Hong Kong, 2019.
"How's everything there? Did you join the protests?"
A common reaction from friends colleagues who are concerned, and strangers knowing I'm from Hong Kong.
On the subset, especially in the eyes of the foreigner, the divide is binary. On one side of the table, there is the government that is pro-China, pro-establishment, all things authoritarian. On the other side of the table, protesters are demanding freedom. And some close by have now asked me, didn’t the Hong Kong government withdraw the anti-extradition law, why still protest? Violent images on the media are disturbing for many, and it often blurs the reasons that continue to drive and sustain an ongoing social movement.
Protester demands have evolved. In June they began with withdrawal of extradition law, a topic forever touching the nerves of Hong Kongers who have been used to the Rule of Law. Recent social movement history tells it all - 1989, 2003, 2012, 2014 – all about safeguarding personal freedoms and rejecting rule by law. Later tensions escalated and demands evolved into five demands (more elaboration later). Now at its current state, contentions is turning into a clear divide between a police state and the people.
Samples from main protester chants reflect a clear theme. It is extremely important to remind ourselves that, these are not chanted by the violent protesters that we so often see in the media, but also by the “peaceful, rational, non-violent” crowd way higher in numbers. They are chanted not just at the scenes of tear gas vs black shirt in gas masks, but more often in different malls across the 18 districts of Hong Kong, led often by peaceful residents whose hearts are for the cause.
光復香港，時代革命
Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our Times
This is the main theme of the protest, and it is difficult to explain in just a few sentences. The words “revolution” and “liberate” run the risk of demanding for independence, especially due to its origins. Its real meaning, however, represents a participation in a movement of change by those chanting. A change to our times, stand of force against an era of encroaching loss of freedom. And it is chanted out of a love for Hong Kong.
五大訴求，缺一不可
Five demands, not one less
Five demands include 1) withdrawal of extradition bill 2) commission of inquiry into police brutality 3) Retracting classification of protesters as rioters 4) Amnesty for arrested protesters 5) Dual universal suffrage. 1 and 2 were there since the beginning, supplemented by 3-5 on a later date. If one reads carefully, this matches with the first main chant, which is participation demand of a change of our times, manifested in particular by the fifth demand, one existing since 2003. Demands 2-4 is what still haunts the major contentions on the streets today.
没有暴徒，只有暴政
There are no rioters, only tyrannical regime
The Chinese version is a play on the word for rioters and tyranny, both having the character 暴, meaning violent. The chant is self-explanatory, and again ties tightly to the theme of the movement.
721唔見人，831 打死人
On July 21, all got lost. On August 31, killed people.
This refers to two events: 1) Jul 21, a group of people in white appeared in Yuen Long district, starting to beat protesters who were returning from protests in HK Island. For 40 minutes no police showed up as they were “on call” in other districts. 2) Aug 31, in a particular violent incident in Prince Edward Station in MTR, viral videos show police beating unarmed youth. Due to a mismatched count of injured sent to hospital and actual hospital records, there were rumors of a police cover up a killings of people.
This outlines a deep mistrust of the police.
好仔唔當差，當差正仆街
Good kids don’t become police, those who become police are fuckers.
Reflects a wide-spread perception of police being those who fail in school, due to its relatively lower entry requirements in terms of academics. A deeper, more subtle, reading of this is that there exists just a fine line between police and triads, just one is sanctioned by the state, and in reality they are no different.
香港警察，知法犯法
Hong Kong Police, commit crimes while knowing the law
Again directed at the police of committing brutality. A deeper reading is that because police is the only tool for the government to front protesters, they must be protected at all costs, including being protected from any possible inquiry into their wrongdoings. While for protesters, because they are committing violence and rioting, they can be dispensed and arrested.
香港人 加油！
Hong Kongers, add oil!
Self-explanatory, chanted everywhere. For those who don’t know, add oil is direct translation from Cantonese, a word of providing encouragement – in this context self-encouragement for Hong Kongers.
香港人 反抗！
Hong Kongers, resist!
Change to the add oil chant after October 4, the date when anti-gas laws were announced to be in effect. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-masks/hong-kong-to-introduce-anti-mask-law-effective-midnight-media-idUSKBN1WJ0I6 From this night onward Hong Kong has enacted its first emergency law.
蒙面無罪，立法無理
Wearing mask is not criminal, legislation is unreasonable.
A play on the third character in each line “無” which means no. This one is self-explanatory, a slogan that appeared immediately after the anti-mask laws.
As the social movement transformed, the Hong Kong Police Force, and the Hong Kong government institutional violence that it represents, has become the main target of protesters, violent or non-violent protesters alike. This is for good reason. The key issue is one-sided legitimized use of force, and along with it a one-sided manifestation of power using state structures and institutions. The people see a misalignment of justice, that the same rules are unequally applied on both sides. It is ok to shoot a Form 5 student with live rounds and have the student arrested just out of surgery table, but no one knows whether the policeman who fired the live round is suspended temporarily and investigated for his actions, as is customary protocol in police operational procedures. This is precisely the spirit of “rule of law” that people so demand, and a refusal to succumb to legal standards in the north of “ruling by law” – the law should not be just selectively applied to the powerless, but equally to everyone who are in the civil society.
This also reveals an underlying problem of repeated governmental failure to manage the protests, a view often agreed upon by supporters on both ends. There are multiple opportunities that could have deescalated the protests, one example being withdrawal of the extradition law at an early period of the movement. As violence escalated, the government relied solely on the police and its proxies to condemn violence and kill the riots, while offering any other measures to reduce tensions. The ironic part is the government is simply sanctioning police violence to halt protester violence, and offer the police its unrelenting support. This again exemplifies the problem of perceived injustice. But it reflects more of the inabilities of a government to lead the city out of its current deadlock. To cite a number, the latest approval rating of the Chief Executive is at 22%. This is a result of a political system that perpetuates an ineffective government: to enter the leading core team, one must have the support from the north, which effectively limits the number of those willing and eligible. Finding a hardline lefty is one option, but this will immediately fuel political polarization, as evident from the tenure of the previous Chief Executive. Hence now we rely on a lifelong civil servant trained during colonial times, who entered the government through a top civil servant job but is completely detached from the grassroots, to lead. The longer this lasts, the further legitimacy of the government will erode.
It is important to note that however, the events as they stand now, the government is also not presented with many choices. If police are so bad, one might ask, why can’t they be investigated by an independent commission? The issue lies in the fact that the police has thus far been positioned as the only front against extreme violence, the sole pillar behind the establishment. If police behaviour become open for questioning, morale will immediately be destroyed, as many within it have basically given their lives to back a government that in the end betrays them. Implications are, at this step, if violence is still continuing after police are investigated, then the level of pro-establishment forces must inevitably step up, which in Hong Kong means a likelier chance of open intervention from the north – PLA or the armed police force – an irrevocable step that no one wishes to see.
There is also another underlying reason why police cannot be easily removed. The precise problem is Hong Kong’s unique position, forever intertwined with affairs and players of the north. As described by a political analysis on CCP role, the police no longer report to the Chief Executive but the armed police force bosses from the north who in turn each report to a particular faction of the CCP. HK police forces leaders have had frequent visits to the north to interact with the real bosses there, and are therefore playing out certain events according to the wills of these parties. There have even been reports or conspiracy theories that imply certain Chinese forces have already entered the protests in Hong Kong, disguised as Hong Kong police. As such, the police has indirectly become an extended arm of the Chinese state structures. This also explains why Hong Kong officials need to spend such great lengths to emphasize that the government is united, including the police – the government needs to create an image that it is still calling the shots, though the reality is much more muddled.
As the factional fight theory goes, the CCP is all but a unified organization, having two or more general factions infighting. In the situation of Hong Kong, it involves factions of Jiang vs Xi. According to this reading, Mr Jiang has reaped up vast gains in the past when in power, and during the anti-corruption movement under the current president parked all money in HK. Because of circumstances (which may or may not be created by the same factions), Jiang has interest to invest and wreak havoc in Hong Kong, forcing violent military intervention of Xi who would in turn get sanctioned by international community, thereby allowing Jiang faction to take back power. One problem with this reading is, though, if Hong Kong gets a military intervention, immediately she will lose her previous financial value which does not benefit those who are already owning resources in her.
Whether the factional theory is 100% true is beside the point. What it tells is that all things Hong Kong cannot be considered without its effects on the north. There are those who stand to gain lose with the future directions of Hong Kong, it is just less clear who gains and who loses. That said, the latest anti-mask law can be read as a step for the north to intervene in more subtle ways, without brutal effects of extradition law. One all knows the maturity of facial recognition technology in particular countries. You may not be openly arrested in Hong Kong, but the moment you step over the border to the north, you should beware of the legal consequences.
Moving from big players to everyday life, unfortunately the social effects are very real and are only really truly felt by those in the cage. This is about social tensions, heightened emotions, increased polarization causing depression on a daily basis. Social media fuels the divide - one's political tendencies are blatantly visible, and inevitably at heated moments predetermined political bias from personal experience would overcome objective reasoning. Hence we refer to pro-democracy individuals as "yellow ribbon" (color adopted in the 2014 umbrella movement) and pro-China individuals "blue ribbon" - note that there is no green. Each camp only posts media articles with narrative that support their respective stance. Unfriending someone has been a phenomenon since 2014. The same social event each day can have very different readings by different camps. The night of Aug 31 in Prince Edward Station - yellow ribbons go viral with a video police beating unarmed youngsters, while a blue ribbon posted the youngster's crying picture, captioned "OK well it’s time to give you an Oscar's award!" Both these happened on my facebook feed at the same time.
Emotions are not just kept in the virtual world, and real life effects are spreading. Speaking to friends in HK, at the workspace no one talks to each other on political matters, having known which side colleagues are on based on their Facebook posts. Conversations are deliberately kept to the superficial. Members have been kicked out of family chat groups because of different political standpoint. It is an emotionally charged society that is highly suppressing, where people are immediately judged by expression of a political standpoint. In the corporate realm, big companies, even foreign funded ones, with big business interests up north that fail to succumb to pressure have unexplained sacking actions toward staff on strike. And even in the residential neighborhoods considered peaceful and quiet (such as the one I live in), there have been tensions over removal of billings on what call the “Lennon wall,” one night even drawing six police cars to come.
Under the heightened social tensions, police are the ones also largely affected. It is almost a tragic role they are playing, where those in frontline of police force are put to the job of putting down protesters, who then of course become the targets of protesters. Gradually they lose a sense of rationality, performing acts of violence without any hindrance, overreacting to events that have limited tensions, and hence become characters of despising jokes in the eyes of “yellow ribbons.” At an individual level, many are tragic as they are not the real decision makers, but at an institutional level, the police force inevitably has to be condemned for its tolerance of unequal application of violence.
What will happen now? This is a big unknown, as today’s Hong Kong is effectively new territory treaded.
One clear option is for government to seriously consider an independent commission to investigate the police actions – this view is garnering increasing momentum in recent verbatim of various opinion leaders. And indeed for the majority who demand rule of law, in particular students who are on the streets, this is the most convincing step that will help ease tensions. Yet for reasons already explained this could backfire for the establishment, hence one can imagine that this will be a difficult step.
Direct intervention from the north, also for reasons already explained, is unlikely as there are vested interests at play. But more importantly, Hong Kong still has a special status, a free port with a unique legal system based on common law, that can only exist on basis of international recognition (and not by the sole determination of a country). Intervening openly will erode all this, and could even have a ripple effect toward the north.
It is a bit hard to fathom at this point, but social movements do die out as they transform, if the main cause that sustains a movement gradually loses its value and people no longer identify with it. This is what happened in yellow vests in France. This may happen in Hong Kong, for example if violence goes to a tipping point and people deem it unnecessary. But timing is still early for this. Many parties – pro-democracy and pro-establishment alike, condemn violence on both sides. But when a few days after anti-mask law violence escalated, instead of condemning purely protesters, evidence is widely circulated on suspicion of government planting violent protesters among the crowd to incite violence. People are still keeping a lucid mind and providing the movement with a raison d’etre.
Hence we live on, and must keep a lucid mind in supporting the cause. Citing an overquoted line now, “If there is a hard, high wall and an egg that breaks against it, no matter how right the wall or how wrong the egg, I will stand on the side of the egg.” That, at least personally, is always the right cause to stand with.
A common reaction from friends colleagues who are concerned, and strangers knowing I'm from Hong Kong.
On the subset, especially in the eyes of the foreigner, the divide is binary. On one side of the table, there is the government that is pro-China, pro-establishment, all things authoritarian. On the other side of the table, protesters are demanding freedom. And some close by have now asked me, didn’t the Hong Kong government withdraw the anti-extradition law, why still protest? Violent images on the media are disturbing for many, and it often blurs the reasons that continue to drive and sustain an ongoing social movement.
Protester demands have evolved. In June they began with withdrawal of extradition law, a topic forever touching the nerves of Hong Kongers who have been used to the Rule of Law. Recent social movement history tells it all - 1989, 2003, 2012, 2014 – all about safeguarding personal freedoms and rejecting rule by law. Later tensions escalated and demands evolved into five demands (more elaboration later). Now at its current state, contentions is turning into a clear divide between a police state and the people.
Samples from main protester chants reflect a clear theme. It is extremely important to remind ourselves that, these are not chanted by the violent protesters that we so often see in the media, but also by the “peaceful, rational, non-violent” crowd way higher in numbers. They are chanted not just at the scenes of tear gas vs black shirt in gas masks, but more often in different malls across the 18 districts of Hong Kong, led often by peaceful residents whose hearts are for the cause.
光復香港，時代革命
Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our Times
This is the main theme of the protest, and it is difficult to explain in just a few sentences. The words “revolution” and “liberate” run the risk of demanding for independence, especially due to its origins. Its real meaning, however, represents a participation in a movement of change by those chanting. A change to our times, stand of force against an era of encroaching loss of freedom. And it is chanted out of a love for Hong Kong.
五大訴求，缺一不可
Five demands, not one less
Five demands include 1) withdrawal of extradition bill 2) commission of inquiry into police brutality 3) Retracting classification of protesters as rioters 4) Amnesty for arrested protesters 5) Dual universal suffrage. 1 and 2 were there since the beginning, supplemented by 3-5 on a later date. If one reads carefully, this matches with the first main chant, which is participation demand of a change of our times, manifested in particular by the fifth demand, one existing since 2003. Demands 2-4 is what still haunts the major contentions on the streets today.
没有暴徒，只有暴政
There are no rioters, only tyrannical regime
The Chinese version is a play on the word for rioters and tyranny, both having the character 暴, meaning violent. The chant is self-explanatory, and again ties tightly to the theme of the movement.
721唔見人，831 打死人
On July 21, all got lost. On August 31, killed people.
This refers to two events: 1) Jul 21, a group of people in white appeared in Yuen Long district, starting to beat protesters who were returning from protests in HK Island. For 40 minutes no police showed up as they were “on call” in other districts. 2) Aug 31, in a particular violent incident in Prince Edward Station in MTR, viral videos show police beating unarmed youth. Due to a mismatched count of injured sent to hospital and actual hospital records, there were rumors of a police cover up a killings of people.
This outlines a deep mistrust of the police.
好仔唔當差，當差正仆街
Good kids don’t become police, those who become police are fuckers.
Reflects a wide-spread perception of police being those who fail in school, due to its relatively lower entry requirements in terms of academics. A deeper, more subtle, reading of this is that there exists just a fine line between police and triads, just one is sanctioned by the state, and in reality they are no different.
香港警察，知法犯法
Hong Kong Police, commit crimes while knowing the law
Again directed at the police of committing brutality. A deeper reading is that because police is the only tool for the government to front protesters, they must be protected at all costs, including being protected from any possible inquiry into their wrongdoings. While for protesters, because they are committing violence and rioting, they can be dispensed and arrested.
香港人 加油！
Hong Kongers, add oil!
Self-explanatory, chanted everywhere. For those who don’t know, add oil is direct translation from Cantonese, a word of providing encouragement – in this context self-encouragement for Hong Kongers.
香港人 反抗！
Hong Kongers, resist!
Change to the add oil chant after October 4, the date when anti-gas laws were announced to be in effect. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-masks/hong-kong-to-introduce-anti-mask-law-effective-midnight-media-idUSKBN1WJ0I6 From this night onward Hong Kong has enacted its first emergency law.
蒙面無罪，立法無理
Wearing mask is not criminal, legislation is unreasonable.
A play on the third character in each line “無” which means no. This one is self-explanatory, a slogan that appeared immediately after the anti-mask laws.
As the social movement transformed, the Hong Kong Police Force, and the Hong Kong government institutional violence that it represents, has become the main target of protesters, violent or non-violent protesters alike. This is for good reason. The key issue is one-sided legitimized use of force, and along with it a one-sided manifestation of power using state structures and institutions. The people see a misalignment of justice, that the same rules are unequally applied on both sides. It is ok to shoot a Form 5 student with live rounds and have the student arrested just out of surgery table, but no one knows whether the policeman who fired the live round is suspended temporarily and investigated for his actions, as is customary protocol in police operational procedures. This is precisely the spirit of “rule of law” that people so demand, and a refusal to succumb to legal standards in the north of “ruling by law” – the law should not be just selectively applied to the powerless, but equally to everyone who are in the civil society.
This also reveals an underlying problem of repeated governmental failure to manage the protests, a view often agreed upon by supporters on both ends. There are multiple opportunities that could have deescalated the protests, one example being withdrawal of the extradition law at an early period of the movement. As violence escalated, the government relied solely on the police and its proxies to condemn violence and kill the riots, while offering any other measures to reduce tensions. The ironic part is the government is simply sanctioning police violence to halt protester violence, and offer the police its unrelenting support. This again exemplifies the problem of perceived injustice. But it reflects more of the inabilities of a government to lead the city out of its current deadlock. To cite a number, the latest approval rating of the Chief Executive is at 22%. This is a result of a political system that perpetuates an ineffective government: to enter the leading core team, one must have the support from the north, which effectively limits the number of those willing and eligible. Finding a hardline lefty is one option, but this will immediately fuel political polarization, as evident from the tenure of the previous Chief Executive. Hence now we rely on a lifelong civil servant trained during colonial times, who entered the government through a top civil servant job but is completely detached from the grassroots, to lead. The longer this lasts, the further legitimacy of the government will erode.
It is important to note that however, the events as they stand now, the government is also not presented with many choices. If police are so bad, one might ask, why can’t they be investigated by an independent commission? The issue lies in the fact that the police has thus far been positioned as the only front against extreme violence, the sole pillar behind the establishment. If police behaviour become open for questioning, morale will immediately be destroyed, as many within it have basically given their lives to back a government that in the end betrays them. Implications are, at this step, if violence is still continuing after police are investigated, then the level of pro-establishment forces must inevitably step up, which in Hong Kong means a likelier chance of open intervention from the north – PLA or the armed police force – an irrevocable step that no one wishes to see.
There is also another underlying reason why police cannot be easily removed. The precise problem is Hong Kong’s unique position, forever intertwined with affairs and players of the north. As described by a political analysis on CCP role, the police no longer report to the Chief Executive but the armed police force bosses from the north who in turn each report to a particular faction of the CCP. HK police forces leaders have had frequent visits to the north to interact with the real bosses there, and are therefore playing out certain events according to the wills of these parties. There have even been reports or conspiracy theories that imply certain Chinese forces have already entered the protests in Hong Kong, disguised as Hong Kong police. As such, the police has indirectly become an extended arm of the Chinese state structures. This also explains why Hong Kong officials need to spend such great lengths to emphasize that the government is united, including the police – the government needs to create an image that it is still calling the shots, though the reality is much more muddled.
As the factional fight theory goes, the CCP is all but a unified organization, having two or more general factions infighting. In the situation of Hong Kong, it involves factions of Jiang vs Xi. According to this reading, Mr Jiang has reaped up vast gains in the past when in power, and during the anti-corruption movement under the current president parked all money in HK. Because of circumstances (which may or may not be created by the same factions), Jiang has interest to invest and wreak havoc in Hong Kong, forcing violent military intervention of Xi who would in turn get sanctioned by international community, thereby allowing Jiang faction to take back power. One problem with this reading is, though, if Hong Kong gets a military intervention, immediately she will lose her previous financial value which does not benefit those who are already owning resources in her.
Whether the factional theory is 100% true is beside the point. What it tells is that all things Hong Kong cannot be considered without its effects on the north. There are those who stand to gain lose with the future directions of Hong Kong, it is just less clear who gains and who loses. That said, the latest anti-mask law can be read as a step for the north to intervene in more subtle ways, without brutal effects of extradition law. One all knows the maturity of facial recognition technology in particular countries. You may not be openly arrested in Hong Kong, but the moment you step over the border to the north, you should beware of the legal consequences.
Moving from big players to everyday life, unfortunately the social effects are very real and are only really truly felt by those in the cage. This is about social tensions, heightened emotions, increased polarization causing depression on a daily basis. Social media fuels the divide - one's political tendencies are blatantly visible, and inevitably at heated moments predetermined political bias from personal experience would overcome objective reasoning. Hence we refer to pro-democracy individuals as "yellow ribbon" (color adopted in the 2014 umbrella movement) and pro-China individuals "blue ribbon" - note that there is no green. Each camp only posts media articles with narrative that support their respective stance. Unfriending someone has been a phenomenon since 2014. The same social event each day can have very different readings by different camps. The night of Aug 31 in Prince Edward Station - yellow ribbons go viral with a video police beating unarmed youngsters, while a blue ribbon posted the youngster's crying picture, captioned "OK well it’s time to give you an Oscar's award!" Both these happened on my facebook feed at the same time.
Emotions are not just kept in the virtual world, and real life effects are spreading. Speaking to friends in HK, at the workspace no one talks to each other on political matters, having known which side colleagues are on based on their Facebook posts. Conversations are deliberately kept to the superficial. Members have been kicked out of family chat groups because of different political standpoint. It is an emotionally charged society that is highly suppressing, where people are immediately judged by expression of a political standpoint. In the corporate realm, big companies, even foreign funded ones, with big business interests up north that fail to succumb to pressure have unexplained sacking actions toward staff on strike. And even in the residential neighborhoods considered peaceful and quiet (such as the one I live in), there have been tensions over removal of billings on what call the “Lennon wall,” one night even drawing six police cars to come.
Under the heightened social tensions, police are the ones also largely affected. It is almost a tragic role they are playing, where those in frontline of police force are put to the job of putting down protesters, who then of course become the targets of protesters. Gradually they lose a sense of rationality, performing acts of violence without any hindrance, overreacting to events that have limited tensions, and hence become characters of despising jokes in the eyes of “yellow ribbons.” At an individual level, many are tragic as they are not the real decision makers, but at an institutional level, the police force inevitably has to be condemned for its tolerance of unequal application of violence.
What will happen now? This is a big unknown, as today’s Hong Kong is effectively new territory treaded.
One clear option is for government to seriously consider an independent commission to investigate the police actions – this view is garnering increasing momentum in recent verbatim of various opinion leaders. And indeed for the majority who demand rule of law, in particular students who are on the streets, this is the most convincing step that will help ease tensions. Yet for reasons already explained this could backfire for the establishment, hence one can imagine that this will be a difficult step.
Direct intervention from the north, also for reasons already explained, is unlikely as there are vested interests at play. But more importantly, Hong Kong still has a special status, a free port with a unique legal system based on common law, that can only exist on basis of international recognition (and not by the sole determination of a country). Intervening openly will erode all this, and could even have a ripple effect toward the north.
It is a bit hard to fathom at this point, but social movements do die out as they transform, if the main cause that sustains a movement gradually loses its value and people no longer identify with it. This is what happened in yellow vests in France. This may happen in Hong Kong, for example if violence goes to a tipping point and people deem it unnecessary. But timing is still early for this. Many parties – pro-democracy and pro-establishment alike, condemn violence on both sides. But when a few days after anti-mask law violence escalated, instead of condemning purely protesters, evidence is widely circulated on suspicion of government planting violent protesters among the crowd to incite violence. People are still keeping a lucid mind and providing the movement with a raison d’etre.
Hence we live on, and must keep a lucid mind in supporting the cause. Citing an overquoted line now, “If there is a hard, high wall and an egg that breaks against it, no matter how right the wall or how wrong the egg, I will stand on the side of the egg.” That, at least personally, is always the right cause to stand with.
Comments
Post a Comment