Protesting students have much to learn about compromise
By pushing the city to the brink of anarchy, democracy campaign is becoming a lost cause
Hongkongers are not known for their sophisticated understanding of the intricacies of politics. But it has always been their folk genius to know where interest lies.
And it is by doing the right things - things that are useful, advantageous and constructive - time and again that the small city transformed itself into one of the world's financial centres.
There is a reason Hong Kong is often cited by economists as a showcase for the superiority of free-market capitalism: the profit motive, the engine that drives capitalism, is in our genes.
If today's "occupied Hong Kong" is almost unrecognisable, it's because people living here seemed to decide, all of a sudden, that the idea of enlightened self-interest was a joke and chucked it out the window. These people may be the minority, but there is nothing the majority can do - except watch their long-term interests being trampled on and cry: "Look what you've done to my city!"
This is not to say Hong Kong can only be an "economic city" and its people should concern themselves only with the pursuit of money. But if Hongkongers are to give up their pragmatism to become ideologues, and can only think in terms of fear and ideology, any plans that they may come up with will almost certainly be a recipe for disaster.
By now, it should be very clear what the Occupy movement is really about. It's about saying no to the National People's Congress and giving Hong Kong people self-determination. To all intents and purposes, the Occupy movement is nothing less than a secession movement. That's why Beijing's steadfast opposition to it is guaranteed.
Understandably for Beijing, how the chief executive of Hong Kong should be selected is a matter of national sovereignty and security, and what has happened in the last two weeks or so will have confirmed their worst fears. Will Hong Kong people be closer to or further away from "true" universal suffrage after the Occupy movement? It's a no-brainer.
By pushing the city to the brink of anarchy, you end up defeating rather than promoting your cause. Maybe the lost cause is the only one worth fighting for, but is it necessary to make the cause you are fighting for a lost cause? It is painful to see the usually smart, clear-headed Hong Kong people engage in counter-productive behaviour on such a huge, disastrous scale.
There is something infantile about this movement which is led, if at all, by students who are no more than teens. For them, democracy is about instant gratification - like drinking something cold on a hot day. They want true democracy and they want it now.
I find this puzzling. If you really want something badly from someone, shouldn't you be willing to accept what they want - and give up some of what you want in exchange? This is what we adults call give and take, the art of compromise, which allows people and nations to live together peacefully.
