Advertisement
Advertisement
Occupy Central
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
Across party boundaries, who has a brief for Hong Kong and its people? Who will work with the government to secure better outcomes for the people? Photo: Reuters

In the face of Hong Kong's discontent, is waiting it out Beijing's best choice?

Kerry Kennedy says much will depend on the image China wishes to project to the rest of the world

Occupy Central as a formal movement was buried before it had a chance to start. Instead we have Occupy Hong Kong.

People are angry - with the police who used pepper spray and tear gas against unarmed student protesters, with the government that seems incapable of reading public feeling and responding to it, and with the central authorities in Beijing who constantly apply a "one country" approach to a "two systems" city.

Citizens can only take so much, and now they have had enough.

At the very heart of the problem is the decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee to offer Hong Kong a limited form of universal suffrage. But the Hong Kong government was not an innocent bystander. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and his colleagues should have worked harder to avoid or at least ameliorate this situation. They should have worked both behind the scenes and publicly in order to be seen to be working for Hong Kong people.

It still may have not achieved what many, although by no means all, Hong Kong people wanted.

Yet, at least it would have been seen to be working for Hong Kong rather than Beijing.

But the local government is not alone when it comes to blame for the current situation.

The city's political parties must also accept blame. The pan-democrats are very good at rhetoric and grandstanding but totally ineffective when it comes to solid policy development, forging alliances across political boundaries and working for the good of Hong Kong rather than themselves.

The pro-Beijing parties are no better. They stand passively by, waiting for the next instruction from Beijing before they dare form an opinion.

Across party boundaries, who has a brief for Hong Kong and its people? Who will work with the government to secure better outcomes for the people? While there is often great support for democracy in Hong Kong, very few local politicians seem to understand that democracy works on the basis of deliberation, negotiation and compromise. Some of these processes could go a long way right now.

The national government in Beijing must also accept blame for the current circumstances. It continues to rule in its old authoritarian way while opening up the country to outside influences through trade, education and other forms of "soft" diplomacy. Li Fei reminded Hong Kong people of the central government's attitudes to dissent when he said last month, "if we give in because some people engaged in illegal activities, that would only bring about more, worse law-breaking behaviour". Thus Beijing sees no area for compromise - no debate, no discussions. By closing off these avenues, the central government essentially forces Hong Kong people to take extreme action.

Beijing is always mindful of the "one country, two systems" policy but it is rarely cognisant of the need to operate more openly when it comes to the "two systems". Of course, the memory of June 4, though now 25 years old, is a vivid reminder to the current leadership of how dissent has been handled in the past. The question is: how will it be handled in the present context?

Beijing has four options. It can replace Leung Chun-ying's government (as it did with that of Tung Chee-hwa) since all appointments are made directly by the central government.

It can send in People's Liberation Army troops to clear out the protesters, as happened on June 4, 1989 in Tiananmen Square.

It can reconsider the NPC's decision on universal suffrage to make it more acceptable to the protesters.

Or Beijing can just wait it out. What is the most likely scenario?

None of these options is palatable to Beijing. The most democratic solution is negotiation on the NPC decision. It could be done if the terms of reference for the second round of consultations were broadened and further options considered by the Standing Committee.

If Leung is replaced, how would this improve the situation? Could a more liberal and people-oriented chief executive achieve better outcomes for Hong Kong people? Someone who could engage with the people may have a better chance of being seen to work on their behalf.

The June 4 solution is by far the worst and it would set China back 25 years. Let us hope cooler heads will prevail and this time the hardliners will not win the day.

The do-nothing option may be attractive but it depends on how high the stakes are seen to be. There is a lot of face-saving to do in the current climate.

At stake is the future of not just Hong Kong but China - can it show itself as a 21st-century world leader rather than a 20th-century insecure authoritarian state? Much depends on the answer to this question, not least the lives of students who so far have led the way in standing up to unwanted oppression.

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: In the face of Hong Kong's discontent, is waiting it out Beijing's best option?
Post