• Thu
  • Oct 23, 2014
  • Updated: 7:55am
Jake's View
PUBLISHED : Sunday, 06 July, 2014, 3:47am
UPDATED : Sunday, 06 July, 2014, 3:47am

My seven hours on July 1 march was worth it for Hong Kong

I went on the democracy march on Tuesday, start to finish, from Holding Pen No. 1 in Victoria Park to the corner of Pedder Street and Des Voeux Road in Central, where one of the marshals said that was enough.

Was it worth it? Did I accomplish anything? The trainer at the gym would certainly say I did.

Seven hours of standing or shuffling slowly along a 7km route, carrying two litres of water in my backpack, no chance to sit down for a rest, soaking wet the whole time because I was caught out by a rain shower in Victoria Park - beat that for endurance training.

But, yes, I do think it was worthwhile. I do think the authorities pay attention to the numbers on the march and I do believe that democracy is essential to Hong Kong's continued prosperity.

I think it is essential to China's, too, but that's another matter. Hong Kong is my home. I have lived here for 35 years and it is for democracy in Hong Kong that I marched. I am a classic Liberal. I stand for free choice.

Several things struck me on the march. First, it was a Hong Kong crowd through and through.

I heard no Putonghua spoken around me - which is unusual these days on the route of that march - and I saw few other expatriates.

I thought I might encounter some glances or comments along the line of: "What are you doing here, gweilo?" There was none. Everyone around me welcomed me if they took any notice at all of the fact that I am Caucasian. Few took any notice. "Join us and you're one of us," was the attitude.

It was also a well-behaved crowd. Other commentators have made mention of how the police have become adept at handling crowds.

I would phrase it differently. The crowd was adept at handling the police. No offence was given. The most I heard were shouts of: "Open the way."

But not all participants were regarded equally.

Those who were thought to be advancing separate agendas did not have the full sympathy of other marchers.

Most notable in this regard was Falun Gong, beautifully turned out in uniform and with professional banners, all led by a sizeable brass band.

Already in Victoria Park there were one or two disparaging remarks from the organisers on the stand along the lines of: "Very pretty, Falun Gong. Now move along, will you."

I think the Falun Gong marchers knew they were treated somewhat as outsiders and I actually feel a little sorry for them. They put a great deal of effort into their show.

Others were also largely ignored, for instance Hong Kong Autonomy with its Union Jack banners. Strange choice, that. Do you people truly prefer being colonised?

The general attitude of the marchers seemed to be one of: "Okay, guys, you've annoyed Beijing. That was your objective. Mission accomplished. But we're here for democracy."

The banners for which I actually heard the loudest cheers from the marchers were simple placards held up by two women on a balcony along the route, bearing the words: "Go for it!"

But I particularly liked a fellow standing on a ladder by the tramway railing, shouting political messages into a loudhailer that had run out of battery or was otherwise malfunctioning.

Bless you. My ears were already aching from all the political cheerleading. An interlude at last.

And among my more memorable accomplishments was proceeding several times through a red light with 20 or more policemen watching, none of whom did a thing. What delight.

Oh, yes, July 1 was Canada Day, too.

Why was a former Vancouverite not quaffing a Labatt's Blue and talking up the BC Lions' chances this year?

Easy answer: he was anticipating the wishes of the Canadian consulate, which has declared itself "strongly supportive of democratic development in Hong Kong" and which has ticked off the Canadian Chamber of Commerce for "regrettably" not giving notice of signing an anti-Occupy advertisement.

If government does not rule with the consent of the governed, by what authority does it rule at all?


Related topics

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

The SCMP is biased. Now get another writer to say how he/she enjoyed the day NOT taking part in the protest march, reflecting his/her satisfaction with the present Govt. After all, 7.1 m out of 7.2 m people didn't take part, give or take a few thousands.
If mainland ran a poll for government officials. I believe 90% of them do not even know this event ever took place.
Neither does the rest of the world. So?
This story was all over the US press. 90% of people don't care about any stories outside of there home area.
I did not participate in the march because of 1) the Falun Gong 2) HK Autonomy 3) the demand of the resignation of CY 4) Anti-china movement 5).........
Ahhh, part of the silent majority that keeps finding excuses to not say anything while complaining about everything.
The 'silent majority' might perhaps not be complaining about anything and are obviously happy with the present Govt.
Another urge you can't put off expressing Mr. VDK, "if government does not rule with the consent of the governed, by what authority does it rule at all?", this is oversimplification. Might you care to note 'the governed' never gave their consent to the government and Queen Vic but Britain ruled HK for 150 years, the governed also didn't not speak out or dissented events between China or UK in 1984, 1990 or 1997,so why should this time be any different about the 'missing mandate'?
Umm, you're referencing, and comparing to, the time when HK was a colony. So the lot of current day Hkers is no better than when they were colonial subjects? I'm glad we cleared that up.
It's also not like people have one shot to demand that they be ruled by a government to which they consent, and after that they forego that right forever. So the fact that people didn't "speak out" before has no relevance. News flash: they're speaking out now.
shouldn't we be asking the author, did he consent in 84, 90 or 97? Is he better now, your argument, or worse off compared to those years?




SCMP.com Account