Advertisement
Advertisement
Opinion
The View
by Mark Clifford
The View
by Mark Clifford
Hong Kong protesters have shown they can paralyse businesses. Now can they lead positive change?
- Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s strategy of waiting out the protests is not working. Meanwhile, businesses are caught between protesters and pressure from China
- In the absence of bold leadership from the government, protesters must find creative ways out of the impasse that will not destroy Hong Kong in the process
Who would have thought that we would be calling on experts from conflict areas like Northern Ireland to help Hong Kong sort out its troubles? As recently as June, the idea would have seemed crazy. Yet that is where we are today. Even Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi would struggle to find a way out for Hong Kong.
We are in our sixth month of protests. Each month has brought new levels of intensity and fury. The sorts of violence that shocked the city in June and July are now regular occurrences. Dehumanisation of our fellow citizens is commonplace – by both sides. Reduce others to “cockroaches” and “dogs” and “we” no longer need to see “them” as people, individuals with their own private hopes and loves, disappointments and sadness.
Peace comes when opponents talk. Demanding preconditions is a recipe for continued disharmony. Mandela, King and Gandhi achieved success because governments in the end engaged with them, after those governments’ use of confrontation and violence failed. These struggles took decades.
In Hong Kong, we have a government that refuses to engage with people. This refusal to take Hongkongers’ core concerns seriously is at the heart of the turmoil. Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has spoken about the difficulty of serving two masters, Beijing and Hong Kong. When it comes to the big issues, Lam, like her predecessors, has cared more about her masters “up north” than the Hong Kong people.
Leadership means taking risks. Leaders who isolate themselves rarely succeed. Winston Churchill did not wait for the Germans to stop bombing before he came up with a response. Lam’s idea of waiting the protests out worked in 2014 but this time, it has not.
It is time for Lam to try something else. Engage the public. Have real dialogue sessions. Take risks. Or just quit. The current strategy is simply not working.
Public leadership has never been more important than in our hyper-digital, always-on world. A positive example of Hong Kong leadership came during the daily press conferences that health officials held during the 2003 Sars outbreak to update people about the number and location of new cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome.
These were humbling encounters, because Hongkongers were literally afraid for their lives and scientists did not have all the answers. Government officials, who tend towards technocratic solutions and often imagine that they have all the answers, struggled to manage.
Indeed, political scientist Ma Ngok later concluded that lack of political leadership, a siloed mentality among different government departments, and an overemphasis on technocratic administrative solutions hampered Hong Kong’s ability to fight Sars. So, too, did a fear of offending China. Little appears to have been learned from the strengths and weaknesses in our government that the Sars epidemic exposed.
We have scored zero out of four attempts at picking effective chief executives. Is it unthinkable to have a government that actually looks out for the citizens who pay for it? Hospital and fire services workers have been exemplary in this regard in recent months. They have public support because they are seen to be doing their duty as civil servants.
Secretary for Food and Health Sophia Chan Siu-chee’s brushing aside of concerns about tear gas is a telling example of how administrative loyalty outweighed a public servant’s duty to the citizens who employ her.
Hong Kong’s air was polluted, is tear gas turning it toxic?
Hong Kong’s air was polluted, is tear gas turning it toxic?
None of us knows how this is going to end – as if history had an end – but we need to reconcile ourselves to the reality that the city we love so much will never be the same again.
Coarseness, intolerance, even violence are likely to be permanent features of our landscape. We will see this in graffiti and other displays of a lack of respect for physical property.
Businesses are likely to find themselves in a very uncomfortable position. Companies on the opposite side of the political spectrum – think Starbucks and Cathay Pacific – have suffered.
The obvious strategy for businesses is to remain studiously neutral. This is difficult. Business groups have been asked to support the government. Few businesses have the guts or the financial strength to defy government wishes. This is especially true in authoritarian places. China’s hard line towards Cathay Pacific served as a warning to businesses everywhere.
Rioters crazy to target businesses
Rioters crazy to target businesses
China was the biggest loser in the American National Basketball Association debacle because of the attention it drew to its hardline tactics in narrowing freedoms of speech but it is unlikely that the men in Zhongnanhai will draw this conclusion. Expect more such behaviour from China towards businesses.
As a community we can and must condemn violence. A Hong Kong in which opposite sides trade physical blows is not the city we want.
Starbucks cafes must not be trashed. MTR stations should not be vandalised. Protesters have made the point that they can destroy the city. Now they must come up with creative ways to spark positive change. If we can no longer expect leadership from the government, we must demand it from the protesters.
Mark L. Clifford is executive director of the Asia Business Council
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Let other heads prevail
Post