Occupy Central 佔領中環

[carlo]

Economically, we live in interesting times (as in, the curse). Some are saying that the era of free global capital movements is over (Paul Krugman a few days ago). Others, in China and elsewhere, see the financial crisis and the continuing mayhem as a sign that the whole “Western civilization” is doomed and that all should learn from China’s development model (“restricted capitalism”, as HKer 葉國華 Yip Kwok-Wah calls it in his book “The Uniqueness of China’s Development Model”: the state controlling the capital, rather than the capital controlling the state, as he puts it).

Whether you buy this or not is beside the point. HK is undoubtedly a Chinese city, but it owes much of its autonomy to two things: (1) a large country needs a well-functioning offshore haven, and (2) more importantly, HK is something that no other mainland Chinese city can hope to become in a reasonably short time: “an international finance hub”. Ie capital markets, strong rule of law, IP protection, etc. All trappings that are nice-to-have if you’re building the world’s global factory, and maybe need to capitalize a bank or two, but that become a must-have if you want to create a more open, bottom-up growth engine.

I personally very much hope that good sense prevails in the end. There are many different ideas on how China shall keep on developing, however, and possibly some may believe that the uniqueness of HK’s knowledge infrastructure is now less of a strategic asset than it was before. Hard to say. But I guess a lot depends on how pragmatic issues such as this play out.

[gato]

Good sense sounds good, but whose sense of good sense? You didn't quite finish your thought.

[skylee]

Sounds slippery.

[Guest realmayo]

Others, in China and elsewhere, see the financial crisis and the continuing mayhem as a sign that the whole “Western civilization” is doomed and that all should learn from China’s development model

I get the feeling that post-2007 China did see the US era as finished and decided it was time to bin Deng's 韬光养晦 theory. But now it looks like the US is far from finished, and all China's post-2007 newly-confident island-claiming neighbour-bullying has backfired catastrophically by pushing almost all its neighbours and near-neighbours into the warm embrace of the US military. Don't know if this change might make Beijing more knee-jerk sensitive to what happens in HK, or the opposite, encourage it to adopt a more pragmatic approach.

Thanks for the link to that radio programme earlier Roddy, very interesting.

[skylee]

There are news reports about some mainland official recently mentioning section 18 of the HK Basic Law to some HK politicians. This is section 18 -

全國人民代表大會常務委員會決定宣佈戰爭狀態或因香港特別行政區內發生香港特別行政區政府不能控制的危及國家統一或安全的動亂而決定香港特別行政區進入緊急狀態，中央人民政府可發佈命令將有關全國性法律在香港特別行政區實施。

In the event that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress decides to declare a state of war or, by reason of turmoil within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region which endangers national unity or security and is beyond the control of the government of the Region, decides that the Region is in a state of emergency, the Central People's Government may issue an order applying the relevant national laws in the Region.

I wonder if they are over-reacting. Or perhaps they do believe that 水則載舟，水則覆舟?

[raydpratt]

I litigated United States federal civil-rights actions pro se for over fifteen years, and I later obtained an Associate of Applied Science – Legal Assistant degree, with honors, through an American Bar Association course of study. The one thing that I learned is that there is no such thing as law, that there are only people: people will do good for others, or they will do evil, and no law book will ever jump off the shelf and bite anyone for violating what's written between its covers.

So, what democracy actually represents is a choice of person to implement the alleged law. I'm sure that Beijing understands that it would no longer be Beijing's “law” when implemented by a popularly elected official.

Of course, I support individual freedom and political autonomy for Hong Kong, but given my experiences in the United States, I would caution anyone to consider very seriously what the potential dangers might be.

If you are truly too numerous for the usual jackboot beatings, tear gas, imprisonment, and kangaroo court hearings, then yes, do it. But please consider carefully if you are not.

Even our U.S. traffic courts are corrupt, snide little hell holes that are there to take money, honestly or not. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to litigate in China, let alone protest en masse.

Honestly, prepare for the worst (you are starting what is essentially a war with a gang, and you need to seriously consider what may happen and what you may want to do).

[skylee]

The law professor who suggested Occupying Central (see #1) has talked about and asked people to think about the "costs" they are prepared to pay, which is pretty much what is said in #26.

But it is easy to talk about it. I guess many people might be romanticising the whole thing at the moment. I think it is very easy to talk about 拋頭顱灑熱血 when you don't actually have to do it. There is still plenty of time, though, for them to think it through. I just hope that the "movement" could stay "pure" and would not be hijacked by some political parties.

[gato]

I like Roddy's march from Victoria Park to Central. The Occupy model is aimed to maximize impact for a relative small group of people by taking some prominent public space. But it might be better to get as much of the public involved as possible, to show that there is broad consensus among the public and it's the authorities that are unreasonable and out of touch.

[skylee]

No they want/hope to have at least 10000 people. Not sure if this is your idea of a relatively small group. At the height of the protests it was said that there were about 36000 people surrounding the government HQ protesting the national education curriculum.

[roddy]

Re Li3wei1 up top a bit - how much actual economic impact did that have though, and how much was inconvenience and embarrassment? Economies are pretty resilient things. Block the roads and people will walk, block the pavements and they'll work from home, and hopefully the organisers will be smart enough to realise who it is they're trying to hit here. If they actually affect people's lives and businesses support will disappear. Occupy New York's impact on the city's GDP was how much?

Hard to say though, as I don't think they've been specific about what they want to do. Traffic chaos and having to go the long way round to work is one thing, if they block the ferry piers and effectively seal off entire office buildings then - well, then I suspect they really will get hauled away and I doubt there'll be all that much sympathy.

If you are truly too numerous for the usual jackboot beatings, tear gas, imprisonment, and kangaroo court hearings, then yes, do it. But please consider carefully if you are not.

I think you're projecting a little. This is Hong Kong we're talking about. It's pretty civilized. The police would need to borrow jackboots from the PLA garrison.

I like Roddy's march from Victoria Park to Central.

Right, that's two of us. Just need another 9,998.

[imron]

I like Roddy's march from Victoria Park to Central.

Vote 1 Roddy for 特首

[li3wei1]

Re Li3wei1 up top a bit - how much actual economic impact did that have though, and how much was inconvenience and embarrassment?

No idea. Like I said, it was before my time. All I know is that you could feel the fear among the civil servants of anything that would provoke taxi drivers, minibus drivers, and (possibly) fishermen into some sort of industrial action.

Thinking about it, what would really have an economic impact would be to blockade either the ports (that would require a lot of boats), or the border. It would take fewer people, too. But it wouldn't be as media-friendly, would probably get violent very quickly, and there would be real jail terms if not actual discharges of firearms.

[raydpratt]

I'm sorry, that's funny! -- Hong Kong police more civilized than in the United States -- no jackboots, just warm fuzzy slippers -- I love it! I'm moving!

(Believe me, I am not defending the ill-educated, can't spell half of what they write American police.)

[carlo]

Sorry, I got sidetracked. Skylee said “any ideas”, not necessarily finished ones. Anyway, to make this clear, I do believe that HKers are capable of governing themselves with universal suffrage and all — assuming my beliefs matter something. Second, I think that there are some people in the rest of China who are not familiar with, do not understand or are hostile to ideas such as “one person one vote” etc. So what we are seeing now looks like a bargaining process.

Like with all negotiations, the question is, what is the alternative to a negotiated agreement? How costly would it be for the central government, say, to forget or reinterpret certain committments? At the end of the 90s, I had the strong feeling that HK was a model of development for mainland cities, and the country strongly needed HK financial markets and soft infrastructure to attract FDIs. While economics isn’t everything, consensus for reforms in China is built on economic arguments. If HK autonomy is still needed to carry out the grand design of Chinese reinassance, then no matter what colour the cat is, HKers will get what they want.

On the other hand, maybe for some the success of the “China model” and the economic woes of the West mean that the HK experience is less valuable today than it was a decade ago. I hope not, as I think that would be a colossal failure of “good sense” and would lead to disaster, both economically and politically. But then again, I’ll never get to vote anyway, and I’m more interested in watching how the consensus changes.

[skylee]

On the other hand, maybe for some the success of the “China model” and the economic woes of the West mean that the HK experience is less valuable today than it was a decade ago.

I agree.

[Guest realmayo]

The thing is, if *new* reforms are ever enacted in HK, wouldn't that encourage people in the mainland to ask why HK-ers get the special treatment? So far Beijing can say that it is simply abiding by the don't-change-anything-until-2046 agreement and whisper that people in HK are half-British anyway. But if Beijing ever caved into well-heeled polite demonstrators in Central wouldn't similar demonstations pop up in Shanghai?

[roddy]

Quite possibly, and that's surely a factor in Beijing's thinking. But that should be Beijing's problem. They managed to tell the poor that someone else was going to get rich first, maybe someone needs to tell the low-quality that someone else is going to get enfranchised first.

On the other hand, maybe for some the success of the “China model” and the economic woes of the West mean that the HK experience is less valuable today than it was a decade ago. I hope not, as I think that would be a colossal failure of “good sense” and would lead to disaster, both economically and politically.

I agree that would be unwise, and I think outside of political point-scoring, nobody is seriously regarding the economic omnishambles of the last half-decade as a repudiation of any overall "Western" model. The lesson is a much more specific one - keep a close eye on your banks.

[Guest realmayo]

Are you sure no one thinks that? I mean, if you're right that's great. And I certainly don't think along those lines. But the theory is that, whatever the Politburo etc think, if most of the PLA reckon that it is time for China to regain its rightful place as TOP NATION then things could get tricky.

[roddy]

The PLA? If they're about to invade the west, that's probably worth a new topic.

[Guest realmayo]

Haha, certainly not, no-one's suggesting that, just a theory that explains the more aggresive moves over claiming islands and so on, and could possibly be relevant in terms of any crackdown in HK ... but admittedly a bit tenuous.