How does the world view Hong Kong’s political turmoil, from Occupy to the oath-taking saga and the German asylum case? Probably very differently from us

Over the past four years, events like the tear-gassing of Occupy protesters, the disqualification of lawmakers over their oaths, and the asylum-seeking of wanted activists have attracted worldwide attention, and the city’s reputation is at stake

Mike Rowse

Published: 7:00am, 3 Jun 2019

Why you can trust SCMP

“Oh would some power the gift give us, to see ourselves as others see us.” This quote from Scottish poet Robert Burns sprang to mind when I saw in the news that a delegation from the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong was protesting outside the German consulate in Hong Kong.

Led by the party’s deputy leader, Holden Chow Ho-ding, the delegation had gone there to complain about Germany’s decision last year to grant political asylum to two Hongkongers. Activists Ray Wong Toi-yeung and Alan Li Tung-sing were due to go on trial here on charges relating to the 2016 Mong Kok riot, but jumped bail in late 2017.

Germany granted them sanctuary on the grounds that they could not be certain of receiving a fair trial. Such a finding is a serious blow to Hong Kong’s reputation. But, before we look at the merits of the decision, we need to put it in the context of events in Hong Kong in recent years, as they might be seen and interpreted by outsiders.

Start with the outcome of the consultation exercise on political reform in 2014. Beijing’s ruling that all candidates for chief executive must receive majority support from the election committee was seen as highly restrictive and disappointing by democracy advocates. Their demonstration outside government headquarters began on September 26, characterised by yellow umbrellas, and became the Occupy Central movement.

It set out to be a peaceful occupation of a prominent location for a few days, in the same mode as Occupy Wall Street, to draw attention to a grievance. The outcome was a 79-day blockage involving three different locations which disrupted the lives of millions.

For the purposes of this discussion, we do not need to examine the rights and wrongs of the 2014 ruling, or the police use of tear gas to disperse the crowd, or the demonstrators’ lack of a plan to bring the occupation to a smooth conclusion, or the authorities’ decision to let the protest peter out rather than apply the law to impose an end, because there are legitimate opinions on all sides. The point is that the events were widely covered by media around the world. People everywhere saw what was happening.

In subsequent years, Hong Kong’s political system attracted attention for controversial reasons. In 2016, returning officers began to disqualify some candidates from taking part in elections. Six were banned that year and three more in 2018.

The grounds for rejection were the candidates’ advocacy of self-determination or even outright independence. As I have written several times, the whole idea of independence for Hong Kong is absolute nonsense. But that is not the point: in a mature society, voters are left to draw the conclusions for themselves.

Then there was the dramatic saga of oath-taking, which led to the disqualification of several duly elected lawmakers. Starting as far back as 2004, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and others from the pan-democratic camp had taken advantage of the oath-taking ceremony to add declarations of their views on other issues. In 2012, Wong Yuk-man did something similar and was later allowed to retake the oath.

In 2016, the policy of toleration suddenly changed. The Secretariat rejected the oaths taken by Baggio Leung Chung-hong and Yau Wai-ching. Then the government went to court to prevent them from retaking the oaths. Four other members had also embellished their oaths.

In two cases, the oath was accepted, and another two were allowed to retake them. In November that year, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee in Beijing issued an interpretation on how oaths had to be taken. Subsequently, all six members were expelled.

In 2017, a lawmaker was prosecuted for turning little paper flags of China and Hong Kong upside down . The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, led by Starry Lee Wai-king, strongly supported the government’s tough line.

Finally, we should consider the prosecution of the organisers of the 2014 Occupy event. There is a degree of controversy over the charges: causing a public nuisance is straightforward enough, as is inciting others to cause a nuisance. But what was the point of adding “inciting to incite”? Did that make a meaningful difference?

Then there is the question of delay. Given that there is plenty of video footage of the involvement of the Occupy organisers, why did the prosecution action only start years later, reaching the courts in 2019?

Jail sentences won’t silence questions about democracy for Hong Kong

It is difficult to see this as anything other than an oppressive course of action intended to keep a sword of Damocles dangling over their heads for as long as possible. Maybe my interpretation is too harsh, and there are certainly different sides to the argument on all the aspects discussed above.

In the case of Wong and Li, I think the German authorities got it wrong. But they are perfectly entitled to have regard to all the circumstances surrounding the case and reach a different conclusion.

So my message to Chow and Lee, and the government generally, is simply this: it does not matter how justified we may think we are and how we see ourselves, it also matters how others see us. Burns got it right: the ability to do so would be a real gift.

Mike Rowse is the CEO of Treloar Enterprises

Post