I’m not familiar with Finnish history, so I’ll take
the
author’s word for what happened there. Whilst on one hand, it’s the
right of a
sovereign nation to pursue policies that are of interest to its
nationhood, I
think it was a bit foolish (and against the national interest by definition) to adopt policies that are completely at
loggerheads
with your strong neighbour when there is no one else capable of
supporting you.
Having said that, there is no question in my mind that, based on what
the author stated, Finland
was bullied into submission
and its sovereignty was undermined by a
dictatorship. Up to now, China has not dared to apply that level of
bullying because that
will certainly undermine the economic stability of HK, because it still
needs HK more than it is prepared to admit, and because the whole world
is watching. Nevertheless, there is considerable pressure (both obvious
and covert, both clean but mostly dirty) being felt by all the political
players in Hong Kong to bend to its might.
 |
| Mr. and Ms. HK People (by Maxwell Ip) |
I noted in my initial response that the author is obviously
very sore and shocked by the public criticism of his views, but I think he is
behaving in a pathetic way to justify stepping up his dissing of the students, who he opposed already. That
made me so angry that I had to stop reading the text. The author, a member of
the government central policy unit, employed heavy rhetoric in his piece,
including the use of the Moscow/Beijing claim of “colour revolution”
that even CY
Leung or Jasper Tsang have not seen fit to utter up to now. I know that
CY's hands are tied by Beijing, and he repudiates that the students may
have legitimate grievances. The author denigrates the occupation
activities
as “creating havoc”, so I also find his piece highly objectionable. I
think that his attitude is
rather symptomatic of the local and national governments, neither of
which have
even acknowledged that there are serious political issues that they need
to deal with.
I would also take issue with the author's further attempts to
“tenderise” Hong Kong by denigrating
its status and strength – it’s simply another ploy of the PRC to batter
our
self-confidence and attenuate our resistance to their
anti-democratic/fascist
agenda. Capitalist Hong Kong and Communist China
have long been mutually reliant. While it is true that China’s economic
power
is on the rise, the decline in our GDP is to a large degree affected by
the elimination of
the double-counting of transshipments or re-exports (that are now
happening
directly) due to HK’s historical role as a trade entrepôt in the past,
and the shift of manufacturing to the mainland. Over the decades, China
benefited
considerably from our policies as well as our society’s transparency,
free market,
rule of law (including low level of political corruption), but the
foundations are now
coming under increasing threat.
I strongly defend the author's right to have views of his own and
right to make those views public, but I ask if he is not merely
parroting
the party line. Having the right to express his opinions doesn’t mean
others have to agree
with his views or refrain from commenting on them. As a member of the
public, to whom the piece is addressed, of course I am entitled to agree
with him if I choose. But I also have the right
to disagree with what he says, and the right to stop listening to
it or even criticise. When you make public you views, you invite praise
as well
as criticism. It’s part and parcel of free speech. How he took that
criticism is similar to how China demonstrates its disdain for
criticism, whether negative or constructive.
 |
| WTF? foreign powers? |
An "anti-occupy" group
closely allied to the pro-communist DAB, poisoned the atmosphere with
Cultural Revolution style denunciations and smear campaigns. Peaceful
demonstrators are attacked by thugs and
other state-sponsored
mobs, mass media are under unprecedented pressure, and self-censorship
exercised in a blatant manner; the
thought police telling us black is white, love is hate, and peace is
war. The
occupation stems from serious and unaddressed political issues that have
reached boiling point. It was deliberately and erroneously defined by
CY Leung as a law and order issue, which he then apparently justified
sending in the police to disperse the protests. The concepts of
lawbreaking in civil disobedience and rule of law
are routinely conflated (is this deliberate, I ask?) The police force
has, without question, been used as a
political tool of repression, and that use of force backfired. It's a
crying shame for society as a whole. The credibility of the police
force, which has worked hard to build relationships with the community
and
earn the trust of the community after the corruption scandals of the
1970s, has suffered a serious blow with the assault of a protester that
was (unfortunately for the police officers in question) caught on film
and broadcast to the world at large. Now officers have the tough job of
building up that trust destroyed overnight by having to perform the
dirty work of their political masters.
I would not believe it a few years ago, or
even last year, but now I see there is a high level of self-censorship
in the media. There is all manner of retribution being meted out to
those who appear to have gone against China’s (read CPC’s) agenda or wishes. Journalists
have been victimised for exposing the truth; entertainers such as Denise Ho, Anthony
Wong, and Chow Yun-fat have been targeted with retribution, yet they continue
to support the movement; starkly contrasted by Kenny G (passim), who kowtowed. It is plain to see where the “white terror” is coming
from. The
cancellation of the students’ home return permits is yet another obvious
expression of this paranoia. It seems that permits of quite a few others' permits have been cancelled, not just
the three who wanted to go to petition in Beijing, and it all shows political interests and the party are above the
law.
China
has a constitution and a body of laws, but the powers that be constantly
live above them.
This may change in future, but the road ahead is long and pitted with
vested interests, many within the CPC itself; and we still don't know if
XJP is sincere. Future HK governments without democratic accountability
will become
more whimsical and will jump to the interests of family members of
high-ranking officials. Business people will lose the
certainty that our
legal framework provides, and business, the police and courts will be
guided
principally by political concerns. That world is no longer very far
away, as the
erosions of our systems have been laid bare by this political struggle
that is
taking place.
HK people may now take for granted the right to have political views and
express them freely, or that your right to follow your chosen religion
without
someone pre-vetting your church for political correctness or fill it
with atheist commie dogma. However, PRC politics and the overriding
concern for the dominance of the CPC will ensure that the rights to say
what
you think and to worship who you worship will decline very quickly once
the checks
and balances in place in Hong Kong against those abuses are brought down
if
nobody stops that from happening. The proverbial animal (in the boil a frog
metaphor)
has been in water heated to a certain temperature since 1997. Since most
HK people cannot jump from the water, they ought to oppose any further
rise in that temperature.At least more HK people have been made
politically aware of the undercurrents and the risks that lie ahead.
My friends are appreciative of our exchanges
even
though I find a number of them may disagree with my views, but I am absolutely confident
that in 20
years’ time, without the guarantees that only democratic governance can
provide,
our children (and their children) will need to look around before they
say what
they think, and they will suppress their political views when using the telephone or
internet, whether it is
email or chat. Even those who are doing well financially now may not be able to help their children weather the whim of our
political
leaders. Although some Hongkongers (including many of my schoolmates and their families) may have foreign
passports, none of their children will have the influence of a senior-level
provincial party official to help them weather the storm if they were to stay in Hong Kong.
The author also understates the students as “a
small minority”,
but 100k+ people on the streets suggests to me that the ideas they
represent are not to be marginalised. There will always be those who claim to represent the silent majority,
but the safest assumption is that the silent ones ought to be split
according to the proportion of "fors" and "antis". The protests have
opened a new era
and style of peaceful protest, and HK will never be the same again even
if the occupation ceases today. Even if proper
representative democracy is not what everyone desires (and I would
fundamentally
dispute that as an assertion), it is considered a fundamental human right by
the United Nations.
Why is it wrong to challenge China for something they are not
likely to get? Democracy is never handed out on a plate by dictators, ever. Everywhere
democracy exists has been marked by a struggle of bigger or smaller proportions. The
Chinese people deserve the right to self-determination, and I feel Hong Kongers
should lead the way.
Further reading:
* Howitt, Natasha (28 October 2014). "Why Hong Kong Still Matters". NewsHub
* "The Party v the people". The Economist, 4 October 2014
* "The Party v the people". The Economist, 4 October 2014