Twentysomethings left to battle out our future
The funding process of the contentious HK$66.9 billion cross-border express rail link finally came to an end after a marathon session in the Legislative Council on Saturday. It immediately prompted thousands of protesters to besiege the Legco building and repeatedly clash with police.
Young activists from the Post-80s Anti-Express Railway Group surrounded the building after the funding was approved, and demanded to speak to transport chief Eva Cheng. In the ensuing mayhem, some protesters tried to barge into the building, trapping Cheng inside for hours.
At the height of the confrontation, riot police and uniformed officers were called to the scene and had to fend off the crowds with pepper spray. But, all in all, there was no violent suppression of protesters and the police used only minimum force, which was highly commendable.
The rail-link project - believed to be the world's costliest rail line per kilometre - has sparked disputes in and out of the chamber, with voices of growing discontent coming from all sectors of the community.
The anti-rail movement, propelled by a new generation of twentysomething activists, is effectively an extension of earlier protests against the demolition of the Star Ferry Pier and Queen's Pier, and for preservation of Lee Tung Street, better known as Wedding Card Street, in Wan Chai.
This growing civic engagement is basically a heritage conservation movement that is shifting public focus and support onto conserving and protecting the natural environment. Activists are merely asking for a rethink about the use of public space, green living, construction of cultural facilities and promoting national identity. They are also critical of the institutional relationship between government and business, and demand social justice.
Since the 1997 handover, there have been constant clashes of values in Hong Kong between rulers and the ruled. The latest campaign has only accentuated growing public opposition to our biased political system, in particular the functional constituencies. The youth-led movement has forced many of us to act collectively and to re-examine what kind of society we want to be in future. The campaign has also bred a strong desire among young people for a democratic urban planning process and an inclusive government.
Deep structural social contradictions are driving such movements, and the government will pay a high price for taking an autocratic approach: it risks even stiffer opposition to key policies in the future. We cannot afford to wait; the administration must send out signals that it is prepared to reform. We need long-term sustainable development centred on new thinking to find new values to tackle social problems.
An atmosphere of doubt and a culture of scepticism are attacking the very foundations of our society. Although I support the rail link, I also sympathise with the Tsoi Yuen villagers who must leave their homes. And I admire the noble actions of activists to help those villagers. But I loathe radicalism and acts of violence that disregard law and order.
Although our political system is heavily biased towards the business and professional sectors, it doesn't give us the right to resort to violence. Unlawful action, such as storming Legco, could potentially cause more harm than good and pose a threat to the advancement of our youth-led social movement.
Interestingly, members of the post-1980s generation were on both sides of the fence during the Legco confrontation on Saturday; most of the activists and police were all in their 20s. Even reporters at the scene were mostly from that age group.
Our leaders and unadventurous politicians and lawmakers, who belong to the post-1950s generation, would do well to remember the famous quote from US president Franklin D. Roosevelt: 'We cannot always build the future for our youth but we can build our youth for the future.'
