On June 12th, the peaceful protest in Hong Kong devolved into a riot as police fired rubber bullets and tear gas in the protesters in Hong Kong. This was only one of many violence-filled protests that took place in light of the push for the extradition bill.
The city consistently resists the attempt of China to exert greater control over the region of Hong Kong, with protests being organised for over 24 weeks. As police tactics to dismantle the mostly peaceful protests degenerate into more violent ones such as the use of water cannons, the face of resilience remains as composed as ever.
The battle for the future of Hong Kong rages on as they challenge not only their government machinery but also China. Victorie Hui, a professor at Notre Dame stated, “How this is going to play out is really hard to say. But Hong Kong will definitely never be the same.”
Mapping origins of Hong Kong
Hong Kong is located along the southern coast and is next to the Chinese province, Guangdong. In the 1840s, during the Opium Wars, the British took over Hong Kong and ruled the territory for a century and a half.
In 1898, the British government machinery signed a 99-year lease for the region, which was to dissolve in 1997. As the year edged closer, the two governments of UK and China tried to work out a deal via negotiations.
In 1984, Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister at that time and the Chinese President Deng Xiaoping signed a joint declaration regarding the future of Hong Kong.
The declaration decreed that the UK would return the region to China on July 1st, 1997 if China would give Hong Kong a ‘high degree of autonomy’ until 2047.
Therefore, Hong Kong came to be known as a special administrative region for the People’s Republic of China. The catch was that China could not and would not impose its government’s rule on Hong Kong, and Hong Kong’s status quo of capitalist system and lifestyles would remain the same for the course of the upcoming 50 years. This set up was dubbed the ‘one country, two systems’ rule.
The arrangement basically ensured that the trade and economic policies unique to Hong Kong could be maintained and the status of Hong Kong as an international financial capital remained intact.
This gave Hong Kong its own legislative, judicial and executive powers, “preserving Hong Kong’s familiar legal system and the rights and freedoms enjoyed there.”
Nevertheless, as time has progressed, the line between Hong Kong’s Basic Law and the Chinese government in Beijing has become blurred, as the latter attempts to exert more control.
The Hong Kong Government Machinery
The government machinery of Hong Kong is deemed complicated, but it is essential to understanding the protester’s demands.
The Joint Declaration and Hong Kong’s constitution decree that Hong Kong will administer itself. However, the arrangement also grants China the ability to select Hong Kong’s chief executive.
The catch is that the election committee is made up of Beijing loyalists, which means that the political leanings towards Beijing are strong as they want it to win.
The Basic Law, on the other hand states that the basic aim is to elect a chief executive via a through voting nominated candidates which have been selected by a committee.
For the supporters of democracy, this translates to one person, one vote. In 2007, China announced plans to grant universal suffrage in 2017. In 2014, Beijing revised its plans stating that universal suffrage would be granted, but there was a catch: the candidates were to be chosen by an election committee of China’s loyalist.
This reverse in terms lead to the 2014 Umbrella Revolution. The voting reform was thus rejected, and Hong Kong opted to stay with its previous setup which lead to the election of Carrie Lam.
The Origins of the Protests
The protests began in light of the proposed amendments to the extradition law in Hong Kong. The revisions were triggered by the horrifying case of a man named Chan Tong-Kai in Hong Kong who was charged with strangling his pregnant girlfriend and stowing her body in a suitcase when they were in Taiwan in 2018.
Tong-Kai then fled back to Hong Kong, and since the city does not have a formal extradition treaty with Taiwan, he could not be sent back to face trial. This case was used as the rationale behind the amendment by the government of Hong Kong.
The amendment would allow case by case extraditions to countries that do not have a formal extradition treaty with Hong Kong. This would include China, a country that imprisons rebels and citizens that go against the government.
Those who oppose the amendments are worried that China will use the amendment to their advantage and arbitrarily detain the people of Hong Kong, particularly those who are human rights advocates and those who are open critics of the government of China. The amendment also means that hundreds of people who have angered the Chinese government in the past could face trial in China if it passes.
The changes are also undesirable as China is notorious for kidnapping people from outside its borders and smuggling them to China. This violates the international law, but if this amendment is enacted, the bill would give China the legal rights to do so. The bill has been summed by experts as an attempt on Beijing’s part to exercise more control over Hong Kong.
Ever since February 2019, Hong Kong has been in a state of unrest. The outrage triggered some unsatisfactory changes such as limiting the extraditable offenses.
Hui stated, “This is the last stand in the sense that once the extradition bill is passed, there is no more protection of Hong Kong against mainland China’s criminal system. It is the last step — this is really the last step in a whole series of erosions of Hong Kong’s autonomy since 1997.”
Gaining Momentum
In June, the protests took proper momentum. On June 4th, more than 120,000 students, alumni and parents form 185 secondary level schools signed a petition protesting the law.
One June 6th, above 3000 Hong Kong based lawyers march on the streets, clad in black against the law.
On June 9th, millions of people march to the government headquarters in protest. The protests devolve into a violent skirmish between the police and activists – this was the first of many.
On June 10th, the government announced that it will go ahead with the bill despite the outrage.
On June 12th, the most violent protest in decades takes place as the police uses 150 cans of tear gas and fires rubber bullets on the millions that took to the street. The events of this day birthed a larger movement – one against the government and the police. The activists called for Lam’s resignation and an investigation into the police.
Bigger than the Bill
The demands on part of the protestors thus increased to:
- Full withdrawal of the bill
- Inquiry into police brutality
- Release those arrested at protests
- Universal suffrage in Hong Kong
- Withdraw the word ‘riots’
The Government Response
On June 14th, Lam suspends the bill indefinitely on account of the violence that rocked Hong Kong.
However, her decision to do so backfired as many saw it for what it was – a delay tactic. It was an attempt to make people forget. However, the move did not put protests at rest, as another rally, the largest one yet – of million people – was organised.
On the 18th of June, Lam signalled the end of the bill, but refused to step down or declare the bill as dead. She did (declare the bill dead) on the 9th of July but did not withdraw the bill. It has been speculated that Beijing hindered the withdrawal of the bill.
The following days marked days after days of organised protests, skirmishes of violence and hopelessness.
The moment of victory came on 4th September, as Lam announced the withdrawal of the bill. In a video statement from her office, she stated: “Lingering violence is damaging the very foundations of our society, especially the rule of law. The government will formally withdraw the Bill in order to fully allay public concerns.”
She appealed for protestors to engage in dialogue with the government: “Let’s replace conflicts with conversations and let’s look for solutions. We must find ways to address the discontent in society and to look for solutions.” Read about the decline of education.
The Activist Response
The response from activists has been muted. The withdrawal fulfils only one of the five demands.
Joshua Wong, an activist tweeted: ‘Carrie Lam’s repeated failure in understanding the situation has made this announcement completely out of touch – She needs to address to ALL Five Demands: STOP PROSECUTION, STOP CALLING US RIOTERS, INDEPENDENT INQUIRY OF POLICE and FREE ELECTION!’
In the same vein, Michael Tien, a lawmaker stated that: “I believe the withdrawal of the bill … may be too late because this movement has become more than the bill.”
This implies that the war wages on, despite the success of achieving the first objective of the movement.
