Sliding Doors

"The social unrest and riots tore at the tethers of Hong Kong society."

There is a scene in the movie Sliding Doors when a London woman's love life and career hinge, unknown to her, on whether or not she catches a train. We see it both ways, in parallel.  It is hard to forget that one event, a sliding door, prevents her from catching a train, changing the whole course of her life. 

What if? Things could have been so different. That thought came to mind as I reflected on the conviction of 45 people for attempting to overthrow the Hong Kong government. Had the pan-democrats shown some pragmatism in 2014, when proposals for incremental changes to our governance system were on the table, we perhaps could have avoided the social unrest of 2019. 

Likewise, had they recognised that Hong Kong needed to implement Article 23, would the National Security Law not have been required? More competent politicians play by the adage, "Politics is the art of the possible." 

A savvy political cohort wouldn't have given tacit and direct support to violent mobs that smashed their way into our parliament. Also, they'd have seen the possible outcomes of mounting a direct challenge that sought to overthrow the government. And they'd have decried a "We Burn, You Burn" (攬炒) strategy that saw petrol bombs, the torching of MTR stations and the immolation of an innocent man. 

Anyway, the pan-democrats took an aggressive approach, aligning themselves with rioters, hooligans, and separatists. This decision led to the worst possible outcome for their agenda, a result that we now must grapple with. 

And while the West's politicians are reacting with a mix of threats, bitterness and tantrums at the conviction of the 45, those venting also did little to condemn the violence. Instead, they unquestioningly portrayed the protests as peaceful.

What’s more, the Western MSM coverage continues to wilfully ignore the facts associated with the movement that Benny Tai and his crew ignited, including the attempts to systematically destroy the city's infrastructure and the sophisticated bomb plot aimed at massacring police officers. 

The broader context is that Western politicians supported the mob to apply pressure as part of the rivalry between the U.S. and China. Further, while the extradition bill and pro-democracy movements are cited as catalysts, that narrative is oversimplified. 

The horde that came to the streets proved a volatile mix of pro-independence and sectarian groups, religious zealots, and the disgruntled, who combined in a so-called leaderless movement to attack our parliament and occupy university campuses, turning them into bomb factories. Along the way, the rioters did millions of dollars worth of damage, distorting and traumatising countless lives. 

When analysing the causes of these events, it is crucial to consider the broader picture. The emergence of wealthy Chinese from the Mainland was first felt in Hong Kong, countering the collective view that only Westernised Chinese could succeed. This shift in status contributed to the social tensions that fueled various protests over access to milk powder and maternity hospitals.

Given the unresolved issues from the 2014 "Occupy Central Movement" and the orchestrated "Fish Ball" riot of 2016, which ambushed the police, there was evidence of an escalating situation.

That radicals attended regime-change training overseas is telling. The presence of overseas neo-Nazis in the protests is also significant. How did they arrive here? Likewise, the adoption of tactics straight out of the Antifa playbook points towards a level of sophistication which causes one to ponder. Who is the unseen hand?  

Did Gene Sharp’s book From Directorship to Democracy—a template for insurrection and regime change—guide the radicals? Nury Vittachi, a local journalist and author, explores these themes in The Other Side of the Story: A Secret War in Hong Kong, the most comprehensive account of the riots. 

All the radicals need is a trigger event to get the ball rolling. Benny Tai and his crew proved more than willing to help ignite a conflagration that inevitably burned them and left Hong Kong a different place.

Given his track record, Benny Tai, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong, deserves particular criticism. In 2014, he initiated the 'Occupy Central' movement by leading thousands of young people and students to the streets. Soon, he abandoned them within weeks and returned to his office after losing control. Consequently, impressionable and misguided teenagers faced the consequences while Tai and his colleagues remained safe in their offices. 

Tai sought to mirror the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Arab Spring without learning lessons from their failures. This lack of reflection is a stark reminder that education alone does not guarantee wisdom. 

Likewise, his fellow travellers, including seasoned politicians, either gave tacit support to or failed to condemn the violence that terrified Hong Kong citizens. They remained silent when their supporters burned a man for criticising the protesters; they didn't call off the thugs who beat innocent Mainlanders or the hooligans who trashed business premises under the euphemism of "redecoration." The rioters eventually killed a street sweeper. 

Alan Leong, a barrister and politician, is reported to have stated in a debate at Hong Kong University that, "violence may sometimes be the solution to a problem." Except Leong wouldn’t be on the street.

The social unrest and riots tore at the tethers of Hong Kong society, polarising sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, and breaking friendships.

In response to the convictions, we may see more sanctions and gripes from the West. Meanwhile, those condemning the situation in Hong Kong supply weapons that inflict terror upon innocents in Gaza and sustain an unwinnable war in Ukraine. As Trump's election has confirmed, many in the West exhibit extraordinary self-deception. They cherry-pick evidence, shape narratives and then claim the moral high ground to disparage anyone who doesn't adhere to their doctrine. I wonder if Western politicians get dizzy from holding their high moral ground.

The facts speak volumes. Hong Kong's courts, following established legal procedures, have convicted individuals who openly planned to shut down the government—actions that would be prosecuted as sedition in most jurisdictions, including the United States. This underscores the robustness and fairness of Hong Kong's legal system.

Ultimately, the evolution of governance here will depend on choices made in the context of Hong Kong’s unique place within China. As the city continues to navigate that complex journey, this period of calm, rational discourse is welcome.