Robert Carroll
The protests here have probably changed the political future of Hong. While on the one hand as we have seen by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee decision, a hardened stance of Beijing, on the other hand the increasing politicization of the next generation here. The genie is out of the bottle but will all the levers that Beijing is able to pull here be able to put it back?
There will no doubt be an even greater concentration of minds in the China Liaison Office and in the capital to try to preempt future moves by students and pan-democrat parties and come up with more carrots and sticks to sway, or swat, public opinion.
Well how did we get into this mess and where does this leave us? Government misjudging of public sentiment saw an emboldened half a million citizens on the streets in 2003 over national security law, Article 23; and later protests over national education, seen as communist propaganda, stirred secondary school students on the street too. In both cases the government backed down. However now we are not dealing with a local government decision but a decision taken by the highest legislative authority in the land, and the last resort committee that is responsible for over seeing matters regarding the Basic Law.
Even though journalists commonly refer to it as a mini-constitution (mea culpa too) the Basic Law is, in fact, as University of Hong Kong’s Professor Danny Gittings explains clearly, in his book, “Introduction to the Hong Kong Basic Law”, a law of the PRC. He also explains convincingly that not only is Hong Kong’s autonomy broad in its scope compared to other autonomous zones, internationally, but that on the other hand we are highly dependent on Beijing’s good will to see it exercised in our favor.
Gittings also points out that the Chinese government has exercised “self-restraint in not applying national laws. Furthermore, while Hong Kong enjoys comparatively wide autonomy, nominally at least, compared to how devolved other examples are worldwide, it lacks a crucial element characteristic of other genuinely autonomous zones, namely an independent dispute resolution body, for dealing with disagreements between the territory and the central government, on issues of autonomy.” He concludes therefore that “if China wants to take away some of Hong Kong’s powers it can do so unilaterally with no more than a nod in the direction of the Committee for the Basic Law”.
Given these reality checks and another; the stiffening of attitudes in an increasingly more powerful, internationally influential and self-confident China, led by a very determined leader, how far can Hong Kong’s opposition parties and the student movements, if at all, persuade the hawks in Beijing that Hong Kong needs more freedom?
It does look as though the government is playing the waiting game, and winning; wearing down the protestors as their numbers dwindle, despite resurgences every time protestors are attacked by police. However the latest police violence against a lawmaker in Hong Kong shows how high standards the police are expected to keep here.
No Comments