Kapok | Hong Kong and us

Eric Sautedé

The Occupy Central movement is, of course, about democracy and the rejection of the perceived National People’s Congress’ fool’s bargain of August 31st. The central authorities have decided that that the nominating committee for the 2017 Chief Executive election would be identical in number and composition to the election committee of 2012, that any potential candidate would need an endorsement of at least 50% of that massively pro-Beijing committee to run, and that a maximum of 3 candidates would eventually enter the fray. In doing so, they were not only being extremely intransigent and blind to widely shared aspirations; the kind demonstrated by widespread support for the third motion of the June civic referendum. They have actually hollowed out the promise enshrined in article 45 of the Basic Law, which states that candidates should be nominated “in accordance with democratic procedures”. Prejudiced pre-screening is quite the contrary.
And yet, despite these actions and the unexpected release of the White Paper on Hong Kong in June, in which Beijing was ostensibly reaffirming its prevalent authority over the “high-degree of autonomy” enjoyed by the SAR and vilipending the influence of “outside forces”, Occupy Central organizers confided in early September that they expected no more than “a few thousand” participants when October 1st arrived. Is the abusive 46-hour detention of a 17-year old “repeating” accidental leader on September 26th solely responsible for the massive movement that is making its mark on Asia’s “World City”? Are the 87 canisters fired at the crowd on Sunday 28th and a viral video of a seemingly innocent passerby being pepper-sprayed at close range the unique triggers for a 200,000-strong crowd occupying three symbolic quarters of Asia’s financial and shopping capital? How can we explain the endurance of the movement, despite the apparent lack of leadership and the half-veiled threats appearing in the People’s Daily, as well as the growing adversarial sentiment among shopkeepers and the lower half of the white-collar class? Is it the extensive and global media coverage of an exceptionally innovative, self-disciplined and peaceful crusade, one enthusiastically undertaken by boisterous yet geeky-looking teenagers? Or the playful usage of slogans and symbols, borrowed from everyone from Lu Xun to John Lennon, and from May 4th 1919 to May 1968 and June 1989, combined with a versatile and persistent usage of social media? All of these elements may partially account for the impetus and the forcefulness of the “umbrella revolution”, and help to explain its twists and turns, but they do not add up to a sufficient explanation!
With the revelation on Wednesday that Chief Executive C.Y. Leung might have accepted HK$50 million from an Australian company over the past two years as  compensation for acting as the company’s “referee and adviser” back in 2011 arrives the latest—overly dramatic and amazingly coincidental—avatar of the deep-rooted, common thread that can actually explain this rebellious civic movement: trust. More precisely, it is a lack of faith in our own institutions and their gatekeepers. Beyond the initial suspicion about Leung being a communist in disguise, the very fact that the August NPC’s decision was based on a report formulated by the CE indicated an inability to convey to Beijing the underlying currents at work in society, and an unwillingness to shoulder responsibility for the benefit of the whole community. Earlier in May, former chief secretary Rafael Hui Si-yan stood accused of pocketing HK$35 million for being the “eyes and ears” in the government of the Kwok brothers, the two co-chairmen of Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd, Asia’s largest real-estate developer. On September 23rd, three days before the arrest of Joshua Wong, the same Mr Hui had admitted to secretly receiving HK$11 million in 2007 from Liao Hui, then director of China’s Office for Hong Kong and Macao Affairs, simply to pursue his job and continue enjoying his lavish lifestyle. This is something his boss, former Chief Executive Donald Tsang, seemed to have emulated, despite his devout (if not frugal) Catholic faith. With an ICAC investigation on the move, C.Y. Leung is clearly on his way out. What got to him is not the allegedly naïve aspiration for democracy: it is the fact that he could not be trusted. Democracy comes later, when one realizes that only the “least worst” of the systems allow for corrective measures when leaders are exposed for incompetence and dishonesty. Article 45 is thus not a prerequisite, but a liberal setting is, and so is its attendant, “muckraking” press. Food for thought, on both sides of the delta.