Letters | Hong Kong protest movement would have been better off without violence and vandalism

Reading Time:2 minutes

A child wearing a mask of US President Donald Trump is interviewed during a “march of gratitude” to the US consulate in Hong Kong on December 1. Although the anti-government movement has been marred by violence, it has also shown tremendous creativity. Photo: Reuters

Published: 6:50am, 14 Dec 2019Updated: 6:50am, 14 Dec 2019

On December 8, Hongkongers took to the streets en masse once again. That peaceful rally once again showed our determination to fight for democracy and human rights without bloodshed, although regrettably, fires were set at entrances to the High Court and Court of Final Appeal.

In the past six months, the government has remained arrogant and reluctant to reach compromises with protesters and heal divisions, even after the pro-Beijing parties suffered a landslide defeat in the district council elections. The government has also been ridiculously lenient with police officers when it comes to allegations of illegal and violent behaviour.

As a university student, I understand the anger of my peers, some of whom believe violence is the solution. However, it is obvious violence is not a viable approach, especially in the context of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has witnessed vandalism and vigilantism, with certain shops targeted and people with opposing views being beaten up. Some claim a violent escalation of the protests would force the government to give in, but I beg to differ. Not only has the government stood firmer and rejected the protesters’ demands, the violent acts have given the government the perfect excuse to ban rallies.

True believers in human rights should not only stand against authoritarian rule, but also live by democratic virtues. Atrocities like setting fire to an old man and slashing a police officers’ neck are an attack on human dignity and terrible examples for the next generation. Besides, such violent acts give all pro-democracy protesters a bad name, and allow their opponents to argue that they are endorsing mob behaviour.