. Things can ONLY get worse, as wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. ‘Democracy’ is NOT all that it’s made out to be.

    • 1
      0

      Not to mention the social impact that have arisen from the recent flux of mainland tourists into HK. with a population of 7 million, Hong Kong gets 25+ million tourists a year and forecast to reach 35 million in 5 years.

      With this influx with narrow road and streets, its really hard for the locals to enjoy the life as well as whole shopping system is turned upside down with shops that catered for locals like bakeries/hardware/stationery/foodstuff stores are vanished with higher rents and replaced with Jewelry/fashion/chinese medicine shops which is catering the mainlanders who can enjoy the tax free and they are creating a chaotic situation in the transport system as well.

  • 0
    0

    Mr. Laksiri,

    This Hong Kong type uprising is what is expected by the mobs in Sri Lanka from RW and UNP! Now you see RW is not interested in this type! We have won universal franchise. Use it intelligently!

  • 0
    0

    A lot of people get it wrong here again. Economic models cannot be designed by one person or by comparing one country to another country. Hong Kong is the Financial Hub in Asia. Singapore is the Investment hub. While both has similarity one areas of their economic drive is significant. ” The limited land-mass”. The money earned by Singapore as a country stays within Singapore and in their control as a sovereign nation. But after becoming part of China, Hong Kong resources, revenues and incomes went straight to Chinese treasury. Thus more regulations and more control today. Potentially the problems in HK will get worse in the years to come. Its a pity. Now with this signs of distress shown by young generation on the street in the downtown in those numbers will give Chinese authorities to tighten up the control even more.

    The thing I wanted to say here is about the lessons we can learn from this as Sri Lankans. RW or MR or Even AD can not build the country by themselves and on there own. Developing a country is a concerted effort. Everybody’s involvement, engagement, participation in honest way is what it requires. MR seeing a dream while sleeping after a good drink and waking up in the morning to implement won’t work to develop a country. Truth, Integrity, Honesty and Trust are the key components of creating something valuable in society. What MR is doing today only showing he can not operate as a leader from his actions. I think SOBHITHA THERO + RW+AD+SF+KARU+AMPANTHAN+HAKIM+++++++ will create the environment under democratic parliamentary governing model to share responsibilities and in restraint operation. RW can handle it as a team-leader!

  • 0
    0

    ‘I think SOBHITHA THERO + RW+AD+SF+KARU+AMPANTHAN+HAKIM+++++++ will create the environment under democratic parliamentary governing model to share responsibilities and in restraint operation. RW can handle it as a team-leader!’

    You are assuming that the coming general election will be a fair one, it won’t. The Government will use much more violence than it did in Uva to win it.

    And even if this coalition won, how long would it last? All of them have their own agendas and, apart from Ven Sobhitha, are greedy for power. They too have their friends, relatives and supporters to please for their support. They will quarrel and fall apart. MR will be waiting on the sidelines to pick up the pieces.

    • 0
      0

      There is nothing wrong with your assumption Taraki. Ven. Sobhitha Thero is not political person. He is the main person everybody believes in. Or somebody can trust. MR. RW has enormous trust in him. So do the others. Therefore he is the catalyst. Trust is a very important factor not only in politics in everything we do. Actually speaking everybody knows that Sobhitha Thero has the pattraction to keep every party bound in one string. The case here is whether, will RW/AD/SF/SAMPANTHAN/HAKIM trust MR more or Sobhitha Thero? After all Sobhitha Thero is not going to expect any material benefit out of this. Its going to be a different political platform in SL now. MR’d better stop his tricky cards anymore!

  • 0
    1

    Hong-Kong was under the British occupation more than 400 years, its won Independence 1997, by PRC which that Terrioritoy belong to People’s Republic of China. Now HK is working new political terms of One country TWO system, Hong-Kong has freedom to enjoy capitalist system by their own discretion many years ,which that sovereignty of Terrioritoy of PRC.

    Hong Kong has NO power to separated from mainland under the so-called ‘Freedom and Human Rights’ banner.

    HK sovereignty is not possible to surrender against will of People of CHINA to West by destabilization and anarchist upheavals by few handful anti- democratic movements, who are occupied center of HK administration of State.

    If people of Hong Kong need to be change into new system is NOT that former Capitalism of exploitation of man by man, but that new Socialism guided and led by Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.

    • 2
      0

      HK was on a 100 year lease from China. The arrangement came about as a result of Opium war, and at the end of the term, China took over the territory again by mutual arrangement.

  • 1
    0

    Hong-Kong is Mainland China’s Terrioritoy, which was occupied and colonized by Gun diplomacy of British colonial regime. Is quite natural back to People’s Republic of China, that belongs to Chinese People.

    No need any legal interpretation or so-called agreements on the Ownership of land of HK. That is sovereignty rights of land annexed by to the Mainland of PRC.

    The system of HK is decided by Not that Mob in street fighters in central HK ,but the by People of HK and Mainland PRC.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.