Kapok: Yellow is the new red

In a recent op-ed published in the South China Morning Post, renowned blogger Jason Ng draws an instructive parallel between the on-going Yellow Vests Movement in France and Hong Kong’s 2014 Occupy Movement, also identified as the Umbrella Movement.

Interestingly enough, Jason’s piece can be read under two separate titles. On Jason’s blog, the emphasis is on the balanced examination of the differences and similarities, and the conclusion clearly leans towards aporia: “Same Color, Different Path”. In the Post however, the editor obviously chose to put the stress on the argument that a more “violent” path could have yielded greater results in the case of Hong Kong:  “What France’s ‘yellow vests’ can teach Hong Kong activists about political protests and the use of violence”. Is it an over-interpretation? There is only one certainty: Jason, who happens to be a lawyer, is no violence apologist, quite the contrary!

On the side of similarities, he stresses the identical yellow color (on the umbrella and the safety vests); the key role played by social media in organizing the demos; the lack of a clearly established leadership and thus the “self-organized” attribute of the movements; the same exasperation felt by demonstrators towards traditional elites overly inclined to design pro-(big)business policies; gaping and growing social inequalities, seen, in both cases, as the “deep-rooted economic woes” [in Hong Kong and France] fueling the movements “beneath the surface”; and of course the unexpected character of the whole unravelling, because of the setting, the magnitude and the impact these occurrences are having or have had on their respective communities and far beyond.

On the side of differences, Jason firstly points to violence and rioting in France vs. peaceful resistance and civic disobedience in Hong Kong—politically grounded creative destruction vs. moral high ground; then there is the divide in political culture, with France being credited for being the birthplace of “revolution” and having a long record of regime change brought about by popular uprisings whereas Hong Kong is described as a community primarily concerned by prosperity and stability—hence the difference in popular support; and finally, of course, the dissimilitude of political regimes and accountability, with French decision-makers having to factor popular support if they wish to be (re-)elected whereas Hong Kong governing bodies primarily answer to Beijing and Xi Jinping’s strongman leadership does not seem to encourage constructive responses to pressure coming from the streets.

In this very balanced depiction, the critical difference has more to do with the political setting and who the leaders have to answer to rather than the use of violence and its hypothetical superior “benefits” in terms of results. Popular sovereignty is the key and indeed the whole Occupy Movement was triggered by the extreme frustration at the political reform package backed by the central authorities.

Actually there is an equal feeling of “unfairness” in both cases, something that Jason Ng does not emphasize enough, especially in relation to the “high hope” people had for the reforms that were supposed to be carried out. It is precisely the discrepancy between the expectations and the bitter reality that allowed deep-rooted resentments to surface, in turn further fueling this acute feeling of unfairness.

In Hong Kong, the betrayal originated in the broken promise of universal suffrage. In France, the exasperation is arising from the perceived treachery of a young and untainted president who had pledged after his election to replace the “old world,” the one in which political elites had lost the sense of common good: he is now the “president of the rich”! Indeed, the Yellow Vests map of protests does not correspond to any traditional form of contestation, and beyond the apparent concessions made by the government to restore “social harmony,” it is the temptation of authoritarian populism that is becoming pressing, even more so now that representative bodies, trade unions and political parties alike, have been declared irrelevant by both the sitting government and the protesters. Similar symptoms in different settings, pointing to the same crisis of liberal values!  

Published in Macau Daily Times on December 14, 2018

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