Are Hong Kong’s leaders speaking the same language as the people?

It makes sense for officials to emulate Beijing’s language on foreign affairs, but it raises questions over the intended audience for their words
The way they speak suggests the opinion of their bosses in Beijing matters more than the pressing concerns of everyday Hongkongers

Peter Kammerer

Published: 6:45am, 5 Oct 2021

Why you can trust SCMP

A patriot I am apparently not. When Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and others in her administration speak of national security and related issues, their language is unfamiliar to me.

Their speeches are peppered with phrases and ideas that I don’t hear other Hongkongers utter. Expressions like “foreign interference”, “external forces” and “black hands”; this is mainland-style terminology that is alien to a city that has been used to bland bureaucrat-babble.

In the past few months, the United States has been the target of foreign ministry and Hong Kong government vitriol, the language in press releases and statements being virtually identical.

The government, in welcoming a ministry “fact sheet” detailing 102 claimed instances of American interference in local affairs, contended that the “malicious acts” had now been exposed with “ironclad evidence”.

“Hong Kong people can now grasp the facts, understand clearly the years of interference by external forces in Hong Kong and avoid falling prey to the malicious attempts of the US,” it said.

At a National Day reception, Lam said “a small number of anti-China individuals” had used the media to portray unrest that followed an attempt to introduce a controversial extradition law in 2019 as “a reflection of Hong Kong’s deep-rooted problems and that they could be solved through democratic reform and political dialogue, which I am afraid was a trap made by foreign forces”.

Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po, writing in a government report on Hong Kong’s business environment, said “shameless individuals willingly served as puppets and foreign proxies, begging foreign countries to sanction the nation and SAR”.

Given the rivalry Washington and Beijing are locked in and the sanctions imposed by American lawmakers on a number of the city’s and mainland’s top officials over their reactions to the protests and violence, I understand why they are upset.

Lam and the others have obviously gone to patriot training school. Accusing outsiders of being behind problems has become commonplace for Beijing since former US president Donald Trump started his trade and technology war against China.

‘Foreign interference’? China is no stranger in other countries’ affairs

Key figures in Hong Kong’s democracy movement fanned the flames by meeting American lawmakers. When some called for sanctions, the fire had been well and truly lit; patriotic Chinese were bound to respond angrily.

The protests did not need “external forces” to prompt them; they were the result of government inaction to demands. Saying the resulting violence and clashes with police were spurred on by the US and others is not believable to those who experienced the frustration of those times first hand.

Now that the national security law is in place and Beijing has shown it is truly in charge, those words make all crystal clear. Under “one country, two systems”, it is the “one country” part that has to always get priority.

The narrative, then, is that it was those pesky Americans and their hangers-on who created all that trouble for Hong Kong. Beijing stepped in and – by putting laws in place and firmly enforcing them, then ensuring only patriots govern Hong Kong – all is “back on track”.

01:44

Hong Kong police raid opposition group’s museum collecting evidence for national security law case

To have the people on their side, political leaders need to be honest, have integrity, be deferential, inspire and communicate clearly. The manner in which Hong Kong’s top officials are chosen means they don’t have to try too hard to please those they are governing.

This raises a question, given the noticeably changed language: Just who are their words directed at? It’s safe to assume it’s their bosses in the capital rather than ordinary mortals in their hometown.

Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, stipulates that the city’s chief executive and government have to answer to Beijing on issues of national interest.

US rivalry with China has inevitably dragged in Hong Kong, so it makes sense that the city’s officials speak as one with Beijing on the matter – although their use of almost identical language will take some getting used to.

But when it comes to correcting their mismanagement of pressing livelihood concerns like housing, health care, the wealth gap and pollution, let’s hope they speak more plainly.

Peter Kammerer is a senior writer at the Post