Hong Kong’s Waning Fight Against China

*Before we proceed, I need to address several things:

When I say “Chinese government” in this paper, I’m referring to the government representing the political interests of Mainland China/the Chinese Communist Party.
Hong Kong has always been a geographic part of China, which renders it, technically, a part of China.
If you’re interested in the debate of Hong Kong vs. China, I strongly encourage you to do your own research and formulate your own opinion on the matter.
Although I grew up in Hong Kong and the city has largely influenced me, I will refer to Hong Kong citizens using a third-person narrative to avoid unnecessary bias.

Please keep in mind that this is an editorial in which I attempt to look at facts and different sides of the picture extensively and holistically. With this knowledge, I’ve woven throughout the fabric of this article my fair and honest evaluation of the political turmoil unraveling in Hong Kong. I’m more than happy to talk about these issues with you; please know that I’m just an email away. With these housekeeping notes out of the way, let’s begin to unravel this convoluted matter of paramount importance in the 21st century.

The best time to run in Hong Kong is at 6:30 pm. That is when the city comes to life. I’ve always been a city kid, and I have never seen a place as beautiful at night, with the possible exception of New York, as Hong Kong. Every weekday, as I lace up my running shoes and prepare to head out, I feel a tingle of excitement running along the back of my spine for the beautiful scenery I am about to witness. Later, when I run past the decorative, grandiose buildings along Central, hear joyful chitchats by the piers, and witness the overall livelihood of the city, I can’t help but feel a sense of immense gratitude for this layered and diverse place that I live in. Unfortunately, that moment of reflection always turns into something else, something darker—a hint of fear for what this city could become.

Hong Kong’s history is complicated one. During the Qing dynasty, China went to war with British Empire and lost, leaving the latter to officially establish Hong Kong as one of its colonies in 1843. For the most part, the British maintained control of Hong Kong until 1997, where they officially “returned” HK to China. To ease the transition of the British handover from Hong Kong’s capitalist system to China’s communist model, the “One Country, Two Systems'' pact was established. Generally speaking, the agreement stated that HK would remain in semi-autonomy for 50 more years, making a full return to China Communist Party (CCP) rule in 2047.

Two things require clarification at this point. According to the two systems agreement, Hong Kong is still to “come directly under the Central People’s Government,” but they are to retain “a high degree of autonomy.” This autonomy allows the continuation of special democratic freedoms that have been previously granted in HK under its British colony days, such as “the right to vote'' under Article 26 and “freedom of speech…,press..., [and] assembly” under Article 27. In signing the deal with the Chinese government, Margaret Thatcher said, “these are fundamental freedoms and they must continue.” It is, as Thatcher put it, this unwavering belief in fundamental freedom and basic human rights that makes Hong Kong very radically different from Mainland China—the former operates under a democratic scheme whereas the latter a communistic scheme. Regarding which system and their respective qualities are better to manage a nation is beyond the scope of this editorial as arguments could be made both ways, but it is pivotal nonetheless to address this difference as many are unaware of this political ideology difference that sharply divides these two regions with one technically belonging to the other. This also explains the rising trend of HK citizens specifically referring to themselves as “Hong Kongers'' instead of just “Chinese” (I will address this interesting phenomenon more in the following paragraphs.)

From 1997 to the early 2010s, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had indeed respected this rule and allowed Hong Kong to remain a semi-autonomous special administrative region (hence the full name HKSAR.) Unfortunately, it has become clear in the past decade that China isn’t waiting for this deal to expire in order to close off its political borders with Hong Kong. While there were numerous efforts on behalf of the CCP to interfere with Hong Kong democracy by corrupting and influencing its politics to become more pro-China, Hong Kongers have always risen up and pushed back against these legislative attempts through peaceful and large-scale demonstrations. For the most part, their efforts succeeded due to the sheer power in the number of protestants who showed up. Countless citizens hold up billboards with signs signaling pro-democratic messages like “Give Us Democracy,” “Human Rights,” and even “Free Hong Kong, Revolution Now,”—reminding me of strenuous fights for a more egalitarian future mirroring the French Revolution.

Although there have been countless demonstrations occurring in Hong Kong, the most important ones no doubt happened in 2019, where protestors fought as hard as ever against a newly proposed extradition bill. Should the bill have passed, extraditions to mainland China would’ve been permitted. This was a very worrying sign for Hong Kongers because they feared that the CCP could’ve further suppressed democratic voices by directly transferring arrested activists considered “a threat to national security” (terminology used on the extradition bill) to mainland soil. For the record, the Hong Kong government has announced officially that the extradition is only meant to deal with the gravest of crimes and “will not impinge on freedom of speech, of the press and of publication.” Regardless, the protests against the extradition bill have shown us that progress, no matter how slow or how minute, can be made. Hong Kongers must stick to that undying spirit of theirs to fight for a better and fairer future. As was the case with the protests on extradition, after five months of fighting, it eventually led to its withdrawal.

“Organisers said more than one million people took to the streets of Hong Kong on June 9, 2019, to protest the government’s proposal to change extradition laws to allow the transfer of fugitives to more jurisdictions, including mainland China.”

It’s clear that HK citizens don’t trust the Chinese government, which is understandable considering how the CCP have breached the two systems agreement they signed earlier on. For instance, five employees working for a book store in Hong Kong that sold books exploring corruption within the CCP (whether these books are legit is not known, but that’s besides the point) magically “disappeared.” Later, one of them appeared on Chinese television confessing to his crimes. This is deeply concerning. Despite multiple third parties expressing their concerns, such as the foreign British Minister, Philip Hammond, and the EU’s European External Action Service, Hong Kong has yet to reveal whether China was responsible for breaching the “two systems, one country” agreement in this series of disappearances. Several employees were found detained in mainland China but then resurfaced in Hong Kong. They then requested that HK authorities drop their case looking into their disappearances and returned to mainland China soon after. The outcomes of this and countless other parallel situations are, frankly, nefarious, and they verify the growing concern that despite the magnitude of the demonstrations and the unwavering democratic spirit of Hong Kongers, progress seems to be lacking. Several factors could explain this, with one potentially being the sheer potency of the Chinese government to play the long game and “outlast” the demonstrators and their will to fight for their freedom and rights.

The stance of Hong Kongers, especially young citizens, is surprisingly straightforward. In interviews with South China Morning Post, pro-democracy activists claim that they are simply holding China accountable for their previous agreements, that is, to allow Hong Kong to operate with its own political means, to maintain its democracy, and to allow free speech. Politician Martin Lee says, “I am not in despair because I know we are doing the right thing. I know we have the moral high ground...they [the CCP] are doing all these things they promised not to do, and we are just holding them to their contract.” Although there is truth to this statement, I don’t think that Hong Kong protestors have always been in the moral high ground. Countless violent protests have ranged from destroying public property to burning debris on streets. At the same time, I can understand why protestors have decided to choose this path of violence. After years of failed peaceful protests, what else can they do to fight for their basic rights as human beings living in a society they love? In this aspect, the undying and unwavering democratic spirit of Hong Kongers is admirable and sheds a beacon of hope on the fight for a more egalitarian society and world. Consequently, this could also be considered naïve given the sheer potency and everso changing political interests of the CCP.

On the other hand, the stance of the CCP, according to Hong Kong’s pro-China politician Regina Ip, is that “HK cannot enjoy ‘two systems’ without acceptance of the country…If you want to keep your autonomy, you have to respect China’s sovereignty, security, and developmental interest.” This viewpoint is understandable, and it is clear where both sides clash due to conflicting interests. Perhaps China should make clear about what exactly their future plans are for Hong Kong so that Hong Kongers can at least understand and work towards a mutually beneficial future, but this moment has yet to arrive. Of course, the rebuttal for Hong Kong activists is self-explanatory: how can they enjoy their “promised” autonomy if the CCP is the one breaking the agreements? Transparency for a future action plan is something the Chinese government should work toward to honor basic cooperation and to create channels for open-minded discussion.

Recently, the Hong Kong government passed a new national security law that prohibits “secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces that endanger national security.” Acts such as waving independence flags and chanting pro-independence slogans that aim to overthrow the national government are now banned, and offenders could face time in prison depending on the severity of their crime. Many fear that this is a step further from the Chinese government to curb their basic rights, which in this case mainly concerns their freedom of expression. Again - the Hong Kong government made clear that the basic rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents would still be protected, but its use of diction is certainly more obscure and unnerving than ever before.

Mimi Wilmerding ‘21, who can be considered both a Hong Konger and an outsider to the fervent protests for freedom and democracy, wrote beautifully about her thoughts on this unfolding situation. I’ve bolded parts where I feel is particularly relevant to the discussions in this editorial. “Hong Kong has been my home since I was 5. Since I was 10, I have always felt totally comfortable going around the city alone. I used to think of HK as Disneyland because it was so safe. I think I have lost my wallet three times in Hong Kong and every time, a stranger has found it and brought it back to me. Hong Kong is full of people from all backgrounds that have a mutual love for the city. I always thought of it as a super safe, unified place. I was there at the beginning of the summer of 2019 when the protests started. At first, they were super peaceful and the demands HK people had were limited and reasonable. It was really cool to walk in the protests when they were peaceful. I came back to Hong Kong at the end of the summer when it had started to get violent. I was doing an internship over an hour commute from my house and MTRs kept on getting shut down. Rioters would throw petrol bombs into the MTR cars and so it was really scary. The violence escalated super fast and so did the demands. Overall, the majority of Hong Kong and almost everyone I talked to (both locals and expats) felt like the demands the protestors were asking for were unreasonable. Overall, it felt really unsettling to see Hong Kong as such a violent place after always seeing HK as such a calm, safe city. When the new law got put in place that basically ended the protests, the vibe of Hong Kong was really weird. Also, with COVID, everyone was already feeling unsettled and scared for the future. The fight and conversation between HK vs China doesn't feel resolved- China just shut it all down. Now, the people of Hong Kong have much less freedom in how they can express and fight for what they believe in. I feel like Hong Kong needed to compromise a little bit more with their demands before everything escalated. If they had done so, I think everything would have gone more smoothly and more in HK's favor.” She’s right. A common ground must be derived, but just how on earth do we do that?

In consideration of the CCP’s influence over the HK legislation, their actions that go against the “one country, two systems” agreement are “understandable” in light of rapid political changes in the world today. Unfortunately, the truth is that we live in a world composed of nations that operate primarily out of its own political interests, which revolve around a set of ideologies serving and justifying the nation’s stance in different regimes, whether it’s social, property (the case we’re dealing with here), or otherwise. This mindset explains China’s need to reinforce its territories and to establish itself as a dominant power on the global stage. The good news is that, as Thomas Piketty recently wrote in his book, Capital and Ideology, “political leadership always requires some level of moral and intellectual leadership, which depends in turn on a credible theory of the public good or general interest.” In the case of China, its relationship with HK is no doubt convoluted, and, truthfully, it seems that both parties—HK pro-democracy advocates and the CCP—need to make amends at this point. Easy alternatives such as extending the agreement and respecting its rules, or other new fiscal policies in support of Hong Kong’s autonomy, are easy to spell out for HK citizens but hard for the CCP to follow given the everso shifting political dynamics. On the other hand, completely and immediately taking over Hong Kong is unlikely to be a wise decision on behalf of the CCP, as no doubt further violent protests will ensue. A middle ground is needed, and the grand question is whether both parties are willing to be open-minded to sacrifice in consideration of the greater, global good and to reimagine the city for not what it is, but what it could be—a possible future for both parties to happily reside in. It may be that third party intervention is necessary on such a grand issue, with US president-elect Joe Biden perhaps playing a big role in the future in discussing with Beijing over its breach of agreement and suppression of human rights in Hong Kong. It’s a sticky topic with murky solutions, but a test of pivotal importance of democratic stamina and its stand against authoritarianism and suppression. Right now, despite Hong Kong’s “moral high ground,” its democratic light seems to be slowly fading away in darkness.