Summer of Fire Deity 赤帝

This rather long blog seeks to examine the causes of Hong Kong's 2019 summer of unrest. At the time of writing, in late August 2019, events continue to unfold. There is no end in sight to the protests.

We've had our first weekend without the need for the Police to fire tear smoke. Then this weekend rioting broke out in the Kowloon Bay area. Thus, after a short hiatus, the violence returns. 

One thing is clear; this is the most significant challenge to governance since 1997. Although the unrest is not as straightforward as the MSM is reporting, the signs of coming trouble were there for decades.

Origins

Pre-1997

In the early 1980s, negotiations started for the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty. These talks continued into the 1990s. Matters proceeded with relative ease until the events of June 1989. As gunfire rattled through Beijing, Hong Kong people immediately changed their outlook.

The shadow of Tiananmen hung over all discussions about Hong Kong's future, as people sought reassurances. Alas, some opted to leave, as an exodus of talent gathered pace. 

Chris Patten, who arrived in 1992, was the first politician to hold the post of Governor. With enthusiasm, he launched a flawed and late attempt to change Hong Kong's political system. Unsurprisingly, Beijing eyed this last-minute change in governance with high suspicion.

After all, Britain had ruled Hong Kong without much semblance of democracy. China vowed to dismantle the changes and did. Under Chinese rule, Hong Kong reverted to the 'colonial' model of governance.

From 1983 onwards, discussions between the Brits and China never resolved the extradition issue. Likewise, no protocols exist for Macao or Taiwan. The problem remained unaddressed.

Nonetheless, at Hong Kong's request, the Mainland returned alleged criminals to face trial in Hong Kong courts. Extradition wasn't the only matter left hanging in the air. Anti-sedition laws under Article 23 of the Basic Law awaited action.

Depending on who you believe, this impasse on extradition was either an oversight or a deliberate act. Patten talks these days about a 'firewall' between the two systems. I don't recall that mentioned at the time.

Either way, this 'kicking the can down the road' would come back to bite Hong Kong. In fairness, Patten and the British cannot escape blame for contributing to the current situation.

Post-1997

Since 1997, several crises — existential and homegrown — have rocked faith in the government. SARS, the conviction of senior officials for corruption, plus perceived cronyism all fed a narrative that the way of life here was changing.

And not for the better. While people's satisfaction with the government fluctuated over time, in 2019 it's a near-record low. Several factors are at play: 

• A perception that the government is beholden to vested interests;

• A failure to tackle with any vigour deep-seated problems. These include high property prices, poverty, illegal structures, air-pollution and stalled social mobility;
• Lax oversight of infrastructure projects, while throwing vast sums of public money at vanity projects; and
• Stalled progress on evolving a more representative LegCo. 

In recent months the actions of the Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, have fed poor sentiment. Her appointment of a friend to the position of Secretary for Justice comes to mind. Despite questions over Theresa Cheung's personal qualities, Carrie Lam pressed ahead to anoint Cheung to a post with a $4M salary. 

At the same time, Lam was busy taking an allowance away from the working poor. She proposed changes to welfare benefits for impoverished people aged between 60 and 64. They'd suffer a one-third cut in their paltry payments. In response to the outcry over this stingy behaviour, Lam retorted: "I am over 60 years old, but I still work for over 10 hours every day." 

Setting aside the fact that the government has massive reserves that would allow an increase, Lam's statement is revealing. She pulled back the curtain on her conceit. Soon people recognised her disconnect from the trials and tribulations of ordinary folk.

We had earlier hints when Lam struggled to use an octopus card and didn't know where to buy toilet paper. Years of a pampered existence at the upper echelons of the civil service made her immune to reality. 

Adding to public disquiet was her government's failure to listen. Any ideas that came from the bottom faced rejection by the cadre of all-powerful administrative officers. This obsequious group of 'Sir Humphreys' defeats innovation at every turn.

Often they appear more concerned about playing internal power games and awaiting retirement. Despite public statements to the contrary, for most serving the public is anathema. 

Also, the 'elephant in the room' is Hong Kong's attitude towards the Mainland. For decades, the Mainland was the poor cousin. Most Hong Kong families have their roots there, having fled here. While Hong Kong prospered, in part due to the influx of talent and money, the Mainland spasmed through hunger, turmoil and civil war. Then, in the 1980s, things started to change. 

Within a generation, the Mainland is surging ahead, and Hong Kong is lagging. First, the Chinese nouveau-riche flooded Hong Kong. Then came tourists, displacing and disrupting businesses. Simultaneously, Mainland students outperformed their local counterparts. They spoke better English and soon excelled in the workplace. Thus, local resentment grew.

Inflated criticism gave birth to an anti-Mainlander sentiment that bordered on prejudice. Also, all Beijing's actions acquired deep sinister undertones. The disappearing booksellers and the alleged snatching of a businessman feed that account.

Paradoxically, Hong Kong only exists and functions because of the Mainland. Hong Kong relies on the vast hinterland of Guangzhou for the basics of water, electricity and food. Plus the two are interconnected by trade with some 50% of Hong Kong's trade-dependent on greater China. 

Yet, and this is significant, Hong Kong's importance to the Mainland is waning. In 1997 Hong Kong was responsible for 20% of China's GDP; today it's between 2 to 3%. Undoubtedly, long term, China is positioning Shenzhen to supersede Hong Kong. As Shenzhen and Shanghai surge ahead, a weakened Hong Kong marks time.

In all these matters, the importance of Occupy Central is self-evident. This protest commenced in September 2014, then collapsed by early December 2014. Within a matter of weeks, Occupy ceased to be a coordinated effort as the various groups went their separate ways. In the end, the government waited for it to dissipate without making any concessions. 

The conclusion of Occupy Central left many tired and disillusioned. The inability to bring forth progress in Hong Kong's democratic systems saw the activists at a lost how to proceed. A few staged stunts such as hunger strikes and called for boycotting tax payments.

Despite this, their movement faded as support fell away. Even so, anger remained to simmer below the surface. Some concluded that peaceful protests achieved nothing. 

At Chinese New Year 2016, radical elements took their opportunity. With the police force in a relaxed posture, the radicals intervened when hygiene officers moved on illegal hawkers in Mongkok. Then when Police responded, the militants were waiting to act. 

Outnumbered, the Police came under attack from groups armed with poles and shields. In one incident, an officer fired his revolver to save a colleague. Anti-riot units then arrived to restore order with arrests made.

Rioters later received sentences as high as six-years, including pro-independence advocates. The Mongkok riot proved that the radicals are willing to adopt extreme measures. 

By mid-2016, the activists found themselves again on the back foot. Demoralised and listless, they couldn't summon up the enthusiasm seen during Occupy. Many felt that the pro-democracy movement was over. That assessment was wrong. 

The Spark that lit the fire

On February 17 2018, Chan Tong-kai, 20, a Hong Kong student allegedly murdered his pregnant girlfriend in Taiwan. Chan fled to Hong Kong four days later and admitted to Police he'd killed Poon Hiu-wing also 20. The lack of an extradition agreement prevented his deportation to face trial.

The Hong Kong Police charged Chan, and he was convicted of money laundering. He remains in jail with his release expected in October 2019.

In response, the Chief Executive proposed changes to the existing law to allow extradition for a limited number of offences. In moving these proposals, she included extradition to the Mainland and Macau.

You could argue this is provocative. But, Hong Kong couldn't recognise Taiwan while ignoring the Mainland as this would acknowledge Taiwan as a separate entity. Beijing would never tolerate such a move.

Throughout early 2019, opposition to the amendment built. The business community voiced initial concerns that they'd get caught in the net. Citing the use of criminal law to resolve business disputes on the Mainland, they won concessions. Soon the wider community expressed reservations, as legislators blocked the bill in LegCo. 

With the anniversary of Tiananmen approaching, the organisers of the annual vigil seized the opportunity to conflate the extradition issue. In a flash, the pro-democratic groups had their new rally point.

Following the June 4 vigil, momentum carried forward towards the July 1 rally. Despite increasing voices of dissent, Carrie Lam pressed on. Dismissing all calls for alternatives to resolve the Taiwan case, she's hellbent on proceeding.

Thus, the central theme of the July 1 rally became the 'anti-extradition' campaign. In effect, Lam unified the many disparate groups by giving them a common cause. 

The Youth Dimension

Now let's consider the protests and the rioting we've seen. Most events start peaceful, with a cross-section of society attending. Then towards the end, a hard-core of young people engage in violence. They've thrown petrol bombs, smashed up MTR stations and damaged street furniture. 

Nobody doubts that young people drive protests movements. This phenomenon is well-documented by academics. In the Hong Kong scenario, they are a couple of factors to consider, some unique, others less so:-

• Most of the youth taking part — students and high-school kids — are middle class. Working-class kids are too busy earning a living;

  

• There is the suggestion that protesting is a therapeutic activity of self-expression, a performance. With most kids pre-occupied with acceptance by peers, pressure from their cohort causes many to join;
  
  
• Youth always rebel against the dominant elites. There is a romantic element in reaction to authority; it's exciting and fun with emotions driving events; and,
  ​
• Listening to the statements of the young protesters, reason and evidence are sometimes secondary to opinion.

Other Dimensions 

Entering this already crowded field of reasons for the protests are the following matters, many of which have rumbled on for decades:-

• The asymmetry between the Mainland and Hong Kong systems. Hong Kong enjoys freedoms not seen on the Mainland, and yet Hong Kong's government remains unrepresentative. That creates a tension, which must inevitably boil over;

 

• Hong Kong's uniqueness. Many have not accepted that Hong Kong should integrate with the Mainland. Their deep suspicions cloud any initiative from Beijing;

 

• Time and time again, protesters have misinterpreted the law to assert things that aren't true. This misrepresentation encourages them to act. An example is a claim the Police need a warrant or invite to enter a mall to deal with a riot. These misinterpretations come from so-called legal scholars, who are either ill-informed or acting with malice;

 

• Hostility towards the Police, which simmered since Occupy and the Mongkok riot. As the most visible arm of the government, the Police are in the front-line facing public aggression. Carrie Lam's bunker mentality hasn't helped;

 

• The role of the Internet and social media. The protesters made effective use of social media to organise their activities;

 

• The Internet acted to amplify false information, rumours and spread outright lies;

 

• People on both sides of the debate tended to operate in social-media silos, seeing only material supportive of their view. This feedback loop further distanced the groups; and 

 

• Many old guard pro-democrats carry the guilt that they failed to secure for Hong Kong' one man, one vote'. In turn, this led them to provide unconditional support to the protesters in an un-judgmental manner. Thus, their opportunity and ability to moderate the more violent elements were gone.

The State of Play

By late August 2019, Hong Kong has seen street battles, the trashing of our parliament, the Yuen Long attack and the shutdown of the airport. A stunned society is left to wonder if the thin veneer of law and order has cracked. With no political solution in sight, the Police are fighting kids on the streets while the government is rather passive.

At times, attacks on police stations by rioter with catapults and petrol bombs went unchallenged. This inaction braced the mob, who interpreted the lack of a response as a weakness. 

Some sought to undermine Police morale, but they made a fatal misjudgment. Attacking Police married accommodation was a strategic mistake. As images of a child's bedroom with broken windows and shattered glass circulated, Police resolve hardened. 

Meanwhile, Carrie Lam has offered talks and held a session with community leaders today (Saturday, August 24). It's not evident to me that these sessions are helpful as its the usual suspects attending. One participant had a blindingly bright idea "Lets drawing the bill". Hold the presses, newsflash!

And yet, the extradition bill is no longer the pivotal issue. Protesters have switched tack with the ominous chant "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times!" Beijing naturally sees this slogan as a call for independence. 

On a related point, it's odd that the business tycoons remained silent until mid-August. Beijing can typically rely on them to make appropriate noises of support. In this instance, such back-up came late. Speculation abounds why.  

Feeling the Stones

Where do we go from here? Predicting how this pans out is a fool's errand; nonetheless, this fool will have a go. At first, it appeared that Carrie Lam's strategy was to make no concessions, awaiting the collapse of the movement. She's gambled that when students return to school in September/October, all this will end. 

Then she offered talks. These offers faced rejection by various protest groups, who reasserted demands. The leader of the Chinese University Students Union made her position clear. "People are prepared to die" she affirmed.

The pan-Democrat politicians are on the sidelines, and somewhat irrelevant to the main action. In regular times they could provide a moderating voice. Instead, they appear intent on giving tacit support to protester violence. That doesn't mean they enjoy the approval of militant protesters, many of who reject them.

Consequently, we are nowhere near having a conversation to resolve this conflict. At the moment we have 'irreconcilable horizons' that make a constructive dialogue impossible. Is it that we've entered an intractable conflict that is set to run for some time?

I foresee the following:-

• Protests and possible riots, especially at weekends and around specific trigger-events such as court appearances. The Police have the upper hand in frontal confrontations; thus, the protesters will keep switching tactics;
  
  
• Increased doxxing with intimidation tactics by both sides. Police were the initial victims; but, both sides are now using doxxing to intimidate;
• Unrest on university campuses once students return. The likelihood of trouble between local and Mainland students is high; 
  
  
• Commercial organisations will face calls to make their position known. It's 'Catch 22' for them. Show support for the protesters and face losing Chinese markets, or take the wrath of the Hong Kong protesters. We've already seen examples of this scenario with Cathay Pacific as the prime example; 
  
  
• Calls for industrial action will continue with mixed results. With the economy rocky, most people won't want to jeopardise their jobs. Thus, they'll not take actions that could see them unemployed. The harsh reality of life will define their steps; and,
  
  
• A bombing campaign is possible. Police have discovered two bomb factories to date, which indicates a willingness to kill. In this regard, we've been lucky that bomb factories were neutralised.

Some Home Truths

Hong Kong is a part of China. Besides electricity, water, and food, pretty much every job in Hong Kong is dependent on some aspect of the Mainland. Every finance job is reliant on moving money into the Mainland. Every role in shipping and trade is reliant on moving goods out of the Mainland.

And this is historical. The British took Hong Kong because they needed a base to do their trading. Once the Communists took power in 1949, they left Hong Kong alone so that they had a link with the world.

The hard truth is that Beijing holds all the cards in this game. The Hong Kong protesters don't seem to realise that if they go too far, Beijing will act. And at that point, the protesters will forfeit everything. 

If that is a military-style intervention, international condemnation will be swift, with threats of sanctions and such. Then Hong Kong will fade into the background, as the world moves on.

Moreover, any Mainland intervention need not be by force. Remember, after SARS, it was the Chinese initiatives that helped kick start Hong Kong's economy. Special trading arrangements, tourism and other concessions did the trick. 

China is now demonstrating it can reverse that process. In the short term, it has cut the flow of tourists with immediate consequences. Hotel bookings are through the floor, and Cathay Pacific flights are empty.

Solutions

Where do we go from here? It's too late for Carrie Lam to defuse this crisis by uttering the words 'withdrawn'. In any case, the extradition amendment was only a catalyst. Any number of matters could have triggered the protests, including the national anthem law of Article 23.

As the economy is showing signs of strain, with layoffs gathering pace, reality will bite. As this builds, the pressure will swing against the protesters, especially the radical and violent elements. 

On the off-chance that somebody in government is looking for ideas, here are a few. At some point, an enquiry will be necessary to clarify events.

​A full judicial hearing may be too broad and lengthy; on the other hand, some accounting of events must take place. But as part of that process:

• No amnesty. As I see it, we either have the rule of law, or we don't. Let the Courts decide guilt or otherwise;
  
  
• No distinction between white shirts, black shirts, or any other shirts;
  
  
• The actions of government, politicians, the media and the Police should be within the purview of the enquiry; and,
  
  
• Any enquiry must seek a proper collating of events, with an agreed timeline of incidents to clear any ambiguities.

Then appoint a judicial commission to develop an extradition process within international standards. The process should have specific safeguards to prevent extrajudicial removals for political crimes. Make the commission hearings public, with witnesses from a cross-section of the community.

These proposals need compromise, but when was a conflict ever resolved without it. Moreover, we can then move towards some form of reconciliation. 

Am I too hopeful? Has the situation has escalated to the stage that general reconciliation to sustain social cohesion, in the short term, is beyond us?

Some people think too much has happened; too many severed relationships, too many identities distorted, too many traumas endured. 

The capacity of Hong Kong to bridge its differences and restore trust will be tested. But before that, climb down the escalation ladder that we currently ascend. 
​