.
.
.
Pro-democracy voters celebrate victory on election night.
Hong Kong is in the news again, but this time the news is a bit more inspiring. At its District Council elections this week, a whooping 71% of registered voters – nearly 3 million and over 20% more than four years ago – turned out to vote, and the pro-democracy camp won a landslide victory.
Yellow seats are won by the pro-democracy camp, among which the ones with red triangles are flipped from the pro-Beijing camp. Source: The Stand News
But how did we get here? Let’s go back in history first.
Hong Kong, which literally means Port of Fragrance, is an island on the southern tip of the Cantonese speaking province of Canton (or more commonly known as Guangdong, its Mandarin Chinese pronunciation). Positioned at the end of the Pearl River where it meets the South China Sea, it is naturally a strategic location for trading, and western seafarers established a presence there as early as the sixteenth century.
Source: Wikipedia
While China stagnated under its imperial rule, the western world went through the Industrial Revolution, and invented steam-powered ships. In 1840, after China’s “War on Drugs” – instead of jailing its own people, the government burned opium imported by British merchants – the British government, along with France, responded by invading with their modernized navies, and China lost quickly due to its inferior technology.
As part of the surrender, Hong Kong was ceded to the British.
Fast forward to 1898. After losing a few more wars and undergoing some “gunboat diplomacy” from Britain, China surrendered more land to the British territory of Hong Kong, and a 99-year lease was signed.
99 years feel like forever, the British diplomat thought. And when it’s over, we’ll just do this with China again.
The twentieth century saw great turmoil in China, but as a British colony, Hong Kong enjoyed peace and prosperity, apart from the short time when it was taken over by Japan during World War Two. When the Communists took over China, they left the lease as-is, not wanting to draw the ire of western powers. During the Cold War, Hong Kong served as an unofficial hub for economic activities and intellectual exchanges between China and the western world, which further boosted its prosperity.
Japanese occupation of Hong Kong. Source: grs.gov.hk
And then it was 1997. The lease was coming to an end. China was a different China.
99 years have passed, the Chinese leaders said. And China will never do this again.
Along with the handover was the famous One Country, Two Systems – Hong Kong will retain its political, legal and economic systems after the handover – and the promise that Hong Kong will keep its autonomy for 50 years, until 2047.
2047 is a long time away, people thought.
At the time of the handover, Hong Kong contributed more than 20% of China’s GDP, and the Communists kept tightly to its promise. But as the mainland developed its own economy, coming to the 2010s, that figure dropped to 3%, and the Chinese Communists, as all authoritarian regimes do, started flexing its muscles.
In 2014, a bill was proposed in Hong Kong’s legislative body, LegCo, that will allow China to directly interfere in Hong Kong’s elections. Tens of thousands of Hongkongers took it to the streets, in what is known as the Umbrella Movement, to protest. The bill did not pass the chamber. Almost 20 years after the handover, Hong Kong had its first taste of authoritarianism, while China, on the other hand, had its first taste of democracy.
The Umbrella Movement.
If protesters learned anything from the Umbrella Movement,, it’s that umbrellas are good tools to use against police crackdowns. China however learned the wrong lesson.
In 2018, two tourists from Taiwan, a young couple, went into a hotel in Hong Kong. A few days later, only one left and went back to Taiwan. The other one was found murdered. But since there is no extradition agreement between Hong Kong and Taiwan, the person could not be tried.
In February 2019, a bill was introduced in LegCo to allow extradition between Hong Kong and Taiwan. But since China considers Taiwan “part of China”, the Chinese overlord could not simply have that. Instead, China took the opportunity to try to do something sneaky – instead of extradition between Hong Kong and Taiwan, the bill was phrased as between Hong Kong and “the rest of China.” It’s all good, right?
In case anyone isn’t clear how extradition works: when a person is charged with a crime in one jurisdiction but flees to another, the other jurisdiction will arrest the person and send the person back. Such agreements are bilateral, which means, for example, the US will extradite to the UK, and the UK will extradite to the US. Also, such agreements are often made between jurisdictions that have similar legal systems, so if the UK wants to send a person to the US, it knows that the person will enjoy a fair trial.
And that’s the problem – China and Hong Kong do not have the same legal systems. Hong Kong’s legal system, under One Country, Two Systems, is inherited from the British, with many concepts familiar to the democratic world – independent courts, rule of law, due process, right to legal counsel, etc. But the Chinese legal system has none of those. An extradition agreement between Hong Kong and mainland China will mean that Hong Kong’s independent legal system will be completely compromised.
The people of Hong Kong did not want that. So, once again they did what had worked 4 years ago. They went to the streets and demanded the bill to be withdrawn.
But this time it was different. Having failed to push its agenda in 2014, the Chinese overlord is more adamant this time to assert its influence. And although the 2014 bill failed, China was still able to secure a pro-Beijing politician, Carrie Lam, on the seat of Chief Executive, the head of Hong Kong government, simply because that position is not elected by universal suffrage.
Carrie Lam.
Instead of listening to protesters’ demand, Carrie Lam tried her best to just force the bill through, expecting LegCo, also not fully elected by universal suffrage and predominantly pro-Beijing, to go along.
What did they get? More people on the streets. And as the numbers grow, the crowd started to clash with the police, and violence started to occur.
But things were not yet out of control. The majority of the protesters were peaceful, and they had a coherent voice. As weeks dragged on and no compromise made, the demands grew from one to five, known as the Five Demands:
- Withdraw the bill
- Stop using the word “riot” to describe protests
- Release arrestees
- Independent investigation into police misconduct
- Implement universal suffrage
Protesters use this hand gesture for Five Demands.
Pretty sensible demands, I’d say. At least some compromise can be made, and the city could return to peace. But Carrie Lam and her Chinese overlord had different ideas. They thought they could quell the protests with force.
Face masks were declared illegal. The police started to take over the streets and occupy the city. They started to use more and more excessive force. They started to break into private property without warrants. They started to use force indiscriminately, at people that didn’t participate in protests. They started to target journalists and medical staff.
And as a response, what was once a peaceful protest was forced into becoming an actual riot. Looting and arson started happening in commercial districts. The city became a war zone.
But the protesters could not win a war. They didn’t want a war. They had neither training nor equipment to hold their lines.
A few days before the election, all protesters retreated to the campus of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, or PolyU, where they are still under siege to this day (as of the day of writing, 11/27).
So this is the tragic ending, right? No. China learned the wrong lesson. It is so used to using propaganda and fear to manipulate its people on the mainland, that it thinks it can do the same in Hong Kong. It was so confident that the election would go its way that the propaganda machine even prepared scripts for a pro-Beijing victory.
But where protesters clashed with the police, the people of Hong Kong took it to the streets again. This time, to wait in line for hours to vote. And their voice was heard by the world.
[Ed. Note: Making this our Weekend Open Thread will likely get more people to read it, so that’s what we’ll do. You know the drill.]
*Born in the Year of the Snake and Year of the Monkey, we can simply say: “This fight is not Cypress!”…..It is not seemingly Religious in any regard. It reminds us of our Homeless problem here in the US. When you can’t afford to live…..this is called “Financial Disparity”. The ability of China to extradite Citizens of Hong Kong to Beijing……doesn’t seem that out of hand when you consider it has been 20 years since China took over. Perhaps we are wrong on this, but the reporting on this issue has been flimsy at best. Where are the Investigative Reporters asking two simple questions: (1) Why are protesting? Mental, Phsyical, Emotional or Spirtual? (2) Other than extradition issues what is China doing you don’t like? Name the top three things!
“Implement universal suffrage”…..Hmmm…..sounds like they need a Voting Right Act?
Who is not allowed to vote now? Who are these peoples Representatives in Government? Must not have any…eh?
Hi,
I’m not a reporter but I’m happy to answer your questions. But I’m not even sure what you want to ask, or what your opinion is..
I think that the ‘Ships mean “Cyprus,” for one thing — the island that was mostly taken over by Turks and then partitioned when Greece intervened on behalf of its ethnic nationals living there, and remains so.
His point would thus be this is not a major power taking over a foreign territory, but that Hong Kong (even when colonized by the UK) was always part of China.
Transitioning to my opinion: Yes, this overlooks the transition document, but China (foolishly, in my opinion) may simply overlook the constraints placed on it there.
We’re in the middle of its 50 year transition period back to direct Chinese rule, and it doesn’t seem like anyone is going to be able to stop China from doing what it wants through use of force. But if it doesn’t want Hong Kong to enjoy its favored national status, then it will also lose its international status that redounds to China’s benefit. That’s the best hope for retaining limited sovereignty.
Awesome piece. Very educational, whether you’re familiar with the subject or not. I’m glad the Orange Juice Blog is publishing pieces like this. The more we know about international politics and the way neoliberalism works and influences global crimes and oppression, the more we’ll be able to identify it at a local level.
Vern and I both like it a lot too!
Thanks! I’m glad you all enjoyed it.
Skip the Open Mic Night
#23 Scariest in OC (HB’s Chris Epting) has spent all weekend celebrating the employees of the Weekly losing their jobs a day before Thanksgiving. As a “journalist” he is jubilant that a publication has closed. As a “capitalist” he feels nothing but glee that so many small businesses, bands and restaurants will no longer get the “Weekly bump”. Free publicity that was invaluable to local enterprise. All predictable.
But an OJ Simpson “joke” in 2019? Now THAT’S shocking.
Yes. This self proclaimed champion of domestically abused women used Nicole Brown Simpson’s gory, savage almost a decapitation murder as an opportunity to take some kind of convoluted pot shot at a favorite political target.
Ron Goldman’s brutal slaying was also included. SO funny. SO relevant! Topical even! At the very end of 2019.
This guy.
He has completely insinuated himself into Robin Samsoe’s tragic story. Constantly posting about “his” plaque. Erm -Uh he means- “his plaque” um…FOR her. Despite
not being a relative, or a friend. Never knowing her, in fact. Not even living in Huntington Beach until decades later. He has attempted a cottage industry of self serving attention around her murder.
Now how would HE feel if someone thought it was “funny” to use Robin’s death as part of a (really not funny and confusing) political “joke”?
Granted he is NOT family to Robin. So maybe asking him to understand how Nicole’s children or sisters feel when they see someone using Nicole’s nightmare bloodbath to make a “funny” (in almost 2020!) is too much of a stretch for someone lacking both empathy and imagination.
He was not actually a friend of Robin’s either. So he probably wouldn’t understand how callous and heartbreaking that would be for Ron’s nearest and dearest.
But somehow still…If a “leftist” was as classless, tasteless and cruel as to make a super lame political “joke” about her murder. You can bet we would hear outraged complaints about it for years to come.
Maybe…25 years?
That’s how long it’s been since Ron and Nicole had their lives butchered away.
Let them rest in peace.
You soulless, heartless, brainless creep.
And don’t give up your day job (whatever that is – harassing birds that are trying to nest? Walking old ladies around the harbor? Facebook?) for comedy.
You really suck at it.
Link please…
Skip the Open Mic Night
This is the actual “joke” posted on October 22nd (2019!!!!!)
“Gavin Newsome saying he wants “to look into” why Ca gas prices are so high is like OJ saying he wants to “look into” who may have killed Nicole and Ron Goldman.”
258 likes.
In late 2019.
You can search it on HBCF and Huntington Beach Insider. <–that's Shrek's forum since she and Daly broke up.
It gets better. He followed it up with a Sandusky "Joke" post.
Cause you know…Kids getting molested…comedy gold!
BTW Who is Nicole Goldman?
See , it's both confusing AND not funny. That's talent! It took 25 years to write that howler.
One of our Steve “Chavez” Lodge posts has been going nuts with new views over the past few days. Did something happen on “Real Housewives of OC”? Because if not, it means that he may be running for something — and people are hitting up our link to see how bad of a bad man he is.
Michelle Hadley update?