THE storming of Hong Kong’s legislature by a mob of so-called pro-democracy activists was an outrage. It has served to seriously undermine the legitimacy of the massive protests at plans to abandon a key provision of the treaty Beijing signed with London when the British handed back this vibrant commercial and financial hub.
The “one country two systems” meant that for 50 years after the 1997 handover, the people of Hong Kong would enjoy freedoms not enjoyed elsewhere in China. One particular provision was that people who lived in the port city could not be extradited to the mainland. It was the proposal to the legislature by the pro-Beijing Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam, that this part of the deal with London be scrapped, that reignited protests which may have seen as many as two million people take to the streets last month.
Five years ago, the Yellow Umbrella protests forced the abandonment of planned changes to the city’s electoral system. Crowds then numbered around one hundred thousand. It is interesting that neither then nor during these latest astonishing demonstrations, has the UK government made any sort of formal protest to the proposed treaty changes. As is their way when it suits them, British governments are happy to ignore solemn agreements if there is more profit to be made from turning a blind eye.
Until the assault and vandalism at Hong Kong’s legislature, the protests had been very largely peaceful. Many of the pro-democracy leaders have condemned the criminal behavior. But their statements are being drowned out by the furious reaction from the Chinese government in Beijing who rightly condemn the thuggish violence. But who indeed were these thugs who used crowd-control barriers to batter their way into the parliament building? And every bit as importantly, why did hundreds of police officers stand by while these hooligans did their worst? In the circumstances, it is not too hard to imagine that those who led the furious assault on the building were agents provocateurs who wanted to tarnish the protestors’ cause. Beijing could not have wanted a better bit of publicity, showing the pro-democracy movement as dangerous and violent.
The Chinese have long memories. The government has not forgotten the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in which a million demonstrators occupied the heart of the capital and at least a million more took to the streets in 400 other Chinese cities. This outbreak of popular unrest was crushed ruthlessly. But in Hong Kong there were mass protests, first of all in support of the Tiananmen crowds and then against the Communist government for their violent suppression of the movement. There is even now a small museum in the city commemorating the Tiananmen Square massacre.
China’s remarkable growth in the last three decades has been underpinned by a drive for conformity, a drive which has only become stronger with the spread of the internet and social media. Hong Kong has long been the exception to this dragooning of the country’s masses. The “One country, two systems” has always represented a weak point in Beijing’s rigorous control. Monday’s trashing of Hong Kong’s parliament could well be more than symbolic. It may mark the end of the freedoms that the people of this city had expected to enjoy for the next 28 years.
