Occupy Central 佔領中環

[carlo]

Interesting. Many people were afraid of voting because the ID card numbers would be put on record -- makes sense. And yet some 800k people did so anyway, that makes it even more remarkable.

 

It would seem a wiser strategy to let HKers elect whoever they want and then "bring around" that person to cooperate with the central government for the common good. But then what do I know.

[skylee]

Indeed. Why did people do it? And more and more of them are going to do more. 以卵擊石，前赴後繼。 Why?

[skylee]

Wang Dan posted a photo on a full-page advertisement supporting the vote on New York Times on 17 June.

The photo - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152178473733027&set=pb.105759983026.-2207520000.1404180202.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-xfp1%2Ft1.0-9%2F10347701_10152178473733027_1473050955985535768_n.jpg&size=720%2C960

[gato]

Getting mass support through these votes and marches are a much better idea than the original "Occupy Central" plan.   It's much harder for the government to discredit a movement with wide public participation than actions by a small vanguard group without much public support.   

 

EDIT:

 

Just read the White Paper.   It makes the true but counter-productive point that HK is just a part of the PRC and subject to the PRC Constitution.  One major departure from previous policy it seems to be making is that it ignores the statement in the 1984 PRC-UK Joint Declaration that HK enjoys autonomy from the central government outside of foreign affairs and defense.  

 

The statement in the 1984 Joint Declaration is:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/CurAllEngDoc/034B10AF5D3058DB482575EE000EDB9F?OpenDocument

(2) The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be directly under the authority of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government.

 

In this White Paper, the last part of the paragraph with the reference to "except in foreign and defence affairs" is omitted:  

 

 

White Paper 

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-06/10/c_133396891.htm

(2) After resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, the central government would establish a special administrative region in Hong Kong in accordance with the provisions in Article 31 of the Constitution. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region would be directly under the authority of the Central People's Government and would enjoy a high degree of autonomy.

 

The Basic Law, which was enacted by the National People's Congress in 1990 (coincidentally or not, after Tiananmen Square), already departed from the original 1984 Joint Declaration language ("high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs") by omitting the "except in" qualifier which can be seen as clarifying what "high degree of autonomy" means.  

 

Basic Law

http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_2.html

Article 12 

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government. 

 

Article 13 

The Central People's Government shall be responsible for the foreign affairs relating to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China shall establish an office in Hong Kong to deal with foreign affairs.

 

Article 14 

The Central People's Government shall be responsible for the defence of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

 

This White Paper now omits the scope of HK's autonomy altogether.  Yes, it's a "high degree" of autonomy, but what does "high degree" mean?  It makes the new and expansive claim that HK is only as autonomous as the central government wants it to be.  Apparently all previous agreements are subject to change, if the central government wants to change them.  

 

The agreement that the principles of the Joint Declaration shall not be changed for 50 years after the PRC takes over in 1997 is not dwelled upon.  

[Lu]

Indeed. Why did people do it? And more and more of them are going to do more. 以卵擊石，前赴後繼。 Why?

As you said, 官逼民反.

I agree with Carlo that the most convenient course of action for Beijing would be to just have the Hongkongers elect someone and then cooperate with that person. It's not like the most radical candidate would win anyway, the leader (what would their title be?) would understand that s/he needs Beijing to get things done. With a Hong Kong Ma Ying-jeou, HK would be manageable enough. But perhaps Beijing is just afraid of allowing this sort of democracy at all? If the rest of China sees that 1) 华人 can have democracy and 2) they can win it for themselves from the Beijing government even if they didn't have it before, well, what kind of message does that send?

[gato]

Beijing also only follows its own logic when it comes to many other matters: education equality, real estate taxation, Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, South China Seas, and many others.   

 

Anyway, live report from today's march:

http://www.scmp.com/article/1544215/live-thousands-gather-ahead-july-1-march-barricades-go-central

LIVE: July 1 march begins heading to Central as 4,000 police stand by

 

 

Back to Occupy Central, here's a good article on its origin and reactions since:

http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/content_archive.cfm?id=1403747949887&docissue=2014-26

佔中VS反佔中香港民主進程大鬥爭

 

二零一三年一月十六日，《信報》刊登了一篇名為《公民抗命的最大殺傷力武器》的文章，粗略地論述了「佔領中環」的原則、目標與方法。作者是香港大學法律學者戴耀廷，當時他完全沒有想到這篇文章所引發的連鎖反應。

 

他從二零零六年即在《信報》寫專欄。多數情況下，他不會收到關於文章的反饋，那些文字迅速地淹沒在過期報紙中。他從來不是一個有著生動有趣文筆的專欄作家，他的寫法和語感都充滿學術味道——換言之近乎乏味，他更習慣從法律學者的視角，寫對香港社會的觀察。哪怕是《公民抗命的最大殺傷力武器》這個轟動的標題之下（他承認，這個標題是編輯改過的，原標題並未強調「最大」二字），內容延續了他沉悶艱深的風格。

 

「參與人數必須超過一個關鍵數目，若人數太少，警方可輕易抬走示威者」。他寫道，「只要人數超過關鍵數目，在香港，有一萬人以上應可以達到效果，警方除非出動催淚彈和防暴隊，否則不能驅散示威者……」像在寫一本產品說明書，由一到八，他逐條寫下操作指南。

[skylee]

OMG！ It is 7PM and I am in Causeway Bay and the march is still passing through this area…

[querido]

To Skylee:

I'm concerned about why you would ask "why", but I have no qualifications to talk to you about it other than having observed the "human condition", as you also have. What you were taught to believe by parents and teachers and what your life experiences have taught you since then must be very different from mine.

 

Although I also accepted, at last, that certain things are hopeless, I don't wonder why some people - especially young people - don't know this yet. I understand why they still believe because up to a certain point in my life I also believed. Didn't you, ever, believe those beautiful things you were taught about your people or country or whatever, and then find it painful to disbelieve them? If you were never taught them, or never believed them, or were taught only negatives, I would be curious about what it was like to live like that (closer to reality); I would want to know whether or not you think it is better for people (and for their societies) to know and accept (what you summarized in #60). I guess the symmetrical question would be, upon observing some undesirable state of public affairs, "Why don't they do something to change it?". Then some would wonder what I meant because it is self-evident to them that they have no say-so or power to change anything (as you summarize in #60, but I'm not necessarily talking about China) . 

 

Are you really asking "why"? Here is one person's answer but I'm afraid that it's too self-evident to post an explanation: 

"'This could be the last chance to make our voices heard,' said ... a 22-year-old human rights volunteer."

He still believes that an individual's participation matters or might still matter, and he does not yet know or won't yet accept that the summary of his true state that you made in #60 or that Gato stated or implied in #64 applies to him, or should ever apply to him; he is willing to fight a hopeless battle because he does not yet feel hopeless or does not yet know that he's hopeless (with regard to these things). I'm sorry if this reply is too obvious. Maybe your "why" was about something else. 

[skylee]

I guess I didn't write it that well. It was supposed to be a rhetorical question. Before I further described their behaviour - "以卵擊石，前赴後繼。“, I had already said that it was 官逼民反 at #60.

[abcdefg]

The voice of jaded and world-weary disillusionment speaks eloquently in @Querido's post, #68 above. It's an excellent summary of why I try my best not to get involved in this sort of movements.

 

>>"'This could be the last chance to make our voices heard,' said ... a 22-year-old human rights volunteer."

 

I might have agreed with that idealistic declaration at 22, or even at 44, but not at 66 and not now some years beyond. Let someone else fight this Quixotic fight. I am retired to the sidelines.

[gato]

At the same time, young people in HK should learn from mistakes of the Tiananmen protests in 1989. By not willing to compromise, the Tiananmen protests ended up bolstering the conservatives in Beijing and derailing the incremental reform efforts of moderates in the government.

[roddy]

I like that they've appropriated the date of handover. Celebrate that, Beijing....

[Lu]

At the same time, young people in HK should learn from mistakes of the Tiananmen protests in 1989. By not willing to compromise, the Tiananmen protests ended up bolstering the conservatives in Beijing and derailing the incremental reform efforts of moderates in the government.

From my understanding of TAM, it could not really go down any other way than it did. The people on the square asked for more freedom precisely because they now had the room to ask for it, and once it had been set in motion it was impossible to stop. The movement didn't really have clear leaders who had the authority to make a compromise and then have everyone go home.

I don't know if there is anything there the Hongkongers can learn from. Perhaps they can look at the Sunflower movement instead, from what I know of that, that went down very well.

[gato]

There were leaders, even though the leaders who were not official. Have you seen the documentary on the 1989 protests directed by Carmen Hinton? Think, for example, of the student protest leaders, including Wuer Kaixi, who met with government officials on TV. They were leaders who had a substantial following. If they could have had a clearer, more realistic agenda, they would have been more successful in pushing through changes. They didn't realize how much the government was bending backwards by given them time on TV. Wuer Kaixi turned this victory into a defeat by being very disrespectful and lecturing the government official on national TV. This meeting was used by the conservatives to convince Deng Xiaoping that there was no way to compromise with the students. The students didn't realize how fortunate they were to have Zhao Ziyang in the government until he was placed under house arrest and the conservatives came into power.

Taiwan is not a good example for the HK students. You need a different strategy for dealing with an authoritarian government as opposed to a democracy. In a democracy, voters have power, so you can use a strategy to appeal to voters. In an authoritarian system, the public doesn't have much power. Rather, you need a strategy to appeal to the elites. There are different factions among the elites. Your strategy should help make the reformers among the elites look good and the conservatives look bad. If what you do makes the reformers look foolish, then it will be self-defeating.

[chiuyan]

I do not live in Hong Kong, so I have been following the protest and vote from watching my friends' facebook posts, reading HK and Taiwan news, watching youtube videos, and reading all the comments, etc. But then I was curious what mainland Chinese people thought about all this, so I went to Chinese news sites like Xinhua, Sina.com, ChinaDaily, etc. and could not find anything about it.

Is the march and vote simply not reported in China, or do I just not know where to look or what to look for? Are HK and Taiwan news sites blocked in China (I think youtube and facebook are)?

[gato]

There is a blackout in the media and web about this in mainland China. Almost a complete blackout except for an occasional Global Times nonsensical diatribe. If you searched for the keyword 香港 on Sina Weibo yesterday, you would only get celebrity news and reporting about celebration of 回归 from Communist Party publications.

Even Phoenix TV is toeing the Party line in not covering the July 1 march and subsequent sit-in.

[Lu]

Gato: I have seen that documentary, but it's a very long time ago. I seem to recall that near the end, the leaders did try to end the protests (I suppose it would have been called Occupy Tian'anmen today...) but there were too many people who had just joined and didn't want to go home so soon, and the leaders didn't have authority.

I forgot about the leaders not seeing how good a compromise would have been, so that was another factor. But I think it couldn't really have gone done differently. It takes a certain character to speak up and help instigate such a big movement, such as Wuer Kaixi did, and it's those same character traits that cause you not to see that it's unwise to berate the leaders of the country.

I agree that protesting in a democracy (Taiwan) is different from protesting against an authoritarian government (China/HK). But insofar as I followed the Sunflower Movement, they did some things very well: they were well-organised, experienced in social movements, they managed to keep it all without violence from their end, they got the right leaders on their side (Wang Jinping) but managed to stay clear of politics (DPP), and last but not least they took a compromise and then ended the occupation. That would be useful to emulate, I think.

[skylee]

Murakami Haruki's metaphor of eggs hitting a wall has become our favourite. But of course we have always had the chengyu 以卵擊石. This new Cantonese song was released on 30 June -> 雞蛋與羔羊 (egg and lamb) The songwriter said it was inspired by the movie 12 years a slave.

The song is sensational, but I wonder if there are only two menus.

youtube -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2_DWOyluTs&feature=youtu.be

Mainland China -> http://www.iqiyi.com/w_19rsfkoc15.html

Lyrics -

曲／詞：周博賢

唱：謝安琪

寢室的花香　妻子的瀟湘

過去美好片段夢裏湧上

監倉的窗　鎖鏈的聲響

告訴我知往日成為絕唱

惺忪醉過後還信

生活又如常

怎知卻中伏被騙

成為奴隸　大劫在頭上

不堪設想

A餐雞蛋撞石牆

不怕壯烈下場　決不退讓

B餐俯首做白羊

一世困在牧場

餐券這兩張　怎麼取向

人已到了決志現場　再拖便遭殃

仍扮作昏睡　大夢裏等瞻仰

警鐘給敲響　聲音多緊張

四處迅速褪掉舊有色相

屠刀機槍　高舉得囂張

要過去的價值成呆壞賬

久安慣了曾迷信

福樂是恆常

怎想到昨日還有

會剎那變走　像千噸雪霜

降在頭上

A餐雞蛋撞石牆

不怕壯烈下場　決不退讓

B餐俯首做白羊

一世困在牧場

餐券這兩張　怎麼取向

人已到了決志現場　再拖便遭殃

忘掉遐想

一顆雞蛋撞石牆

不免碎裂斷腸　怎麼較量

一堆雞蛋望石牆

可以變做力場　繼續擴張

今天雞蛋撞石牆

不怕壯烈下場　決不退讓

否則俯首做白羊

一世困在牧場

怎樣較理想　盡早思量

人已到了決志現場　再拖便遭殃

仍扮作昏睡　大夢裏等瞻仰

要是有想像　漂亮

[MPhillips]

...

[fanglu]

one wonders what would have resulted if the Jeffrey Sachs crowd had got a chance to apply their "shock therapy" to China also

 

 

You do realise the exact same policies were being applied at the same time by the Chinese government, right? (Albeit at a slower pace.) The impacts of the reforms (unemployment, inflation) were one of the major motivations for protesters.