Hong Kong: from harmony to chaos
The flag of Hong Kong depicts a bauhinia flower — the floral emblem of the city since the mid 20th century — with its five star-studded petals and a red background serving as a firm reminder that Hong Kong is a part of China. The intended message behind this post-1997 symbol of Hong Kong is one of harmony, as promised by the “one country, two systems” principle.
Harmony is a highly valued concept in the Chinese culture. Below the Lion Rock (獅子山下), one of the best-known songs in Hong Kong, contains the following line:
既是同舟在獅子山下且共濟, 拋棄區分求共對
Below the Lion Rock, we share the same boat, and we leave our differences behind
However, over the past decade, harmony between China and Hong Kong — and even within Hong Kong itself — has become more elusive. On the one hand, xenophobic attitudes towards mainland China residents and visitors from Hongkongers persist, with terms like “locusts” being used. On the other, the China administration has been increasingly interfering with Hong Kong politics and affairs, despite the “one country, two systems” promise. Cases like the Causeway Bay Books disappearances have greatly eroded Hongkongers’ trust. And now, even harmony between Hongkongers themselves has come under threat. The crack has been gradually widening, and things finally turned ugly in 2019.
I was born in Hong Kong but now reside in London. Although I do not generally follow Hong Kong politics that closely, since June this year I have been paying closer attention to the protests and unrest, thanks in part to the increased level of coverage by Western media. News from international and Hong Kong media sources, footage from social media, and opinions of friends and family have thus begun to shape my perception. In the space of a few months, I went from feeling a sense of pride, to a sense of unease, horror and finally confusion. My wife and I were due to spend a week in Hong Kong at the beginning of November. Before we left, we knew it was going to be a challenging experience, and we would have to keep an open mind. Little did we know that our trip would take place during what was to be one of the most violent and turbulent periods in the city’s recent history.
We were in Hong Kong November 9th-17th. In just 8 days, the city witnessed a controversial police shooting (in Sai Wan Ho (西灣河)); a man was set on fire in Ma On Shan (馬鞍山); an overnight battle broke out between police and students at the Chinese University of Hong Kong; multiple fatal casualties; major disruptions of travel occurred across the city. Our last day in Hong Kong coincided with the start of the siege of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University — probably the most widely reported event since the start of the protest.
And now, one week after our visit, I am writing this article as a personal reflection on what I experienced, and as a way to reconcile my many, and at times conflicting, thoughts.
What led to this week of violence?
Residing in the United Kingdom, my exposure to the sequence of events leading up to the week of November 11th was obviously limited and somewhat media-biased. I will, however, highlight a few key events that I personally believe led to the resulting situation. Please note, my list is by no means exhaustive, so I do encourage you to do your own research to understand the complex history.
- June 9th: Over one million Hong Kong citizens took to the streets to protest against the extradition bill, which was generally seen as a move to undermine the independence of Hong Kong legal system guaranteed by the “one country, two systems” principle by allowing criminal suspects to be extradited to mainland China. Many feared the bill would grant China the power to arrest anyone considered as a political dissenter, thus seriously restraining freedom of expression.
- June-July: Early pro-democracy protests were mostly peaceful. However, some soon turned violent, and police started to deploy tear-gas to disperse crowds. (I do not have enough knowledge to comment on which side was responsible for the rise of violence, but this was definitely the beginning of a downward spiral.)
- July 1st: the Legislative Council building was stormed and vandalised by protesters.
- July 21st: China’s Liaison Office was vandalised. That evening, a mass attack was carried out by gang members in Yuen Long (元朗) on commuters, including people who’d returned from protest rallies. That the police did not arrive in time or arrest anyone that evening led many to question the police’s (mis)handling of the situation, or even to suggest that the police was in fact colluding with the gangs involved in the attack. This, in my opinion, was the trigger point of the current widespread violence in Hong Kong — the immense anger towards the police.
- August 5th: the first city-wide strike took place.
- The five demands were put forward by protesters.
- September 4th: Carrie Lam announced the withdrawal of the extradition bill was withdrawn.
Despite the withdrawal of the bill, the protesters were dissatisfied that the government did not meet all five of their demands, and were increasingly angered by the level of police brutality. What followed were weeks of protests, conflicts and disruptions, with both the protesters and the police turning more and more violent against each other, resulting sadly in a number of injuries and deaths, up until and beyond our visit to Hong Kong.
Communication breakdown leading to blind hatred
While I never came face-to-face with either protesters or police during our week in Hong Kong (we’d been using an app that monitored the locations of altercations in real time to work out which areas were safe or unsafe), the general feeling was that there was complete mistrust and total lack of respect between the two parties. Raw emotion dominated. “War-like” would not be an inappropriate description of the situation: every day and night the TV news channels played clips of combats between police and protesters; scenes of provocation from either side were being shown on loop.
Although the number of pro-democracy protesters actively involved in direct conflict probably remained in the minority, the strain, the sense of unease and sometimes hatred could visibly be felt across society. Our visit to Hong Kong afforded us deeper insights into this, mainly through our own observation as well as conversations we had with people we knew. We witnessed how social media has been employed by both sides in arousing (or manipulating) public sentiment, helping to amplify the division in moments of conflicts. In a post-truth world, dangerous opinions can form, and its effect was evident.
Politics divide — we understand that much. Still, I was unprepared by the brazen displays of public antagonism from both sides. There is no doubt of unacceptable behaviour from the police in the past few months, which includes taunting of the protesters, ganging up on and violently beating unarmed individuals, and excessive use of tear-gas. From the protesters’ side, we have seen equally unacceptable behaviour. For example, a number of Lennon Walls have appeared across the city in the last few months to demonstrate solidarity for the pro-democracy movement. While I am generally in favour of freedom of expression, the vicious and spiteful tone of some of the anti-government, anti-police and anti-Beijing messages would have made John Lennon turn in his grave. What I find absolutely inexcusable is the public shaming of individuals considered by the protesters as “preventing democracy”, which includes street cleaners whose job it was to remove the offensive graffiti. On social media, personal details of family members of police officers were leaked and shared among hardline protesters, calling for revenge.
Another dangerous example of political divide permeating everyday life is the categorisation and boycotting of local businesses considered as pro-Beijing. A number of directories (one of which is called “Worth Your Support”) have been created by pro-democracy groups supposedly to “inform” supporters of their shopping and eating choices (i.e. which eateries to support and which ones to boycott based apparently on the political leanings of the proprietors). This form of labelling and segregation reminds us of horrible war stories that seem so distant in the past, and it does nothing to promote the freedom of belief and expression.
Moral values being challenged
The word “value” came up quite a lot in our conversations with friends and family during our time in HK. It is clear that across society, individuals are constantly challenged to judge what is right and what is wrong. I found myself re-assessing the situation during and after our visit to HK, questioning my own judgement due to the awareness that I did not live through the turmoil in the past five months. I was not there to witness how a movement — so empowering at the start — got increasingly suppressed by the authority ; I only witnessed the ugly consequence. Perhaps, if I had been a witness from the beginning, my moral compass would have been calibrated differently.
That said, I believe the functioning of a society must be underpinned by basic moral values. It is not acceptable for police to abuse their power, which there was much evidence of. It is not acceptable for protesters to jeopardise the safety of commuters and road-users. It is not acceptable to set a human being on fire. However, conversations soon revealed a more complex situation. Conspiracy theories led some to believe that, for example, the authority not only provoked protesters but also initiated acts of vandalism. While the police admitted to having deployed undercover agents amongst the protesters, such claims are unsubstantiated. Nonetheless, coupled with the fact that the leaderless protests have no official spokespeople, rumours and conjectures have certainly made it difficult for many to reduce their judgement to a simple moral exercise.
In fact, in such time of conflict, judgement can be dangerous, as we have seen. I do not know what the solution is, but perhaps I would liked to have seen a society more united in condemning violence from both the protesters and the police, putting political views aside.
Coping mechanism
Hong Kong has always prided itself on being a very resilient society. People just get on with life, and the spirit was perhaps best captured by the photo of a Central (中環) office-worker walking defiantly back to his office with his takeout lunch, amidst a tear-gas filled background.
It is clear that some of the protesters aim to destabilise the society. In their view, many Hongkongers have for too long been complacent with the status quo, and so need “waking up” to strive for a future with guaranteed democracy. On the surface, it does seem that these protesters may have a point, for there is certainly a sense that people are committed to live by the motto “馬照跑，舞照跳” even during this period of turbulence (translated as “horse racing will go on, dancing will go on”, it is a popular saying in HK meaning that life should carry on as normal, even in times of uncertainties).
Despite being a city of convenience, Hong Kong is a harsh environment for many of its citizens. High population density means lack of personal space is a big problem. Streets, restaurants and shopping malls are always full of people, because that is where they go to de-stress. During this turbulent time, many people are perhaps even less willing to be confined in their tiny homes (potentially with family members holding opposite political views). As such, during our visit we continued to see people carrying on with their normal, daily lives as much as possible, even under what seemed like “war-like” circumstances.
Apart from the fight for democracy, it is perhaps this blinkered strive for normalcy that many of the protesters — especially those in the younger generations — want to break free from. Life is more than just about earning money to buy a tiny flat to live in. However, for many in Hong Kong, there isn’t an alternative. The only way to cope with the situation is therefore just to get on with life.
Closing thoughts
Yesterday (November 24th), a record number of Hong Kong citizens turned out to vote in the district council election, resulting in a landslide victory for pro-democracy candidates. This is a positive turn of events, which will no doubt bring relief to many, especially that the government had threatened to cancel the election at one point, citing the recent unrest.
Is this the end of the recent chaos? Has the protesters’ voice finally been heard? What is going to be China’s next move? What does the long-term future hold for democracy in Hong Kong? What is the long-term effect on Hong Kong’s next generation who has experienced so much hatred?
Nobody knows.
Most Hongkongers — just like myself — would have been reflecting on the recent events. Regardless of their political leanings, I hope the past few months have given them time not only to gain a deeper understanding of what freedom means, but also an appreciation that it is something one has to respect.
Diversity in opinions is vital for the evolution of a society, but only if it is followed by open discussions. Listen to one another, as anger and hatred can lead to consequences so horrible the world can never imagine.
