Posted: June 5, 2015
When they began, the three biggest events in Hong Kong’s democracy movement had little to do with each other. Now … for better and possibly for worse … the law of unintended consequences is bringing them together in one common cause.
For better, because Hong Kong’s “age of innocence” is finally disappearing. People on all sides now understand that promises for autonomy and universal suffrage in cross border jurisdictions can mean very different things depending on whose definitions are being applied. Maybe energies can now be put to more effective use instead of talking in endless circles to no apparent effect. But the reality-check might only lead to more wasted energy if it produces yet another excuse for fratricidal bickering … or worst of all, fatalistic acceptance of an unwanted fate. All possibilities are now in play.
JUNE FOURTH is a date that Hong Kong has continued to commemorate every year since 1989. On that day, Chinese central government authorities cleared democracy protesters from Beijing’s Tiananmen Square with a show of force that continued in one form or another until every last trace of China’s own 1980s democracy movement was extinguished. It has never been allowed to revive, but the memory lives on if only in Hong Kong’s annual June Fourth candlelight vigil.
Held in Victoria Park, its sponsor is a coalition of now aging 1980s activists still rallying under the banner of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China. Founding leaders were Martin Lee Chu-ming and the late Szeto Wah. Except for Hong Kong, which continues to defy Beijing by holding this event, commemorations are banned throughout China but in recent years mainland visitors have been attending in ever greater numbers.
The JULY FIRST marching tradition began in 2003 and has been held every year since. It aims to keep alive the spirit of massive indignation that erupted when Hong Kong’s first post-colonial administration, led by Tung Chee-hwa, tried to force passage of national security legislation as mandated by Beijing in Article 23 of Hong Kong’s post-colonial Basic Law constitution. July First is the anniversary of Hong Kong’s 1997 return to Chinese rule. Like the June Fourth candlelight vigils, July First marches are not political party events. July First is organized by a multitude of groups known as the Civil Human Rights Front.
And then OCCUPY CENTRAL brought everyone together … at least at first … in an effort to realize the 30-year quest for democratic universal suffrage elections. This objective is not so much mandated as promised by the Basic Law. But so seriously did Hong Kong take the promise that, after Beijing finally designated 2017 as the year universal suffrage elections might begin, activists gave it plenty of lead time and set to work in early 2013. Debates and meetings continued non-stop thereafter producing countless reform proposals.
This 2013-14 phase was only the latest in a campaign for universal suffrage that had actually begun in the 1980s … with antecedents stretching back many decades into Hong Kong’s colonial past. Hence 2017 took on special significance as the culmination of a long-running quest.
It was the shock of seeing all their idealistic efforts and proposals summarily deleted by Beijing that sent thousands out onto the streets for the 79-day Occupy protest last September. The immediate provocation was Beijing’s August 31, 2014 (8.31) final word on how the 2017 election must be conducted. City streets were not finally cleared until mid-December and the shockwaves are still reverberating.
Their impact so far has been to rekindle old fears and bring new understandings. These are now taking the form of growing “localized” 【本土化】demands that reject the simple “greater China” we-are-all-in-this-together assumptions prevailing in Hong Kong’s democracy movement since the 1980s.
The trouble with those 1980s assumptions was that local democrats also assumed they could keep their own democratic ideals and win tolerance for them from Beijing as well. Instead, the prevailing winds are now blowing in the opposite direction. Beijing leaders are not mellowing with age but trying to revive confidence in the old institutions and revolutionary traditions that brought the party to power in the first place (May 18 post).
So now finally, thanks to the universal suffrage saga, that political reality can no longer be denied. If held in accordance with Beijing’s 8.31 decision, the 2017 election would be a party-managed affair. As such, it would owe more to the communist party’s “democratic-centralist” traditions than to any version of Western-style democracy.
Nor is Beijing offering any hope of future progress beyond the essentials of the 8.31 framework (according to final official speeches in Shenzhen on June 1). In response, democratic disappointment is leaving its mark all around town.
REMEMBERING TIANANMEN IN THE WAKE OF OCCUPY
Pre-vigil polls and preparations registered the impact. Hong Kong University’s advance polling showed support at its lowest point in two decades … down 5.5% over last year, to 44.6%. A quarter of those interviewed said the Hong Kong Alliance itself should be disbanded. Only 38% said it should continue. Music to Beijing’s ears perhaps. If only 65% were not still agreeing that Hong Kong has the responsibility to promote mainland democratic development (http://hkupop.hku.hk/english). The principle evidently remains intact even if Victoria Park’s annual ritual now seems a futile gesture after last year’s energetic struggles.
Alliance leaders were also jolted by the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) decision to pull out of its usual June Fourth co-sponsoring role. The decision, announced in April, was seen as fallout from student dissatisfaction with the alleged moderate inclinations of HKFS leaders given their close association with pro-democracy political parties during Occupy. The rank-and-file argued that student leaders were too inclined to listen to the political party elders.
Four of the eight university student unions have actually taken the unprecedented step of withdrawing from the federation as a result (May 8 post). Students from those schools organized separate on-campus commemorations or went to Victoria Park on their own without school representation. The separate events were “Hong Kong-oriented,” in contrast to June Fourth’s mainland focus with its line that Hong Kong cannot have democracy unless China has it as well. Hong Kong’s struggle must continue regardless, say the “local-ist” dissenters. After all, Britain was a democracy but London never allowed elected representation here. So one is no guarantee of the other!
The Victoria Park vigil has always been organized as a non-political party event but politicians like the Democratic Party’s Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, and now Albert Ho Chun-yan have always been the main leaders, which accounts for the students’ current skepticism.
Politicians always compromise like Albert Ho did over political reform in 2010. They wheel and deal and are invariably calculating their chances of winning the next election instead of focusing on the things that matter. And for students now the thing that matters most is Hong Kong’s political future. They are focused on holding the line they worked to establish with Occupy and want to put as much pressure as possible on the politicians who will soon be voting up or down on Beijing’s 8.31 election format.
Alliance leaders are so far holding firm in their support of the vow to veto 8.31. But they were also alarmed enough by the counter-current defections to issue a 40-page “June Fourth Questions and Answers” pamphlet. Some of the questions: “Why commemorate June Fourth?,” “Why attend the candlelight vigil?,” “What has been achieved in 26 years?,” and “Hong Kongers are not mainlanders so why help democratize China?” (http://issuu.com/hka1989/docs/64qna … Chinese only).
Defections of course didn’t begin with the students this year or with Occupy. Actually, it was the other way around. The growing counter-current of dissent is what produced the mindset that led to Occupy … as illustrated by last year’s arguments from People Power, Civic Passion and their companion Passion Times plus The Real Hong Kong News (June 6, 2014 post). This year that message was much the same: remember June Fourth but ignore the Alliance’s compromising politicians. *
In the end, however, everybody won. There were no losers … probably because Alliance leaders got the point and merged new Occupy themes with old June Fourth traditions. All six soccer pitches in the park were packed … the usual criteria for a full house … with spillover filling the basketball courts behind the stage and the north lawn as well. Not the crushing crowds of recent years but more than enough to satisfy Alliance organizers. Police disgraced themselves by estimating the turnout at only 46,000 … about right for half the pitches. Organizers said 135,000.
The old slogans were all still prominently displayed … no banners hidden in dark corners to avoid offending someone. “Vindicate June Fourth” and “Struggle for Democracy” … plus “Build a Democratic China,” “End one-Party Dictatorship,” “Demand Accountability for the Massacre,” and so on. But Hong Kong’s own current struggle featured as well along with a new logo that combined a vigil candle with a yellow upturned umbrella. Tribute was paid to 300 mainlanders thought to have been arrested for expressing support during Hong Kong’s Occupy protest.
Like last year, localists led by Civic Passion and Raymond “Mad Dog” Wong Yuk-man rallied separately across the harbor in Kowloon and at various points around town. But their mockery of compromised Alliance politicians did not seem to substantially boost attendance at the small localist rallies
MORE TO COME: June 7, June 17, July First, and beyond …
The government’s 2017 election reform bill will be tabled in the Legislative Council (Legco) on June 17. Culmination of all the past two year’s campaigning will then be registered in an up or down vote. Plans for filibustering or government delays may intervene. But if not the vow to veto will hold or not in time to be celebrated or reviled during the annual July First protest march. Any legislator who breaks his/her vow should stay away from that march if Albert Ho’s 2010 experience is anything to go by. That was the march, just after his 2010 compromise on Legco electoral reform that he later said was the worst three hours of his entire life.
The Civil Human Rights Front has planned a full roster of events for June, all designed to carry forward the spirit of Occupy with its demand for “genuine” universal suffrage. Never give up is the motto for a new movement called “Popular Opposition to Fake Democracy.”
The plan, to begin on Sunday June 7, is to join up with pro-democracy political parties and groups from last year’s Umbrella/Occupy. They will march in all five Legislative Council electoral districts to protest the government’s bill. Plans also include a rally at the council itself depending on how long the debate continues before the actual vote.
Whichever way it goes, preparations for the July First protest march are also well advanced. The theme this year will be “regaining Hong Kong’s autonomy,” meaning the autonomy Hong Kong thought it had been promised when the Basic Law was promulgated in 1990.
Demands for “building democracy in Hong Kong” are wildly ambitious but they should make good marching slogans. They will call for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to resign and for the Basic Law to be rewritten or at least amended since it obviously cannot serve as a vehicle for democratic development in its present form. The obstacles it contains must be removed.
Specifically, marchers will call for the abolition of the Nominating Committee mandated by Beijing in its 8.31 decision on grounds the Basic Law itself mandates such a committee and only that committee and will continue to do so throughout the life of the Basic Law (which ends in 2047). They will also call for the abolition of the Legislative Council’s special-interest Functional Constituencies. These form half of the council and most of the committee.
Additionally, slogans will call for the abolition of the Public Order Ordinance (POO) because it requires police permission for rallies and marches … a requirement that Occupy protesters routinely flouted during their 79-day street blockade. They will now call for the ordinance’s repeal on grounds that it is an obstacle to the exercise of their civil liberties!
* Wong On-yin, English trans. (http://www.ejinsight.com/20150603-remember-june4-forget.alliance).
This post is really superbly clear!
I feel like the whole “rejection” frame of the “greater China we-are-all-in-this-together” which the media has been touting, perhaps in an effort to magnify the rift, doesn’t quite fit.
The way I see it is, before the Beijing 8.31 decision, the June 4 vigil took place in the context of a Hong Kong that, at least, conceivably, would have some more democratic electoral process in the future, as promised in the Basic Law. That possibility was squelched by the 8.31 decision. So what are Hong Kongers supposed to do? Fight for democracy “over there” in the Mainland—when their own long-standing democracy project has come to an abrupt halt? “Sweep the snow from your own door step, don’t worry about the frost on your neighbor’s roof.” I don’t see the changing positions as a “rejection” of democracy in “greater China” so much as a realistic reassessment, based on what the 8.31 decision made abundantly clear, of what needs to be focused on locally. Some groups, like Civic Passion, had made a determination to pursue a more “localist” position even before the 8.31 decision—the NPCSC decision and the subsequent events just made it clear to more people that they could not assume that some form of democracy (as they envisioned it) in Hong Kong was a foregone conclusion.
I think a lot of what’s going on from the 8.31 decision onward—the protests, the rifts, the disarray—are largely the result of being confronted with a very different political reality than what Hong Kongers were operating under. People in Hong Kong had to figure out, almost in shock, what that political reality was and how much latitude there was to operate under it (answer: not much). Now, with Beijing’s take-it-or-leave-it approach, people can act accordingly. If the Alliance politicians make good on their vow to reject government’s election reform bill—as they seem certain to do—that has the virtue of recalibrating the debate, rather than operating in the Alice-in-Wonderland black-is-white frame (i.e., how much real democracy can we eke out of phony democracy?) that the government’s reform package demanded, which means that those on the pro-democracy side are now asking for exactly what they want (i.e., abolition of the Nominating Committee, abolition of the Functional Constituencies, and abolition of the Public Order Ordinance), rather than trying to figure out how to respond to what Beijing wants. Beijing’s actions have clarified completely what each side’s positions are, rather than having each side imagine very different scenarios, and clarity, one might say, affords focus.
Yes, the veto is the all-around best thing that could happen … best because everyone is really in uncharted waters and everyone needs to design some new solutions … If pan-dems really do hold the line and veto, Beijing will have to do some creative thinking about its one-size-fits-all form of unitary party rule.
And pan-dems, for once, will have to contest the 2016 Legco election as tho their lives depend on it because the fate of their democracy movement will depend on it and now they know that. They will need to explain and convince at least enough voters that there is something other than Beijing-style people’s congress democracy … it will be the only way to win enough votes to keep their opponents from taking the 4-5 additional Legco seats they need to override democratic opposition and pass the government’s election reform bill based on Beijing’s 8.31 decision.
I agree—and although I pointed to the benefits of vetoing the package in the earlier comment (because that’s what seems certain to happen), I actually think the calculus on the part of the pan-dems runs from the converse, i.e., whatever the benefits/disadvantages of vetoing the package, the known downside of voting in favor of it is far worse. They vote for it and it’s essentially “Game over.” There is really no reason to do that.
Just today, in fact, we have an example of trying to shift the focus to the disadvantages of a veto: a reasonable-sounding comment from Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, in his ceaseless quest to help keep Hong Kong public opinion “balanced and informed,” who observes
That, of course, exactly inverts the proper frame of the issue (which the Secretary, as the top legal honcho in Hong Kong, if he doesn’t understand, should). The issue for the legislators is not about some other proposal or lack thereof but about this one. The only sensible response to that kind of observation is a shrug. If “within a short time” there is no “new proposal that will be accepted by the pro-establishment camp, the central government, and Hong Kong society” so what? That’s actually better than passing the current proposal—at least now no one is confused about who’s choosing the Chief Executive—and foreclosing the chance of a better one.
And the SCMP has a piece headlined “Beijing academic calms fears of punishment for Hong Kong pan-democrats if reform package voted down,” which, of course, alarms anyone who actually reads it and doesn’t find it completely risible. Member of the Basic Law Committee and Peking University law scholar Professor Rao Geping poses the rhetorical question and answer: “How would the central government find Hong Kong as a whole is confronting her just because of several lawmakers blocking the reform? [It] will not”—which, just by its terms, doesn’t address how the “several lawmakers” will be dealt with (not that that is much of an issue) and, worse, places the whole situation in terms of “confrontation” with Beijing, rather than how it should be viewed—lawmakers deciding what should be a purely internal matter in a region having a high degree of autonomy. Fear-calming is not the first thing that springs to mind.
That’s not as problematic as Professor Rao’s own framing of the issue—which he characterizes as being “no longer about whether to have democracy or not, but about whether to uphold the principle of ‘one country, two systems’ and obedience to the central government.” So upholding the principle of “one country, two systems”doesn’t involve democracy—although, for about 30 years, the promise of “universal suffrage” gave the impression that it did—but instead involves “obedience to the central government”? Or this upcoming vote is about “obedience to the central government”? And people are supposed to take their cues about what to think about electoral reform from him?
The pan-Dems, as you say, will have to contest the 2016 elections as if their lives depend on it but making the case for something other than Beijing-style people’s congress democracy, while it has to be made, should not be all that hard—especially with statements like those from Prof. Rao. Maybe a few “Obedience to the Central Government” posters and T-shirts would do the trick?
Hey there, You have done a fantastic job. I’ll definitely digg it and personally suggest to my friends.
I’m confident they will be benefited from this site.