Do we agree with the protestors? Are we OK? A pinned post

This is when we supported the demos. June: “No Extradition” 反送中

ADDED (5 October 2019): this Post was “pinned” at the top of the blog until 5 October. Now I’m letting it go, to be covered by the sediment of later posts).

Friends ask how we are and what’s going on, so I’m pinning this to the top of the blog. Later posts will be immediately below this one. 

The tag is “HK Demos” or just scroll to browse.

Do we agree with the protestors?

Our short answer: “No”.

Our longer answer: “Yes, but”.

We agreed with the demonstrators at the beginning, in June, when it was about the Extradition Bill.  Even though it was clear that most protestors had not read the proposed legislation, still, we could understand their concern that people in Hong Kong might be tapped by Beijing and then sent to the tender mercies of China’s legal system. Even if the crimes for which extradition applied were very constrained, China has shown itself very inventive when it comes to accusations and certainly would have no trouble concocting accusations to fit the HK requirements for someone they happened not to like.

So, “Yes” we were in favour of the demos against that bill.

But now the movement has degenerated into a bit of a rabble, with reliably violent groups trashing our city every weekend.  The violence is increasingly random, senseless, wanton vandalism. The economic impact is severe. Police are demonised but we think that they’ve been restrained.

The Five Demands （五大诉求) are now Four Demands, as Carrie Lam withdrew the Extradition Bill a few weeks ago.  It doesn’t seem to us that continuing endless demos is going to solve any of the remaining four.  As I said.  And Alex Lo said.

And then there have been other demands tacked onto the original five [ADDED: my longer list here], the most dangerous being the call for independence for Hong Kong. This is simply not on.  Autonomy, yes — “Hong Kong people running Hong Kong, 港人治港 —  but not independence. It’s not in the Basic Law, the constitution of Hong Kong, and it’s not on because Beijing will never in a million years accept it.  The implications for other areas like Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia and Taiwan are just too grave for HK independence ever to be allowed.  And Beijing holds all the cards to control Hong Kong: 70% of our fresh water, 23% of our electricity and 93% of our food come from China. Oh, and their army. [My NYT letter]

There are other demands more reasonable, like the demand for more affordable housing. That’s certainly one that we all agree on -- the real estate tycoons aside.  Even Beijing is onside with that one, and ties between Beijing and the property tycoons are fraying. But, again, it’s not one that can be pursued while violence continues.

Are we OK?

Yes indeed, especially here in Discovery Bay.

Marcus and PF at the top of Lantau mountain, behind
our place. Peace and quiet and green

If we didn’t go out to town we wouldn’t even know there was anything amiss.  Even when you do go to town, you can easily avoid the troubled areas.  Occasionally you might get caught -- as a couple of friends of ours did a few weeks back -- but they were not in danger, simply inconvenienced.

It’s true we live a privileged life in a privileged place.  So of course we wouldn’t want our comfort to be upset, would we?  Should’t we put up with some discomfort for the sake of “freedom and democracy”?  Sure, if that’s what it takes. But we have our freedoms.  We have every freedom of any advanced liberal society.  We also have our democracy, just that we need to extend it. And the last time we had the chance to extend it, in 2015, the Pan-democratic parties vetoed the Bill because wasn’t perfect.  So perfection was again the enemy of the good.

For those that say that Beijing is inserting its “dark hand” in the affairs of Hong Kong, I’d ask: when and where?  We’ve been here for forty years, and in all 22 years since 1997, Beijing has been noticeable in its absence.  They have been remarkably hands-off given the fears before 1997.

It is naive to think they literally no influence or involvement in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is, after all, a part of China, even under One Country Two Systems.

They kidnapped three booksellers and paraded them in China making bogus admissions of guilt. But it seems likely it was a rogue operation not approved by Beijing. They were returned to Hong Kong and there’s been no repeat.  There have been five “interpretations” of the Basic Law by China’s National People’s Congress, but in all cases these were sought by pre-emptively pliant Hong Kong government, not Beijing.

It’s far more likely that the “interference by Beijing” is more to do with day-to-day issues: mainlanders buying property, pushing up prices, they come in droves to buy up milk powder because they don’t trust the mainland product, they have “dancing aunties” making all sorts of noise in their daily callisthenics, they use simplified characters instead of the traditional ones used in Hong Kong, they don’t queue property, tourists behave badly, and so it goes on..... These have been festering for years now, and have bubbled to the surface.  And so, it all gets lumped in to “Beijing interference” because that plays better.

And yet, and yet, the irony is that in fighting this bogey of “Chinese interference”, the demonstrators risk bringing in the bogeyman.  And that’s why we no longer support the demonstrators.  They risk losing all that we already have.  They say “burn with us”. And we say, no thanks. We don’t want to burn at the hands of teenage millenarians.

My comment published in New York Times, 16 September 2019:

I live in Hong Kong, speak and write Mandarin and Cantonese. I’ve owned a business here. I welcome a Hong Kong anthem. And I've marched with the anti-extradition law demonstrations. But now they've gone too far. Every week, there’s wanton, senseless violence. Over half MTR Stations are damaged. 80 petrol bombs on a Sunday. A mainlander beaten senseless. Business is down 50%, workers are being laid off. Mass bankruptcies and unemployment will follow. And this, we cheer? Hong Kong has freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the media, freedom of trade and — when the protesters allow — freedom of movement. This is not some third world dictatorship trying to overthrow a brutal despot. We are a modern, open and vibrant society. That is, until violent protesters bring it down (their avowed aim). The government certainly bears responsibility. And I’m no fan of Beijing. But please note Beijing is hanging back, save to make the useful recommendation to resume land to provide public housing. For those that speak of the “dark hand” of Beijing, I’d ask them for examples. We do not need bleeding hearts in the west swooning over these “brave young freedom fighters”. The violent part of the movement is senseless and destructive. We need some peace and quiet to get on with meeting protesters remaining four demands, some of which can be met, some of which will need to go to LegCo, according the Basic Law, which is our constitution.