Searching for a unique identity
People power on the march?
The July 1 march has, by now, become an icon, a symbol of Hong Kong solidarity, something the government under Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa has failed to articulate. Despite the very hot weather, the organisers claim that 530,000 people joined the march on Thursday, compared to a police estimate of 200,000.
But the numbers game belongs to the old politics. People did not turn up merely to be counted within the politics of mobilisation versus counter-mobilisation. Before the march, there was much debate about the slogans to be used by the participants. Whether to adopt 'return power to the people' as a slogan has become a point of contention between the pro-Beijing and pro-democracy camps. The former equated this to a pro-independence agenda while the latter defended it as a legitimate demand for universal suffrage.
Does a slogan matter that much? As a discourse of the ordinary citizens, 'power to the people' simply conveys the message that the people do not trust the powers-that-be and want to take back into their own hands decisions affecting their well-being and destiny. Thus, when the Article 23 national security legislation was perceived to be a threat to Hongkongers' long-enjoyed freedom, it triggered a severe backlash last year.
Since then, Beijing has tried hard to use economics to absorb politics. The campaign for democracy has been labelled confrontational and steering Hong Kong away from the nation. The Tung administration has stuck to the old-style administrative absorption of politics. Despite pledges to reform the advisory system, those appointed remain mostly from the narrow pro-government and pro-Beijing circle. Both governments have failed to respond positively to the community's single most united demand - that of opening up the system of government.
The majority of marchers have no intention of antagonising Beijing, but neither are they prepared to shut up whenever it says no. Vice-President Zeng Qinghong's belated affirmation of Hong Kong people's right to use various ways to articulate their views represents a more sensible 'soft landing' approach, or else Beijing would have to face the embarrassing need to label all the marchers anti-central government and pro-independence.
This year's march was not just a replication of last year's. The popular mood seemed less desperate or fatalistic. Many people are still unhappy with the current governance. They are also increasingly resentful towards the scare politics played by some mainland officials and local pro-Beijing conservatives.
Last year's outburst was triggered by a strong collective resistance to losing Hong Kong's hard-earned freedom, while a major call this year is to fight for more democracy.
There is now certainly a sustainable collective voice for better governance in Hong Kong, which underlines the demand for political reform. It symbolises the search for a pro-active Hong Kong identity within the new national context. Sceptics might worry that the local population is over-emphasising its 'Hongkongness' at the expense of national identity. This concern is uncalled for, as striving for the best for Hong Kong should not be seen as adversarial to China's national interests.
Both Mr Tung and mainland officials have said they are listening. But rhetoric aside, it is too early to say if they are sincere about reorienting their policies in favour of the majority wishes of the people. The possibility remains that they may become more nervous about the rising tide of people power and resort to a more hawkish line.
Anthony Cheung Bing-leung is a professor in public administration at City University of Hong Kong and chairman of SynergyNet, a policy think-tank
