On Hong Kong

When I was a little boy, I watched the handover of Hong Kong from the so called “imperialists” on my family’s old TV. I remember that special moment when the Union Jack was lowered and the five starred crimson was raised high above Prince Charles’ head. I stood with pride as the colonialists’ rule over the island came to an end, and the fragrant harbour returned to the motherland.

Seventeen years on, the story of family reunion has taken a new turn, the mother is struggling to contain the cry of rebellion of her child, and the child is shocked to discover that obedience is not only demanded of a Chinese mother, but enforced with violence.

Over the weekend the protesters at Hong Kong had a taste of the domestic. The peaceful protesters campaigning for genuine democratic process for the upcoming 2017 chief executive election were tear gassed by the police. The image of an umbrella holding youth standing defiant amidst a cloud of chemical toxicant circulated around the world, and sent ripples of forlorn solidarity through my veins.

I do not wish to regurgitate the news reports, nor do I want to go into a discussion on the technicalities of Article 45. It is clear enough to me that a government has failed its purpose, when words are replaced with weapons, and the police force is deployed to forcefully police those they are supposed to protect. No petty laws are enforceable on a non-violent citizen body, engaged in political dialogue, however one-sided, and China’s callous attitude towards its own civil, principled citizens, is a sharp reminder of the country’s willingness to trample the conscientious for the sake of harmony.

It is interesting then, to contrast the struggle for democracy in the empire’s former territory to the, however imperfect, democratic Scottish referendum that took place in the UK last week. What a strange twist, I could never have imagined that the child who dreamily watched Hong Kong being liberated from its colonial master, to grow up and witness oppression of the same Hong Kong by its once longing parent; to take pride in the UK’s display of enduring adherence to the democratic tradition, and to be ashamed of China’s inward belligerency.

I do not wish to see conflict in my country. Especially a conflict of means.

Then what? Knowing China today, I do not believe Beijing would give in to the protesters’ demand of a true democratic election. And knowing the world today, I do not believe western nations would stand for Hong Kong’s rights to self-governance. In a perfect world philosophers are kings, but in this world, I would advocate compromise.

In a discussion with L she said, “Compromise is just a polite way of breaking it to the loser.” Perhaps she is right. But I would advocate this position – for Hong Kong to obtain a veto power over candidates appointed by the mainland for election. In such a way, the central government and the citizens of Hong Kong may work together to find an acceptable middle ground.

What I propose may not be acceptable to either party, and as much as I support the cause of the protesters, I cannot help but feel a necessary compromise must be broached before resigning to a tone of finality. As it stands the Chinese government would lose its legitimacy if it was to give in to the protest, and the protesters have committed far too much to abandon their cause for superficial revisions. This brings me to my conclusion, Gandhi once said, “All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.” What is the fundamentals at stake? As an observer, I feel that the fundamental issue is for China to assert its control and prevent independence, and for Hong Kong to retain democratic procedures over its elections and accountability of the elected. These two fundamentals need not to be mutually exclusive, just as Hong Kong and mainland China need not to be opponents.

My utmost and sincere admiration goes out to those who stand on the streets tonight, staying true to their convictions. My hope is that the stand is not in vain, that a meaningful resolution may be found, that the Chinese leaders on both side can recall their purpose, before too much seeds of division and blood are sowed in the streets of Hong Kong.