Hong Kong has become a place whose present is unresolved and whose future is unimaginable. After the unexpected violence of the past week, no one can predict how the events of this afternoon, tomorrow, this week will play out. The only certainty is that Hong Kong’s way of life is under immediate threat and its people are coming out in force to defend it.
However, the curse of living in the eternal immediate present is that the stakes for this “last fight” could not be higher, especially since young Hong Kongers fear that if they are defeated in this battle, there will be nothing left to lose.
The failure of the “Umbrella movement” five years ago, when Hong Kongers occupied important thoroughfares for 79 days, seeking greater democratic participation, to win any concrete gains has raised the stakes further still this time round.
Illustration: Yusha
“HK is not China! Not yet!” These few words hastily scrawled on to a piece of A4 paper and tacked on to the concrete strut of a walkway aptly encapsulate the political crisis roiling Hong Kong.
The territory has been plunged into instability after police fired rubber bullets and 150 rounds of tear gas to break up a huge rally on Wednesday, just days after 1 million people peacefully took to the streets to protest against extradition legislation.
“Not yet” is a reference to the terms of the joint declaration governing Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule in 1997, which promised that the territory’s way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years, until 2047.
When it was signed, in 1984, the year 2047 seemed impossibly far off, but the proposed extradition law brings 2047 much, much closer.
By permitting the rendition of anyone on Hong Kong soil to face trial in China, it would effectively remove the firewall between Hong Kong’s common law system and China’ party-dominated legal system.
Though the Hong Kong government has suspended the bill, the process has unleashed a firestorm of fear and anger.
Since the “Umbrella movement,” Hong Kongers have already seen irrevocable changes to their way of life: popularly elected lawmakers have been disqualified by the courts for saying their oaths too slowly or with the wrong intonation; politicians have been forbidden to stand for election; a political party has been banned; advocates have been sent to prison on public order offenses; now the police have used violence against their own people.
The unseemly rush to pass the unpopular extradition law has also weakened each of the territory’s institutions.
The legislature descended into unseemly brawls, with fist fights breaking out as committees dueled.
The civil service and judiciary are no longer seen as politically neutral.
The police force, once seen as Asia’s finest, is an object of popular hatred and its relationship with the public is irretrievably damaged.
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) is so unpopular that protesters carried pictures of her face stamped with the word “Liar” and 6,000 mothers turned out to accuse her of not being fit for office.
Even though the bill has been put on hold, the process has already permanently devalued the institutions that Hong Kong people hold dear.
Hong Kong’s status as a territory of protest is also under threat. The ability to demonstrate has become an important expression of local identity that distinguishes Hong Kong from China, and over the years Hong Kongers have enthusiastically marched with performative flair, mounting shopping actions, carol singing rallies and artistic protests against censorship with blank placards.
Yet the designation of Wednesday’s protest as a riot, combined with court verdicts finding advocates guilty on public nuisance charges, strike at the very heart of the ability to stage a protest.
Today, any call to public action, even the act of giving speeches to a rally, requires a greater degree of caution. The young advocates involved in recent protests have switched tactics to form leaderless, anonymous collectives, hiding their identities with masks and using messaging apps to organize.
The government has begun to act against these, arresting one Telegram group administrator on suspicion of conspiracy to commit public nuisance.
Many advocates no longer welcome their photographs being taken or doing interviews with foreign media. Within the course of a week, they are becoming as cautious as Chinese dissidents.
By shutting young people out of the political process, the government might well have created an underground resistance that sees that radical action can have results.
However, the core values that Hong Kongers cherish include universal values, press freedom, judicial independence and civil rights. These are seen by Beijing as among the “seven unmentionables,” putting Hong Kongers on the front line of the clash between Western “universal” values and the Chinese Communist Party’s need for total control.
Faced with these existential threats, Hong Kong’s default position has in the past few years been a defensive crouch.
“We don’t have a grand strategy,” political scientist Ray Yep from City University told me before this round of protests had broken out.
“In every situation, you just defend what you can the most. This is how you defend Hong Kong values. We defend what we have. It’s defensive, but it can be offensive as well,” Yep said.
When one in seven of the population turns out to protest against the extradition legislation, defense becomes attack, particularly in the eyes of Beijing.
The protest messages on the pieces of paper flapping on the overhead walkway underline the confusion, shock and anger reverberating through the territory in the wake of last week’s violence.
“Stop shooting students.” “Is protesting a crime?” “Is speaking a crime?”
However, equally, there is a flinty determination that underpins the realization that, even if this struggle over the extradition law is won, there will be the next fight, then the next. Because Hong Kong is not China yet.
Not yet, but 2047 moves ever closer at an accelerating pace. One message simply said: “Keep going till the end.”
Louisa Lim, a veteran China reporter-turned-academic, is a senior lecturer at the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne and the author of The People’s Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers