Passion for Hong Kong should guide protesters to initiate a way out of the deadlock

Most would-be advisers look to the Hong Kong government to take the first step, but why not the protesters? A leadership council could be convened and a meeting called, inviting all stakeholders to commit to a way forward for Hong Kong’s future

Edith Terry

Published: 6:00am, 19 Aug 2019

Why you can trust SCMP

“Liberate Hong Kong; revolution of our times.” The slogan serves as a red flag to Hong Kong government loyalists and the central government alike. It was first used in 2016 by activist Edward Leung Tin-kei, now imprisoned for his part in the violent Mong Kok protests in February 2016, when democracy activists tore up paving stones to throw at police trying to break up street vendors assembled for Lunar New Year celebrations, an illegal but usually tolerated act.

That one night of violence is now seen as a prelude to a month and a half of rage, as Hong Kong’s yellow-helmeted protesters began a cycle of violence, culminating in the group assault on two mainlanders at the Hong Kong International Airport late on the night of August 13.

The brutal actions upstairs in the departure hall, where protesters blocked check-in passengers for many hours, overshadowed the peaceful demonstration by hundreds of protesters in the arrival hall downstairs.

Rueful protesters later apologised to travellers, holding up signs saying they were “deeply sorry” and “made imperfect decisions” because they were desperate.

The rolling thunder of the avowedly leaderless protest movement has done far more damage than any observer expected, let alone the protesters. Those who believe the protesters are freedom fighters see a fight to the death as one that could change China; those who believe they are destroying Hong Kong are ready to throw them in jail and if police support from the mainland is helpful, so be it.

Is there a way out? There is no shortage of proposals, and no shortage of groups coming together to brainstorm their way to a solution, from the Hong Kong stock exchange’s listing committee to urban planners, bankers, academics, lawyers and assorted pundits through opinion articles in this newspaper and others.

None of these has come forward to engage the public with their proposals for a very simple reason – there are only three actors that matter in this mess, the protesters, the Hong Kong government and the central government.

Here’s how Carrie Lam could end the protest chaos in a single speech

Each of these three has been adamant that the other has to change. The Hong Kong government’s intransigence helped fuel the protests; the central government is clearly signalling the possibility of police or military intervention should the Hong Kong government ask for help.

While international opinion might stay its hand, it can easily accuse at least the British government of hypocrisy since it declared an emergency and brought in military support for the police in 1967, during the Cultural Revolution-influenced riots that led to bombings, 51 deaths and massive arrests.

Most would-be advisers reasonably look to the Hong Kong government to break the logjam, since it holds most of the cards. Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung Kin-chung has been designated to take proposals from the community. Nobody I know has heard anything back.

What if we looked in a different direction – to the protesters themselves? They have demonstrated themselves to be passionately engaged in Hong Kong’s future, albeit despairing about its present. Their slogan, clear though it appears in English, in Chinese is far more ambiguous.

The word “liberate”, or guong fok, can also be translated to mean “recover”. They have declared themselves leaderless, organising themselves over social media platforms such as LIHKG and Telegram. What if the protesters took the initiative to “recover” Hong Kong’s sense of balance, inviting representatives from the community, business and government to commit to a way forward?

To do so, the protesters would need to do three things – dial back their demands to one or two of the most central and agree to stand down in exchange for a commitment from the establishment participants to support their demands; establish a leadership council, and; invite others to sit down with them to share ideas. (The original five demands included withdrawal of the bill, withdrawal of the “riot” characterisation of the June 12 protests, unconditional release of all arrested protesters, formation of an independent inquiry into police behaviour, and universal suffrage).

By offering the protesters a chance to share their ideas, it might empower this stricken city

The agreement would recognise that there would be stragglers who might try to continue the protest and that, even with support, the demands might not be met. It should be prepared to deal even if the government refuses to join a large-scale town hall, perhaps at a university campus.

Beyond the five demands, a meeting could serve as a platform to table some of the many proposals that have been made to address the hundreds of problems that make Hong Kong’s sensitive, educated, well-meaning youth despair to the point that some have taken their own lives. I have my own back-of-envelope list which I would be eager to share.

By offering the protesters a chance to share their ideas, it might empower this stricken city by leaning on their energy and passion in finding a way forward.

Edith Terry is a writer and author based in Hong Kong

Post