bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Cliff Buddle

The idea of staging a friendly, warm-hearted and decidedly non-confrontational mass demonstration is a rather difficult one to grasp. It looks very much like a contradiction in terms.

But this is  what organisers of the July 1 march are being asked to achieve. And it says much about the sensitive nature of politics in Hong Kong - at least, where relations with Beijing are concerned.

Much attention is being paid to the slogans adopted for the protest. The argument is that they should be toned down in order to avoid upsetting the central government. Mainland officials have made clear their distaste for certain favourites.

So, forget 'power to the people' and 'down with Tung Chee-hwa'. Much better, it is said, to go for something rather less provocative.

Former legislator Christine Loh Kung-wai has suggested that protest banners should be positive. Her proposals include 'We Love Hong Kong', 'Democracy Please!' and 'We are not asking for independence, don't worry'.

These are hardly likely to inflame passions or fuel the fires of  activism. But that is the point. We are talking about a most diplomatic form of demonstration - peaceful, pragmatic and polite. This could only happen in Hong Kong.

It is tempting to reject the whole concept of sanitised activism out of hand. After all, this is supposed to be a protest march. Demonstrations are all about giving people a chance to express their deepest feelings and emotions. They act as a pressure valve, providing an outlet for anger and frustration - a chance to let off steam.

Public protests, therefore, have a particularly important role in a society where democracy - and opportunities for public participation in politics - are limited. This was certainly true of the mass demonstration last year. The 500,000 people who took part had many grievances they wished to air, ranging from the proposed national security laws to the government's handling of Sars and the economy.

This year's march  will serve  a similar function. Many  who join it will want to express their opposition to the mainland's decision to dash hopes of universal suffrage  by 2007. They may not feel inclined to be particularly polite - or to march on egg-shells.

However, the events of the past year do perhaps call for consideration of a more sophisticated and strategic approach.  Here, the organisers have a role to play.

We have learned how easy it is for a  message - and the motives  behind it - to be misinterpreted in Beijing. If tinkering with a few slogans can help ease Beijing's  suspicions and even make it more receptive to the call for universal suffrage,  maybe this is worth a try.

It is important, though, that the impact of the protest is not diluted. This is a chance for Hong Kong people to show how much they want democracy. It is also an opportunity to demonstrate how determined we are to defend our traditional values and freedoms. This is not a message which can be watered down.

But at the same time, there is much to be gained from making clear that these aims are entirely consistent with the one country, two systems concept. They have nothing to do with seeking to overthrow the central government or to push for independence. This may seem obvious, but some mainland officials continue to harbour - and express - doubts.

Take the popular slogan 'power to the people' which is likely to be a secondary official slogan adopted for the march this year. This is a much-used phrase, but in Hong Kong's case it represents no more than a call for universal suffrage - something which even the Basic Law envisages.

However, the slogan does have certain historical connotations and is open to different interpretations. Beijing certainly seems to view it with deep suspicion. So why not use a different slogan which means  the same thing. 'Universal suffrage' has already been adopted as the main slogan this year. It does not have quite the same ring to it. But it makes  the same point.

Yang Wenchang, from the foreign ministry, put it another way. If you know your father does not like lemon tea, he said, why go on giving it to him? Lemon tea, he added, may be healthy - but you know it will make your father angry.

Well, we have freedom of expression in Hong Kong and people are entitled to say - or chant - pretty much what they like, regardless of whether or not it upsets or angers the government.

People marching on July 1 may well feel that it does not matter whether their slogans actually achieve anything or not - at least it will make them feel better. There is something to be said for that.

But the organisers, at least, might well help further the pro- democracy cause by making sure they do not give Beijing any reason for misunderstanding the aims and objectives of this demonstration.

We want universal suffrage and to preserve our freedoms. We are not starting a revolution or seeking independence. How about that for a slogan?

Cliff Buddle is a senior writer for the South China Morning Post



Diplomacy must not dilute impact of our protest