Kapok: Now, a #fishballrevolution?

What just happened in Hong Kong should not leave us indifferent, and deserves better than short rehashes of the most police-friendly article of the South China Morning Post or anxiety-conjuring front-page pictures of rioters (no demonstrators there…) being “appropriately” contained by duty-blissed (and heavily-equipped) constables. First, because even though it happened in the early hours of the second day of the fiery fire monkey year, “squabble day” (Chek Hau) actually falls on the third day, so, clearly, the whole episode marks more than the calendar! Second, because even pro-Beijing legislator Regina Ip—the one who, as secretary for security, failed to sell article 23 to Hong Kong people back in 2002-2003—views it as somehow reflecting the inability of the Hong Kong government to tackle the deep-rooted issues affecting the SAR. And finally, because these events hold a universal message that not even our neon-glowing out-of-this-world gaming paradise should ignore.

Scenes of street-battle in Mong Kok happening at a time of supposedly festive and rejuvenating mood helped capture our imagination, and added to the sense of “disproportionate” incongruity between the trigger—the expulsion of illegal street hawkers by police-backed agents of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department around Langham Place—and images of intense clashes between policemen and demonstrators, possibly not seen since the 1960s. Soon characterized as “riots”, as to delegitimize the whole affair (and probably frustrate some insurance claims!), what had started as a “quarrel” between the hawkers and officials grew into fierce opposition to state authority after a so-called “localist” group, Hong Kong Indigenous, encouraged people through social media to come and support the hawkers. Violence erupted: cobblestones were dislodged from the pavement and thrown at the police; chubby orange-colored rubbish bins set on fire; windows and surveillance cameras broken; police sticks heavily fell on necks, backs and shoulders; warning shots were fired; blood was spilled and participants as well as policemen injured; journalists were threatened by both sides and arrests were made—dozens of them. Yet, at the height of the confrontation, no more than 300 people participated!

All that sound and fury for a “fish ball revolution” of 300? And if violence is to be utterly condemned and responsibilities have yet to be fully established what is this protest in aid of?

In an enlightened op-ed, Jason Y. Ng makes a direct connection between these events and the Jasmine Revolution—I immediately thought of the 228 in Taiwan back in 1947—with the warning that one should “never underestimate what the little guy can do.” For Ng, who equates the hawkers with Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia, such dramatic events can only happen because of short- as well as long-terms dysfunctions of the Hong Kong government, with the little people—booksellers included!—feeling more and more like helpless victims, in a wider context of broken promises—social, economical and political. Beyond the almost exclusive blame put on C.Y. Leung “dismantling the city bit by bit”, Ng’s final comments sound like a resounding warning: “Unless we find a way to cool the rising political temperature, it is perhaps a matter of time before we have our very own Mohamed Bouazizi and protesters set more than just garbage on fire.”

A study released in mid-January by The University of Hong Kong actually showed that the Public Sentiment Index had hit a 20-year low, even lower than in 2003 at the time of the combined SARS and Article 23 crises, or at the end of 2014 during the Umbrella Movement. The Index is precisely meant to quantify Hong Kong people’s sentiments “in order to explain and predict the likelihood of collective behaviour”!
What about Macao then? Is there a “localist” movement? Is civil society mature enough to escape the grip of traditional associations? Is the government perceived as doing the right job and is it fully trusted? One would be hard-pressed to find a hint of scientifically grounded survey regarding any of these issues… let alone anticipate them!

Published in Macau Daily Times on February 12th 2016

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.