Kapok: Paper patriots

Patriotism is a double-edged sword: mustered adequately it becomes a potent mantra for the community to feel more united, but a ponderous and rather superfluous summon can easily devoid it of any meaning, and ultimately be conducive to a suspicion that ulterior motives are at play. Patriotism then serves as a disguise, an absolute injunction voiced by people who do not want issues to be discussed and addressed, and thus the call to patriotism acts as a cover-up. Very often, it also helps castigate the people you disagree with as “traitors” and “enemies of the nation”, and when at war or in a revolutionary situation, there can be no worse characterisation as it often entails the worst possible sanction.

In Hong Kong and Macao, the debate about what constitutes a “good” patriot is a story intertwined with the history of contemporary China. Sun Yat Sen, the father of the Republic that we celebrate every October 10th, found refuge, resources as well as a stage in both foreign enclaves to lambast the Qing court calling for a revolution. Interestingly enough for Macao, Sun is often presented as the first Chinese doctor to have practiced Western medicine in the territory at the end of the nineteenth century, thus importing foreign techniques to cure the Chinese body. Today, Hong Kong and Macao have returned to Chinese sovereignty, and there is no doubt that both SARs are thus Chinese, and yet because of their remarkable status, valid for 50 years, and a promise of political liberalisation contained in either the Basic Law or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the debate about what it means to be “patriotic” goes on. And again, the pace of change is at the root of the questioning.

Is it what legislators Sio Chi Wai and Zheng Anting had in mind when they went on a rant about patriotism during the first plenary session of the Macao Legislative Assembly on October 16th? Both of them heavily criticised the “Occupy Central” movement in Hong Kong, insisting on its illegality and the harm it is bringing to our sister SAR for itself, its people and because of the image it offers to the world. Mr Sio insisted on the role played by the Internet in distorting information and polarising young minds, thus easily bringing about distrust and dissatisfaction with the government because of too much eagerness for change. He remarked that the “one country, two systems” formula’s success in Macao owes much to the strict compliance with “the love for our nation and Macao” as “the social basis” of the SAR’s legal system. Mr Zheng went one step further, worried about similar brewing trouble in Macao, calling upon the government to further “patriotic education” and strictly apply the national security law adopted in February 2009.

Mr Sio’s position comes as no surprise. Being appointed by the Chief Executive, he is a defender of the orthodoxy. He is also the secretary of the second commission of the Assembly, the one responsible for introducing in May the now infamous perks bill that pushed some 20,000 people onto the street—mostly young and mobilised via social networks! In June, representing the interests of employers, Mr Sio made it very public that he was strongly against a significant amendment of the Labor Relations Law, especially regarding the ridiculously low capping of earnings for the calculation of compensation fees for laid-off employees—set for now at a maximum of MOP$14,000 a month… what an irony! In August, Mr Sio was also among the two legislators openly calling for a boycott of the civil referendum on universal suffrage jointly organised by pro-democratic groups. As far as Mr Zheng Anting is concerned, he was elected for the first time in 2013 as second on the list of Mr Mak Soi Kun, a widely recognised pro-Beijing supporter. Moreover, Mr Zheng serves as the vice-president of the Jiangmen Folks Association, the one group that openly defended the perks bill in May and even organised a “favorable” counter-parade that gathered some 1,000 people—mostly elderly though.

Winning young minds goes beyond incessant cant, half-veiled threats and blind acts of faith. Remember that Joshua Wong in Hong Kong started his activist career via his Facebook Scholarism group precisely out of concern about the introduction of patriotic education.

Published in Macau Daily Times, October 24th 2014.

Kapok: Hong Kong and us

The Occupy Central movement is, of course, about democracy and the rejection of the perceived National People’s Congress’ fool’s bargain of August 31st. The central authorities have decided that the nominating committee for the 2017 Chief Executive election would be identical in number and composition to the election committee of 2012, that any potential candidate would need an endorsement of at least 50% of that massively pro-Beijing committee to run, and that a maximum of 3 candidates would eventually enter the fray. In doing so, they were not only being extremely intransigent and blind to widely shared aspirations; the kind demonstrated by widespread support for the third motion of the June civic referendum. They have actually hollowed out the promise enshrined in article 45 of the Basic Law, which states that candidates should be nominated “in accordance with democratic procedures”. Prejudiced pre-screening is quite the contrary.
And yet, despite these actions and the unexpected release of the White Paper on Hong Kong in June, in which Beijing was ostensibly reaffirming its prevalent authority over the “high-degree of autonomy” enjoyed by the SAR and vilipending the influence of “outside forces”, Occupy Central organizers confided in early September that they expected no more than “a few thousand” participants when October 1st arrived. Is the abusive 46-hour detention of a 17-year old “repeating” accidental leader on September 26th solely responsible for the massive movement that is making its mark on Asia’s “World City”? Are the 87 canisters fired at the crowd on Sunday 28th and a viral video of a seemingly innocent passerby being pepper-sprayed at close range the unique triggers for a 200,000-strong crowd occupying three symbolic quarters of Asia’s financial and shopping capital? How can we explain the endurance of the movement, despite the apparent lack of leadership and the half-veiled threats appearing in the People’s Daily, as well as the growing adversarial sentiment among shopkeepers and the lower half of the white-collar class? Is it the extensive and global media coverage of an exceptionally innovative, self-disciplined and peaceful crusade, one enthusiastically undertaken by boisterous yet geeky-looking teenagers? Or the playful usage of slogans and symbols, borrowed from everyone from Lu Xun to John Lennon, and from May 4th 1919 to May 1968 and June 1989, combined with a versatile and persistent usage of social media? All of these elements may partially account for the impetus and the forcefulness of the “umbrella revolution”, and help to explain its twists and turns, but they do not add up to a sufficient explanation!
With the revelation on Wednesday that Chief Executive C.Y. Leung might have accepted HK$50 million from an Australian company over the past two years as  compensation for acting as the company’s “referee and adviser” back in 2011 arrives the latest—overly dramatic and amazingly coincidental—avatar of the deep-rooted, common thread that can actually explain this rebellious civic movement: trust. More precisely, it is a lack of faith in our own institutions and their gatekeepers. Beyond the initial suspicion about Leung being a communist in disguise, the very fact that the August NPC’s decision was based on a report formulated by the CE indicated an inability to convey to Beijing the underlying currents at work in society, and an unwillingness to shoulder responsibility for the benefit of the whole community. Earlier in May, former chief secretary Rafael Hui Si-yan stood accused of pocketing HK$35 million for being the “eyes and ears” in the government of the Kwok brothers, the two co-chairmen of Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd, Asia’s largest real-estate developer. On September 23rd, three days before the arrest of Joshua Wong, the same Mr Hui had admitted to secretly receiving HK$11 million in 2007 from Liao Hui, then director of China’s Office for Hong Kong and Macao Affairs, simply to pursue his job and continue enjoying his lavish lifestyle. This is something his boss, former Chief Executive Donald Tsang, seemed to have emulated, despite his devout (if not frugal) Catholic faith. With an ICAC investigation on the move, C.Y. Leung is clearly on his way out. What got to him is not the allegedly naïve aspiration for democracy: it is the fact that he could not be trusted. Democracy comes later, when one realizes that only the “least worst” of the systems allows for corrective measures when leaders are exposed for incompetence and dishonesty. Article 45 is thus not a prerequisite, but a liberal setting is, and so is its attendant, “muckraking” press. Food for thought, on both sides of the delta.

Published in Macau Daily Times, October 10 2014.