Advertisement
Advertisement
Occupy Central
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
In the six weeks of protest, only one formal meeting has taken place between government officials and the protesters.

Hong Kong needs a political solution, not a legal one, to Occupy protests

Stephanie Cheung says clearing the streets of protesters will only result in a hollow victory for the government. Rather, it should bridge the social divide by responding fully to the concerns raised

President Xi Jinping has made it clear that the buck stops with the chief executive for bringing the "umbrella movement" to a close. Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has made it clear that there is to be no further room for negotiation with the students, while Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has acknowledged that the Occupy protest is the biggest social movement Hong Kong has faced in its history.

With US President Barack Obama stating unequivocally that the US had no involvement in fostering the movement, blaming it on foreign instigation is no longer tenable. The government should at last face the fact that the movement is a social/political issue requiring a social/political solution, instead of pretending it is a law-and-order issue to be solved by the police, or a rule-of-law issue to be solved by the law courts.

The government has been playing the protest out like a court case, as it reckons that, on the one hand, by dragging it out, the movement will fizzle out naturally as support diminishes, while on the other, it always has the option of forcible eviction by the police. Either way, the government wins - or so it would seem.

However, a far-sighted government would realise that such an approach will lead to a pyrrhic victory.

In the 40-odd days of protests, only one formal meeting has taken place between government officials and the protesters, and that was at the request of the Federation of Students. The students have come up with lists of different demands, whereas the government declines negotiation. This is most frustrating, not only to the protesters, but also to the public, who have to suffer the consequences of this deadlock.

We need not take too literally the protesters' demands for a reversal of the electoral framework of August 31, and open nominations. Instead, we can be unified behind their cry for a more just society, where political power is better shared. We need to keep these youth engaged and motivated instead of alienating them and killing off their enthusiasm.

One 15-year-old student described her ordeal when the police used tear gas on protesters. The fear and pain she went through, she said, was nothing compared to the pain in her heart. She was shocked and indignant that rulers would use violence against citizens expressing an opinion out of love for Hong Kong.

That kind of trauma is in the collective memory of the protesters. Even after the protests are quashed and the streets cleared, unless the government wins back the hearts of its youth, there will be wide-scale disaffection, and distrust and disrespect for the authorities.

As things stand, the government is unlikely to muster the two-thirds majority support needed in the Legislative Council to pass its electoral reform proposal. Even if the protests end, reforms will still not get off the ground.

The government will encounter more and more difficulties in pushing through policies (even for non-political issues). The pan-democratic camp has pledged non-cooperation until the demand for civic nomination of the chief executive is resolved, while the occupiers have the ability to gather in great numbers at short notice to protest.

Unless the government uses this opportunity to reach out, in the long run, Hong Kong will become ungovernable.

It is still not too late for our government to listen and build a bridge across the political divide to forge a consensus. The public should be invited to express their opinions through a formal consultation, with a view to reaching a broad consensus in the community.

Lam has already offered the students a two-pronged process to deal with the issue of nomination of the chief executive: one, by making a report to the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office; and, two, by setting up a multiparty platform for further discussions.

All it requires is for the government to go one step further, to upgrade the report and discussion platform to a formal consultation resulting in a supplementary report to the National People's Congress. This should satisfy the demand of the protesters for the original report to be changed.

The government should also consider an amnesty arrangement, to grant a general pardon for protesters who leave the Occupy sites by an agreed deadline. After that, obstruction in public places could be prosecuted without impunity. This will avoid the scenario of the police being swamped by thousands of protesters turning themselves in, and each making long political speeches in court.

An amnesty would secure peace of mind for the protesters. It would also deter further protests, as those who persist in occupying the streets after the deadline would be unlikely to gain public sympathy. In that way, order may be restored with the least resentment, and without resorting to force by the police.

The issue of an amnesty has to be broached sensitively, as the Occupy Central participants have committed from the start to surrender themselves to the police. Neither did the students ask for amnesty. Without sensitive handling, such an offer of an amnesty or the imposing of a non-consensual deadline will probably be seen as an insult, motivating resistance and martyrdom.

The extent and duration of the protest proves that the government has been out of sync with the younger generations. The administration should heed this wake-up call by creating a channel for our youth to voice their opinion, and tapping their talents.

The supplementary consultation may also invite suggestions on ways to heal the community now torn by extreme polarisation. Hong Kong has always thrived on the diversity of its people. Diversity in opinion is nothing to be feared. If we remain level-headed, respectful and caring of one another, we can resolve the conflict. It is within the government's power to usher all parties onto a constructive path of building and healing.

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Political fix
Post