Hong Kong, standing for freedom and justice once more

On June 9, the march against the government sponsored extradition bill felt like a recast of the protest held on July 1 2003 against the enactment of a state security legislation that ultimately ended up with the bill being shelved indefinitely, the Secretary for Security resigning and the Chief Executive not being able to finish his second mandate for “personal reasons”.

Same main organizer: the Civil Human Rights Front gathering some 50 pro-democratic organizations. Same hot and clear-sky summer day. Same white t-shirts. Same mixed crowd of families and middle-class residents. Same upbeat mood with a different and yet echoing slogan: “Oppose extradition to China.”

Only this time was bigger, double the size actually, with more than one million Hongkongers taking to the streets in an uninterrupted human flow stretching from as far as Fortress Hill up to the government headquarters in Tamar and lasting for more than seven hours.

Only this time the loud and clear demand expressed by one out of seven residents fell on a deaf ear. Speaking only on the next day, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam pledged to press ahead with the bill and insisted that further delays would only instill “more anxiety and divisiveness in society.” As calls for a second rally opposing the bill were starting to be heard, the LegCo president announced on June 11 that the bill would have to be adopted by June 20, tabling some 66 hours for debate with extraordinary sessions to be held on every single day of the week whereas the LegCo ordinarily convene only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

Rather than being delayed the legislative process was thus being sped up! All this while the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinances had been heavily challenged right from the start in February.

The Hong Kong Bar Association had published as early as April 2 a comprehensive review of the amendment bill that had been gazetted on March 29. Many voices from all corners of society soon joined — democrats of course, journalists, NGOs, foreign governments and politicians, businessmen with interests in China, and the many professional associations who felt threatened by the law. The same two main objections were repeated again and again, with various degrees of subtlety: why the rush? And why the absence of effective judicial and/or legislative safeguards? The Hong Kong judiciary would only be entrusted with checking the adequacy of formalities and ultimately, only the Chief Executive, himself or herself nominated by the central authorities, would be left to refuse case-by-case demands formulated by China’s courts.

On June 12, the mood of the crowd converging towards the LegCo had changed. This time around, the objective was not anymore to voice out a disagreement and quietly address it to the government but rather to forbid the convening of the second reading of the bill.

The power struggle had shifted from being symbolic and argumentative to meddling with the ugly reality of decision making. Inspiration thus came from the Umbrella Movement of 2014. Organizers were many, and, even though all progressive in essence, from every segment of society. The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Union had called for a general strike. The Diocese of Hong Kong had implored the government to withdraw the bill. Even small businesses were closed, in different parts of the territory, with some leaving cardboards on their metal curtain reading “Busy being heroes.” And the crowd was young, very young, all dressed in black and geared-up to sustain a siege.

Contrary to September 2014, young people knew that the government would not hesitate to use tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray against them. If the effective withdrawal of the bill was to be achieved, nothing could be left to improvisation. Mistakes from 2014 would not be repeated if the success of 2003 was to be achieved.

Out of practicality — the LegCo being inaccessible — the second reading of the bill was officially postponed. But as the crowd refused to disperse and evacuate Harcourt Road, tear gas was fired and pepper spray splashed all over. This is unfortunately just the beginning.

Published in Macau Daily Times on June 13, 2019

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