Benny Tai is an academic. He has
taught constitutional law at the University of Hong Kong for more than
20 years. He’s penned a weekly column for the “Hong Kong Economic
Journal” for the last seven. It’s not hugely popular; after all, he uses
his column inches to wade into matters such as the rule of law and
procedural justice. But the trajectory of his life has been altered by
just one of them. In a January 16 article in the HKEJ, he advocated the
use of civil disobedience in Hong Kong as a last resort in the fight for
universal suffrage—including a full blockade of Central. And it’s taken
off.
Hongkongers have been demanding universal suffrage for years. But lately, it seems that all efforts have led to dead ends. The July 1 demonstrations have become a yearly ritual that Beijing and the SAR government shrug off, consistently ignoring the public’s demands. 2010’s de facto referendum was a new form of political activism, but low voter turnout meant it was hardly a success. Beijing may have promised that the Chief Executive will be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, but our political future remains grim. It seems impossible that Beijing will allow authentic democratic elections in the city. And so Tai, who has always been thought of as a moderate thinker, believes that the time has come to take it to the next level.
He proposes an occupation of Central, planned for summer 2014, intended to give Hong Kong greater leverage in future negotiations with Beijing. This isn’t like the first “Occupy Central”—he isn’t proposing to camp out under the HSBC building. Instead, Tai wants to bring the city’s financial center to a standstill. The symbolism is all there: Hong Kong is willing to sacrifice economic gain—or even paralyze all economic activity—in exchange for political freedom.
“Civil disobedience is the nuclear option,” Tai says. He believes that the second version of “Occupy Central” can only garner the support of Hongkongers if it is backed by a moral force. Therefore, the movement must be based on non-violence and self-sacrifice. “Protesters have blockaded the roads in Central before. If we simply blockade the roads, the consequences will remain the same and the public will not sympathize. However, it will be different if the participants are willing to be held legally responsible.”
In other words: protesters will not resist arrest. If they take part, there’s a good chance they’ll end up behind bars. Founding chairman of the Democratic Party, Martin Lee, has said that he is willing to take part, risking imprisonment and his professional credentials. The movement certainly has its backers.
A “deliberation day” comes next: all participants will be divided into focus groups of 10 to 15 people. They will engage in active discussion to decide on acceptable political reform. It will be a large-scale experiment of deliberative democracy, something which has never been seen in Hong Kong. Many question its feasibility, but Tai has high hopes.
“In Hong Kong, we lack informed decisions. The de facto referendum was a form of direct democracy, and people did go to cast their votes. But had the voters thought thoroughly? In a democratic system, people don’t just follow others, nor do they make their decisions based on intuition,” Tai says. “Deliberation is meant to [create this]. Not only will it influence social activism, it will also have an impact on the mode of governance, because we will have set up a very high bar. People will expect the government to adopt such deliberations in their own policy-making.”
Next, a city-wide ballot will be carried out in order to obtain a mandate for the political reform that was shaped and approved on “deliberation day.” The form of the ballot is still unclear. It could either be a de facto referendum triggered by the resignation of a lawmaker, or a civil referendum similar to the one organized by HKU’s Public Opinion Program during the CE election last year. It’s interesting that Albert Ho of the Democratic Party has already agreed to resign from his Legco “super seat,” despite his party’s opposition to the de facto referendum in 2010.
“Ideally, Beijing will have compromised before we need to occupy Central,” says Tai. But if Beijing hasn’t yielded to public pressure by then, then the blockade goes ahead—and chances are, the arrests follow. Tai thinks that the government will bear a heavy cost if it disperses the participants by force, as it might trigger different forms of civil disobedience. “Hong Kong will turn into an ungovernable place, if all taxi drivers launch a go-slow protest, or all citizens refuse to pay taxes.”
In his own “Occupy Central” movement, Benny Tai is emphasizing the participation of the middle-class and the middle-aged.
“This group of people might have children, so they don’t think only about themselves. I hope they want to put more thought into it, and do something for the next generations,” explains Tai, who has three children. He also argues that the middle-aged have less to lose than the young, whose futures lie before them. “For young people who take part, the cost is higher.”
Tai is also aiming for the support of those who enjoy high social status, including moderate political leaders, former government officials, religious leaders and scholars. He has sought two partners for the movement: Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, a pastor who took part in Operation Yellowbird, which helped dissident leaders escape the mainland after the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown; and Professor Chan Kin-man, who teaches sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Chan was a member of the now-disbanded Alliance for Universal Suffrage, a coalition that formulated a political reform proposal and engaged in negotiations with Beijing.
But there’s one big question: will this focus on the middle class weaken its support base?
“This is the limitation of the movement,” says Icarus Wong, deputy convener of the Human Civil Rights Front. “A successful social movement must be supported by people of all classes and organizations.”
Wong doesn’t object to the movement’s origins, but he is worried that the working class might not take an active interest in the “Occupy Central” movement because the discussion centers on political systems.
“People might claim that universal suffrage will not improve their livelihoods,” says Wong, and they might therefore be uninterested. He suggests it is important for organizers to visit different districts and get in touch with different community groups in order to consolidate support.
Veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung is largely supportive of the movement, but he has his doubts.
He doesn’t believe that successful mass movements can be engineered in a top-down manner—because they are so often sparked off unpredictably.
“They [Occupy Central organizers] are not doing anything apart from planning the oath-taking day. This defies the dynamic of social movements,” he claims. “They say that nothing needs to be done in this year’s July 1 demonstrations because it is not yet the final moment. This is unreasonable. They don’t understand the dynamic: we need to expose the corruption in the system and make Hongkongers angry. We can only generate momentum if we struggle against the system in different ways.”
The “Occupy Central” movement is portrayed as a last resort in Hong Kong’s pursuit of democracy.
“Leaders like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela have moral power because they made numerous attempts [in the pursuit of democracy],” says Long Hair. But think about these world-changing leaders—none of them reached their goals in one simple step. His question is a good one: what will the leaders of the “Occupy Central” movement do if it fails?
Will it mark the beginning of a wider political movement? If the leaders of the “Occupy Central” movement are not prepared for a long fight, the protest might be seen as little more than a feel-good gesture, its members fooling themselves into thinking that they have sacrificed for the cause. But despite his reservations, Long Hair thinks that Tai has made a huge breakthrough. At least people are discussing the possibility of using civil disobedience to fight for democracy in a conservative society. Hong Kong has never seen this kind of activism: this year-and-a-bit prelude; a daring experiment in deliberative democracy; the large-scale practice of civil disobedience.
It may be too early to tell if the “Occupy Central” movement will succeed or fail. Is it just the pipe dream of a fusty academic? Or is this a new way to confront our political reality? Let’s continue the discussion. Reshape it. Perfect it. There’s a good chance that the movement will fail and Hongkongers will still be denied the right to choose our leader. But Benny Tai’s “Occupy Central” gives us some fresh ideas and new possibilities, and we have no choice but keep trying. After all, it’s the battle that we need to fight.
Photos by Cyrus Wong and South Ho
“I know about the ‘Occupy Central’ movement, but I still haven’t made up my mind to support it or not. So far, we only know about the aims—which I agree with. However, we haven’t reached a consensus on whether occupation is the best means to reach our goal. There might be some better options, and I hope that people don’t have to break the law to fight for our rights. Of course, I am a supporter of universal suffrage, and it’s also true that Hongkongers have been waiting for too long. But the media has only reported the slogans, and we know very few details. How can we support it blindly? But I don’t believe the occupation will become violent because I have always believed in Hongkongers, and we all exercise self-restraint and discipline—as we have seen over the years in mass protests such as the July 1 demonstrations.”
Mrs. Chan, finance
“I oppose the ‘Occupy Central’ movement because it will disrupt social order. I don’t think there is anything wrong with universal suffrage, but you have to give the government some time to sort things out. I think Hong Kong is in a rather unstable state now, and I don’t understand why people have to take to the streets for the slightest things. There have been too many demonstrations! After CY Leung took office, it is obvious that he is much more proactive. He is criticized for his illegal structures and stuff, but these offences only concern him, and they don’t harm the public interest at all! Integrity? No one doesn’t lie! I can’t see who else could do a better job than CY.”
Mr. Wong, accountant
“People are stirring up trouble, which won’t lead to anything good. A Chief Executive should not oppose China, and people ought to know that Hong Kong’s sovereignty lies in the hands of China. It’s reasonable to have pre-elections. If people don’t like the Communist Party so much, they can emigrate to other countries. Why do they have to stay in Hong Kong to subvert the regime? Central is very symbolic: it’s where lots of economic activity takes place, and occupying Central is a form of intimidation. The movement will incur a huge economic cost and harm everyone’s interest.”
Ms Ng, real estate
“I support the movement if it is peaceful and non-violent and I will participate if I have time. It is a last resort to fight for our rights, because the authorities will not give the rights to us. But I have to emphasize we should not resort to violence. I am not worried that the movement will disrupt the economy—there are always chances to make money. But if you miss the chance to fight for your rights, those chances might not come back. It does not concern me very much, but the younger generations will suffer.”
Mr. Wong, businessman
“From my understanding, the ‘Occupy Central’ movement is to pursue universal suffrage. I believe Hongkongers should be able to choose our own Chief Executive. It should not be a ‘small-circle’ election where we can only choose from a filtered pool of candidates. I don’t really know about the details of the occupation, so I can’t really comment on whether the occupation will lead to economic disruption. However, I don’t think they should go out of their way to paralyze the traffic, as it might stir up much dislike in the public. I support the cause, but I know too little about the action, so I haven’t decided whether to support the movement.”
Mr. Lam, accountant
Hongkongers have been demanding universal suffrage for years. But lately, it seems that all efforts have led to dead ends. The July 1 demonstrations have become a yearly ritual that Beijing and the SAR government shrug off, consistently ignoring the public’s demands. 2010’s de facto referendum was a new form of political activism, but low voter turnout meant it was hardly a success. Beijing may have promised that the Chief Executive will be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, but our political future remains grim. It seems impossible that Beijing will allow authentic democratic elections in the city. And so Tai, who has always been thought of as a moderate thinker, believes that the time has come to take it to the next level.
He proposes an occupation of Central, planned for summer 2014, intended to give Hong Kong greater leverage in future negotiations with Beijing. This isn’t like the first “Occupy Central”—he isn’t proposing to camp out under the HSBC building. Instead, Tai wants to bring the city’s financial center to a standstill. The symbolism is all there: Hong Kong is willing to sacrifice economic gain—or even paralyze all economic activity—in exchange for political freedom.
“Civil disobedience is the nuclear option,” Tai says. He believes that the second version of “Occupy Central” can only garner the support of Hongkongers if it is backed by a moral force. Therefore, the movement must be based on non-violence and self-sacrifice. “Protesters have blockaded the roads in Central before. If we simply blockade the roads, the consequences will remain the same and the public will not sympathize. However, it will be different if the participants are willing to be held legally responsible.”
In other words: protesters will not resist arrest. If they take part, there’s a good chance they’ll end up behind bars. Founding chairman of the Democratic Party, Martin Lee, has said that he is willing to take part, risking imprisonment and his professional credentials. The movement certainly has its backers.
The Four Steps
Why the wait? Why the delay? Why not start now? Tai expects more than 10,000 participants, but this is no show-up-on-the-day exercise. He has formulated a four-step process that will culminate in the occupation next year. First, he wants anyone who wants to take part to first take an oath, proving their commitment to the non-violent nature of the movement.A “deliberation day” comes next: all participants will be divided into focus groups of 10 to 15 people. They will engage in active discussion to decide on acceptable political reform. It will be a large-scale experiment of deliberative democracy, something which has never been seen in Hong Kong. Many question its feasibility, but Tai has high hopes.
“In Hong Kong, we lack informed decisions. The de facto referendum was a form of direct democracy, and people did go to cast their votes. But had the voters thought thoroughly? In a democratic system, people don’t just follow others, nor do they make their decisions based on intuition,” Tai says. “Deliberation is meant to [create this]. Not only will it influence social activism, it will also have an impact on the mode of governance, because we will have set up a very high bar. People will expect the government to adopt such deliberations in their own policy-making.”
Next, a city-wide ballot will be carried out in order to obtain a mandate for the political reform that was shaped and approved on “deliberation day.” The form of the ballot is still unclear. It could either be a de facto referendum triggered by the resignation of a lawmaker, or a civil referendum similar to the one organized by HKU’s Public Opinion Program during the CE election last year. It’s interesting that Albert Ho of the Democratic Party has already agreed to resign from his Legco “super seat,” despite his party’s opposition to the de facto referendum in 2010.
“Ideally, Beijing will have compromised before we need to occupy Central,” says Tai. But if Beijing hasn’t yielded to public pressure by then, then the blockade goes ahead—and chances are, the arrests follow. Tai thinks that the government will bear a heavy cost if it disperses the participants by force, as it might trigger different forms of civil disobedience. “Hong Kong will turn into an ungovernable place, if all taxi drivers launch a go-slow protest, or all citizens refuse to pay taxes.”
Middle Class War
In his own “Occupy Central” movement, Benny Tai is emphasizing the participation of the middle-class and the middle-aged.“This group of people might have children, so they don’t think only about themselves. I hope they want to put more thought into it, and do something for the next generations,” explains Tai, who has three children. He also argues that the middle-aged have less to lose than the young, whose futures lie before them. “For young people who take part, the cost is higher.”
Tai is also aiming for the support of those who enjoy high social status, including moderate political leaders, former government officials, religious leaders and scholars. He has sought two partners for the movement: Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, a pastor who took part in Operation Yellowbird, which helped dissident leaders escape the mainland after the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown; and Professor Chan Kin-man, who teaches sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Chan was a member of the now-disbanded Alliance for Universal Suffrage, a coalition that formulated a political reform proposal and engaged in negotiations with Beijing.
But there’s one big question: will this focus on the middle class weaken its support base?
“This is the limitation of the movement,” says Icarus Wong, deputy convener of the Human Civil Rights Front. “A successful social movement must be supported by people of all classes and organizations.”
Wong doesn’t object to the movement’s origins, but he is worried that the working class might not take an active interest in the “Occupy Central” movement because the discussion centers on political systems.
“People might claim that universal suffrage will not improve their livelihoods,” says Wong, and they might therefore be uninterested. He suggests it is important for organizers to visit different districts and get in touch with different community groups in order to consolidate support.
Will It Work?
Veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung is largely supportive of the movement, but he has his doubts.He doesn’t believe that successful mass movements can be engineered in a top-down manner—because they are so often sparked off unpredictably.
“They [Occupy Central organizers] are not doing anything apart from planning the oath-taking day. This defies the dynamic of social movements,” he claims. “They say that nothing needs to be done in this year’s July 1 demonstrations because it is not yet the final moment. This is unreasonable. They don’t understand the dynamic: we need to expose the corruption in the system and make Hongkongers angry. We can only generate momentum if we struggle against the system in different ways.”
The “Occupy Central” movement is portrayed as a last resort in Hong Kong’s pursuit of democracy.
“Leaders like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela have moral power because they made numerous attempts [in the pursuit of democracy],” says Long Hair. But think about these world-changing leaders—none of them reached their goals in one simple step. His question is a good one: what will the leaders of the “Occupy Central” movement do if it fails?
Will it mark the beginning of a wider political movement? If the leaders of the “Occupy Central” movement are not prepared for a long fight, the protest might be seen as little more than a feel-good gesture, its members fooling themselves into thinking that they have sacrificed for the cause. But despite his reservations, Long Hair thinks that Tai has made a huge breakthrough. At least people are discussing the possibility of using civil disobedience to fight for democracy in a conservative society. Hong Kong has never seen this kind of activism: this year-and-a-bit prelude; a daring experiment in deliberative democracy; the large-scale practice of civil disobedience.
It may be too early to tell if the “Occupy Central” movement will succeed or fail. Is it just the pipe dream of a fusty academic? Or is this a new way to confront our political reality? Let’s continue the discussion. Reshape it. Perfect it. There’s a good chance that the movement will fail and Hongkongers will still be denied the right to choose our leader. But Benny Tai’s “Occupy Central” gives us some fresh ideas and new possibilities, and we have no choice but keep trying. After all, it’s the battle that we need to fight.
Photos by Cyrus Wong and South Ho
Word On the Street
There has been plenty of talk about the “Occupy Central” movement. But what do the people of Central actually think?“I know about the ‘Occupy Central’ movement, but I still haven’t made up my mind to support it or not. So far, we only know about the aims—which I agree with. However, we haven’t reached a consensus on whether occupation is the best means to reach our goal. There might be some better options, and I hope that people don’t have to break the law to fight for our rights. Of course, I am a supporter of universal suffrage, and it’s also true that Hongkongers have been waiting for too long. But the media has only reported the slogans, and we know very few details. How can we support it blindly? But I don’t believe the occupation will become violent because I have always believed in Hongkongers, and we all exercise self-restraint and discipline—as we have seen over the years in mass protests such as the July 1 demonstrations.”
Mrs. Chan, finance
“I oppose the ‘Occupy Central’ movement because it will disrupt social order. I don’t think there is anything wrong with universal suffrage, but you have to give the government some time to sort things out. I think Hong Kong is in a rather unstable state now, and I don’t understand why people have to take to the streets for the slightest things. There have been too many demonstrations! After CY Leung took office, it is obvious that he is much more proactive. He is criticized for his illegal structures and stuff, but these offences only concern him, and they don’t harm the public interest at all! Integrity? No one doesn’t lie! I can’t see who else could do a better job than CY.”
Mr. Wong, accountant
“People are stirring up trouble, which won’t lead to anything good. A Chief Executive should not oppose China, and people ought to know that Hong Kong’s sovereignty lies in the hands of China. It’s reasonable to have pre-elections. If people don’t like the Communist Party so much, they can emigrate to other countries. Why do they have to stay in Hong Kong to subvert the regime? Central is very symbolic: it’s where lots of economic activity takes place, and occupying Central is a form of intimidation. The movement will incur a huge economic cost and harm everyone’s interest.”
Ms Ng, real estate
“I support the movement if it is peaceful and non-violent and I will participate if I have time. It is a last resort to fight for our rights, because the authorities will not give the rights to us. But I have to emphasize we should not resort to violence. I am not worried that the movement will disrupt the economy—there are always chances to make money. But if you miss the chance to fight for your rights, those chances might not come back. It does not concern me very much, but the younger generations will suffer.”
Mr. Wong, businessman
“From my understanding, the ‘Occupy Central’ movement is to pursue universal suffrage. I believe Hongkongers should be able to choose our own Chief Executive. It should not be a ‘small-circle’ election where we can only choose from a filtered pool of candidates. I don’t really know about the details of the occupation, so I can’t really comment on whether the occupation will lead to economic disruption. However, I don’t think they should go out of their way to paralyze the traffic, as it might stir up much dislike in the public. I support the cause, but I know too little about the action, so I haven’t decided whether to support the movement.”
Mr. Lam, accountant
沒有留言:
張貼留言