Insight | Hong Kong’s independence debacle

Paulo Barbosa

Those that much covet are with gain so fond,
For what they have not, that which they possess
They scatter and unloose it from their bond,
And so, by hoping more, they have but less;
Or, gaining more, the profit of excess
Is but to surfeit, and such griefs sustain,
That they prove bankrupt in this poor-rich gain.
William Shakespeare

It was almost unthinkable a few years ago to talk about Hong Kong independence. The fact that such an issue has become relevant shows that both sides of the argument – the Hong Kong pro-democrats turned into “localists”, and Beijing  – committed major mistakes since the Occupy Central movement.

The arguments used in favor of Hong Kong’s independence (which is totally different to a higher degree of autonomy) are poor and misguided. There are several reasons for this. The most obvious is that 92 percent of Hong Kong’s population is Chinese according to the 2011 census.

Besides, Beatrice Oi-yeung Lam a Hong King University sociology lecturer, rightly pointed out that the categories of “Hongkongese”, “Hong Kong Chinese” and “Chinese” are created by identity surveys, meaning that they are artificial. A “Hongkonger” may feel that he has more knowledge about principles such as freedom of speech and rule of law than a mainland China citizen who was brought up with the one party rule. However, those political and legal factors are not sufficient to build a completely disparate identity.

To make an analogy with my country, Portugal, if identities were built solely from political issues then many of my relatives wouldn’t have considered themselves Portuguese during the long dictatorship which ended in April 1974, two months before I was born. However, regardless of their non-allegiance to the regime, they were and felt like fully-fledged Portuguese.

The independence push in Hong Kong is not as sincere as it is sometimes perceived to be, with the exception of young, deluded activists. I believe that most of the “localists” in Hong Kong are just buying time. They hope that the SARs will extend their autonomy by electing a Chief Executive under democratic rules. They also yearn for mainland China to develop over time into a more open and transparent society. But most Hong Kong citizens are opposed to any secessionist plan. Most of the Occupy Central protesters were against a Communist Party-vetted electoral reform package, not against the Chinese nation.

Chief Executive contender Regina Ip very realistically postulated on the futility of a revolt against Beijing. In a column published by a Hong Kong newspaper she recently wrote: “Yet the powers that China holds over Hong Kong, through the constitutional authority it wields in the Basic Law, through the historical fact that Hong Kong has always been part of China and dependent on China for its livelihood, and through the silent endorsement of large numbers of locals who inwardly understand that there is no better arrangement for Hong Kong than ‘one country, two systems’, mean that such separatist attempts are bound to fail. Democratization attempts will fail if they are rearguard efforts to break away from China. The NPC Standing Committee has spoken and restored calm. No doubt the struggle will go on, but revolt is futile and would only hurt Hong Kong.”

Even the loathed (in Beijing) last colonial governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, said that the pro-independence antics were hindering the efforts to bring more democracy to the HKSAR political system. He said that such an attitude was making “a mockery of a serious political argument [support for democracy].”

As the Legco lawmakers’ oath-taking fiasco clearly shows, to move the debate from democratization to independence is a grave mistake with many consequences for Hong Kong and Macau.

Obviously people in both SARs have reasons to be concerned with inefficient puppet administrations. They are right in expecting and demanding a fairer system. But what we can see now is that each side is becoming more extreme and basing its agenda on demonizing the other.