Election Day HK-style

September 4, 2016

I walked out of my apartment building in the Midlevels to the scene below.

IMG_2945

Election Day on Robinson Road

It’s September 4th, which means it’s Election Day in Hong Kong.  However, this is not like the election days we know in the U.S. where you can vote for candidates at the federal, state, and local level.  Today’s election here is only for the Legislative Council or LegCo and while all 70 seats are being contested, only 40 will be chosen directly by the people.  The remaining 30 are chosen by smaller groups of voters representing various industries and social groups, most of whom are thought to support Beijing.  Historically, the LegCo has been comprised of two parties or factions, those pro-Beijing and those arguing for more democracy in Hong Kong.  This election marks the introduction of a third faction, those identifying as “localists” meaning they’re calling for greater autonomy for Hong Kong and at the most extreme, independence from China.  This election is is also being closely watched because it’s the first one since the Umbrella Protests in 2014, which many credit with giving rise to the localist movement and rousing Hong Kong’s youth from their much written-about political apathy.  The outcome of this election is already being discussed as determining the trajectory for Hong Kong as it rides out the remainder of “one country, two systems”, which does not come to an end until 2047.  Such talk may sound dramatic, but the inclusion of any localists in the next LegCo will formally introduce a new dimension to the political debates in this city and if played correctly by those in the chamber, could mean greater gains in future elections.

Something I have written a lot about since moving here is a pervading sense of sadness about the path Hong Kong is on.  They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t because Beijing ultimately calls the shots.  This election embodies much of what makes me worry about Hong Kong’s future and carving out a path that allows the city to remain dynamic and unique without becoming just another Chinese city.  As I was walking to Hazel & Hershey to compose this post over a very refreshing iced Americano, I was stopped by a woman along the stretch of politicking on Robinson Road. She was HK Chinese, but lived in London and had come back for ten days to canvass for the election on behalf of Alvin Cheng and his Civic Passion party, one of the higher profile participants in the Umbrella Protests who was ultimately arrested and sentenced to 21 days in detention.  She was telling me how the mainland had “parachuted” people into Hong Kong in the past year and applied for them to get permanent resident cards so that they could vote in the election this year and tip the results in favor of pro-Beijing parties.  She proceeded to tell me how she could tell who the Mainlanders were their “style of clothes” and use of Mandarin.  She also told me that a lady had come up to her the other day who was from China and told her she was “ruining China” by campaigning on behalf of Civic Passion.  While there may have been strands of a conspiracy theory in her talk with Beijing sending people to Hong Kong to tip the election, it’s not wholly inconceivable given the embarrassment to Beijing if localist parties win seats and gain a legitimate forum for their calls for greater autonomy and even independence from China and the very noticeable population of Mainlanders living in the city.  Yet what I find even more insightful about this woman’s comments is the “us vs. them” mentality that if we could graph over time, we’d see a steady increase in such an attitude among a growing portion of the Hong Kong population.  Commenting on their dress, physical attributes, and language show a rising awareness of differences between Hong Kong and the rest of China though they are all Chinese.  Once again it mirrors what has happened in Taiwan over the last 20 or so years where the Taiwanese identity has superseded any feelings of loyalty or identity with the mainland.  Or take another city-state with a sizable Chinese population – Singapore – and while many comparisons are made between Hong Kong and Singapore, few raise the idea that while there is a large number of Singaporean Chinese, seemingly very few identify with China or have an emotional loyalty to the country based on their shared ethnicity.  Now Singapore has been an independent country for over 50 years, but what is to prevent Hong Kong from evolving in that direction, at least in terms of forging its own identity distinct from China.  If you read the back of the Civic Passion flyer I received, it’s interesting to note that they are not calling for independence, but something more akin to advancing a Hong Kong identity and safeguarding the city’s autonomy as it was supposed to be when the “one country, two systems” set-up, all through “constitutional reform”.

IMG_2947

Civic Passion’s Platform (of sorts)

Something noticeably missing from the run-up to today’s elections was a spirited debate about the issues.  Part of the problem is that the city has a Chief Executive who is not a part of any party sitting in the LegCo, but effectively put in place to be a puppet of Beijing, so the likelihood of bringing a platform to fruition through cooperation between the legislative and executive branches is low.  I think the lack of debate is also due to the oversimplification of candidates’ positions to either pro-Beijing / establishment or pro-democracy, so with the  introduction of the localists this binary oversimplification becomes harder to perpetuate.  Of course the democrats and localists need to win enough seats to maintain an effective veto, which would require 24 seats to thwart the passage of those acts that require a super-majority.

The debate that did take place in the run-up to the election was mostly relegated to what was happening on the sidelines.  Two weeks ago there was a lot of talk about censoring discussion of independence in Hong Kong classrooms with various comments coming from government officials about the danger of such discussion in the schools and the need to reinforce the notion that Hong Kong is an “inalienable” part of China.  Even the Chief Executive, C.Y. Leung, weighed in stating that “there is little, if any, room for secondary school students to discuss [Hong Kong independence].  Because from perspectives such as historical, political, constitutional arrangements and stipulations in the Basic Law, it is very clear that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of our country. What room for discussion is there?”  Such talk would seem like a clear violation of the freedom of speech enshrined in the Basic Law, but then again these do not seem to be times where the rule of law means all that much in a city where China has been stealthily and steadily encroaching on freedoms.

So I sit here and wait for the results from today’s elections secretly hoping that some of the localists win seats and the pan-democrats, including the localists maintain enough seats to hopefully foster some meaningful discussion in the LegCo about Hong Kong’s way forward in the run-up to 2047.

Advertisements

Power to the People

July 3, 2012

Just a quick word before heading to bed.  After a wandering around Central in a suit for meetings with law firms and quick jaunt to Jordan across the harbour to see my tailor, Louis, I met up with friends to go to a 川菜 (Sichuan) private kitchen in Wanchai and then a Taiwanese dessert place in Causeway Bay for some shaved ice.  The good food aside, my first meeting this morning was in the building (and quite possibly the same floor) where Salomon Smith Barney’s offices used to be when I was an investment banking analyst.  Walking down the escalator and across the overpasses this morning towards the harbour was kind of trippy because I used to do the same walk over ten years ago.  The feeling wasn’t quite deja vu because I was fully present in the moment and could easily link it back to the past event, but it was one of those moments when you realize in some ways how far you’ve come and in others you are still very much the same person you were all that time ago. with just a touch more awareness.

As you all know, there were protests this weekend in Hong Kong against many things including the swearing in of the new Chief Executive, the environment, housing prices, human rights on the mainland, education, jobs, and practically any other social, political, or economic cause that you can think of.  When I asked Hong Kongers I know how they feel about things here, they express a lack of trust in C.Y. Leung, the new Chief Executive, but there is also a resignation that nothing is going to change anytime soon.  I don’t know if that resignation comes from the wisdom (or jadedness) of older age or from a very practical view that as long as China calls the shots from Beijing, change in this city is not going to come anytime soon.

I read an interesting op-ed piece in Monday’s South China Morning Post by Lau Nai-keung, who is a member of the Basic Law Committee of the NPC Standing Committee.  What this means is that Lau is on the committee that makes sure that the Basic Law is being follows. The Basic Law Hong Kong’s mini-constitution that enshrines its freedoms and way of life until 2047.  One could argue that Lau is a Beijing sympathiser and his op-ed piece is not the most clearly written, but it tries to lay out an argument that pro-democracy forces in Hong Kong are looking to use people power to both weaken the government’s hand and force Beijing to allow universal suffrage for the Chief Executive in 2017.  The piece also seems to argue that the pro-democracy forces are just waiting for China to collapse so that Hong Kong can go its own way as a truly autonomous city-state more akin to Singapore with real elections.  While it’s an interesting notion to think about Hong Kong as an independent city-state, I am not quite sure what Lau is arguing for except that if the pro-democracy forces keep pushing people power, then the chances that a national security law will be implemented as required under Article 23 of the Basic Law will be nil.  It sounds to me like Lau wants this law passed as one who has been ordained to uphold the Basic Law, warts and all.  It also sounds like he remembers quite well what happened when the Hong Kong government tried to pass a national security law in 2002 and sparked the largest protests to date on Handover Day in 2003 with upwards of 350,000 marching in protest of the law.  The man is afraid of what the people might demand and what Beijing may decide when pushed to the brink, but yet he does not offer any real solution to the problem except to almost blame pro-democracy forces of “peacefully subverting the system” as provided for in the Basic Law. 

I need to give this some more thought, but I have been thinking about it since it’s so timely and sometimes half a thought is better than none.