CHAPTER 2. Disruptive activism in Hong Kong

This chapter accounts for a subject analysis of how disruptive design has been utilised by Hong Kong youths to navigate sociopolitical change. It provides political context to the city’s colonial history and how such complications have led to the recent protests throughout the last decade. Primary research is then introduced that establish psychological links between disruptive mindsets and youth activists. Finally, through the research of digital safari, various tactics and methods used in the movement argue how they have been disruptive, with reference to the forms mentioned in Chapter One.

2.1 Political landscape of Hong Kong and youth movement

Generation Z youths of Hong Kong, roughly born between 1997 to 2012 (Kasasa, 2020), are known to have played major roles in movements such as Umbrella Revolution in 2014 and the mega-scale protests in 2019. Hong Kong, home to many others like myself, holds a uniquely special place in my heart. For the rest, it is an international hub, the world’s freest economy (Index of Economic Freedom of The Heritage Foundation, 2019) and also where the highest life expectancies have been recorded (CNN Health, 2018). Despite the stellar rankings, Hong Kong is sealed to a sociopolitical fate to ratify in 2047. Its position as a Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), one that falls directly under the People’s Republic of China (PRC), is a result of a convoluted colonial past. After 156 years of British governance, HKSAR’s colonial rule came to an end with an agreement to remain independent for 50 years, known as ‘One Country, Two Systems’. On that account, HKSAR is said to ‘enjoy a high-degree of autonomy’. This maintains a completely separate political and economic system from the PRC: one of which leaves HKSAR wholly capitalist, independently judiciary, and democratic to an apparent extent. As laid out in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration (Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, 2005), HKSAR has encouraged the practice of freedom of speech, political criticism and rights to assembly — liberties not simultaneously enjoyed in the PRC, where its socialist politics have remain fairly unchanged despite exponential GDP growth in the last decade.

Fig 11. 2 million protesters show solidarity for movement against PRC interference (Tsang, 2019)

That being said, whilst this 50-year grace period has yet to come to an end, the PRC has demonstrated acts of considerable interference threatening HKSAR’s independent status. These acts include the kidnapping of politically-sensitive book sellers, violent attacks against Hong Kong journalists and the unjustified expulsion of pro-democracy Hong Kong lawmakers (Boyajian & Cook, 2019). This led to a series of eventful protests, first attested in 2004 when the Hong KongChina extradition bill was first introduced, then later in 2014 when the PRC attempted to intervene the city’s elections for its Chief Executive and most recently in 2019, when the extradition bill was re-introduced, this time recording more than two million marchers at a time (Fig 11; BBC, 2019).

In the article “The Infinite Heartbreak of Loving Hong Kong”, written not long after the 2020 enactment of the much-dreaded National Security Law, Wilfred Chan describes the deep-rooted sociopolitical, ‘wicked’ problem of Hong Kong in a way I most sympathise with:

“The way out was never going to be simple. Liberating Hong Kong from any law or state power, from the totality of these clashing histories, would require undoing colonialism, capitalism, nationalism, and imperialism all at once. This was both Hong Kong’s impossible challenge and the source of its emancipatory potential: to not just stand at the midpoint of competing poles but also produce alternative ways of being.” (2020)

Today, Hong Kong youths are still fighting a never-ending battle against their own wicked problem: independency from an uncertain, militant future. Shortly after protestors began to use masks to hide their identities, an anti-mask law was introduced (Chan, 2020). Later, a veteran activist was sentenced to four months in prison for “desecrating the national flag” (Hong Kong Watch, 2021). Hong Kong police have also been criticised for using unreasonable crowd-control forces like blue-dye cannon guns, tear gas, and rubber bullets (Amnesty International, 2019). For these reasons, young protestors are calling for the necessity to disrupt, in face of oppression.

2.2 Disruptive mindsets amongst Hong Kong youths

To evaluate disruptive mindsets amongst Hong Kong youths, I conducted an online survey and applied Brett’s “Disruptive Mindset Model” (2018) to consolidate questions based on the seven meta-programs. Due to political sensitivity, the responses remained anonymous and were not followed-up for interviews. Fig 12 is a screenshot of how I asserted the ethical and privacy implications taken into account in my survey:

Using a score-based system, I designed a five-point scale for each question, accumulating 35 points total: higher scores would therefore indicate a more ‘disruptive’ mindset (Fig 13). Every question provided context and appropriate scenarios for clarification. Fig 14 shows an example of how I framed question seven based on the ‘Conventional’ meta-program (p.9).

Out of 33 responses, all of whom were directly involved in the political demonstrations, 26 respondents scored more than 30 out of 35 on the scale. This places 76% of respondents on the more disruptive end of the spectrum, supporting my argument that Hong Kong youths tend to exhibit more disruptive traits, precisely when measured against Brett’s model. Although these survey responses cannot generalise an entire population of the city’s youth activists — cultural markers like Hong Kong’s East-West hybridity and trans-nationalist identity have direct correlations with disruptive thinking (Colon, 2016). Again drawing connections upon Brett’s metaprograms, a strong sense of internal authority (p.9) is emphasised in the leaderless nature of Hong Kong’s youth movement. The determination to remain leaderless maintains a strong sense of agility, explained by Jason Ng, Hong Kong lawyer and political author:

“The current movement is completely leaderless. As a result there is not one coherent strategy. Not one vision. Every day they will react to new events as they unfold…” (2017, cited by Ag, 2019)

Being leaderless presents a greater challenge for Hong Kong authorities to halt the massive movement, once demonstrated in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, where activist efforts were quickly thwarted after the identification and arrests of their leaders (Ag, 2019). The organisational structure of this youth movement without an acting leader or authority figure has been likened to the names of ‘organised anarchy’ and ‘functioning decentralised organisation’ in an article by the Harbour Times (2020). Their unique ‘leaderless leadership’ approach has proven to be disruptive through democratic processes, insight-building and exploiting digital tools. Online forums and encrypted messaging platforms have also aided Hong Kong’s leaderless structure extensively: LIHKG, a local version of Reddit, features a voting system where users can invite the community to participate and collectively strategise future demonstrations (Pomfret, Torode & Jim, 2019). Various contributors to the Harbour Times article describes Hong Kong’s ‘organised anarchist’ style as such:

Fig 14. Example of question based on the ‘Conventional’ meta-program

“Social media also plays a crucial role in the development of the protests. On one end, as we have seen, it allows the organisation of actions without a structural hierarchy to govern decision-making. On the other end, it is also a space to share information about the events as they occur, as well as a one to share the opinions from different perspectives.” (2020)

Embracing digital democracy through internal authority is also reflective of Meadows’ leverage point in intervening the “paradigms of the system” (p.12). The fierce sense of collectivism felt in digital activism alone has managed to disrupt the fabric of complex political structures. Digital paradigms are hence powerful leverage points in Hong Kong’s sociopolitical system. However, these points can also pose risks in public accessibility to false information. Hence, to preserve the value in freedom of speech, balancing feedback loops such as restrictions for new users have been put in place by LIHKG, a local version of Reddit. New users must now sign up with a Hong Kong Internet Service Provider (ISP) or local university email, and are limited in votes and posts per day. Such accounts are also labelled ‘P’ — like provisional drivers on the road — as a warning for youth activists to interact with caution, in case of undercover police activity and spread of Mainland Chinese propaganda (Oshawott_12, 2019). Moreover, these restrictions act as the balancing feedback loops identified by Acaroglu (p.13), in reinforcing freedom of speech whilst preventing misinformation at the same time.

As previously discussed, mindsets have a large impact in one’s way of approaching life and decision-making, particularly through political response. This section has evidenced how youth mindsets in Hong Kong have been disruptive, and thus, supported their navigation towards sociopolitical change. As a result of the protests attended by a record-breaking 26% of the entire population on June 17th, 2019, and the many more who showed solidarity online — the Hong Kong government issued a formal apology hours later, eventually withdrawing the controversial extradition bill entirely (South China Morning Post, 2019). Beyond Hong Kong, the world has also recognised the success of youth demonstrators when it won first place in ‘Time’s Person of the Year’ that same year (Time, 2019). This outcome was owed not only to the record-breaking number of participants that day, but also accredited to their persistent agility, attested then, and maintained throughout the remainder of their sociopolitical course.

2.3 Digital disruption in Hong Kong activism

The internet and social media played major roles in facilitating Hong Kong’s political dialogue, but more importantly, offered a considerable edge: the ability to quickly mobilise when necessary. It implicates another systems leverage point, Meadows’ “power of self-organisation” (p.11). Leveraging the power of horizontal organisation, otherwise seen as a flat hierarchy, youth activists are able to act responsively depending on police activity in real-time. For that reason, LIHKG was ranked as the most visited site in Hong Kong due to its function as an online headquarters for youth protestors (McLaughlin & Cheung, 2020).

Fig 15a. Screenshot of LIHKG’s landing page Fig 15b. Screenshot of LIHKG’s thread page

An example of how online systems have been cultivated for disruptive organisation is evident in LIHKG’s user interface (UI). On ‘normal’ mode, the online forum’s UI (Fig 15a) utilises minimal use of colour and streamlined hierarchy of information. LIHKG’s landing page contains a left sidebar of the most popular or ‘upvoted’ topics, and by default, does not reveal a thread until selected (Fig 15b). The thread page maintains a similar level of visual ‘indifference’ and posts interactions are strictly limited to ‘upvote’, ‘downvote’ and ‘share’ (Fig 15b). Despite being a ‘social’ platform that actively encourages a diversity of topics, LIHKG does not seem to reflect this diversity in its visual aesthetic. Besides from the logo, the overall UI is rather ‘incognito’ for the sake of clarity, anonymity and impartiality (even the most upvoted posts are unhighlighted nor larger in size). Yet, its unappealing interface has attracted a user base of 300,000 members, with tens of thousands considered to be ‘active’ users on a regular basis (McLaughlin & Cheung, 2020). Strategically, this relieves autonomy for users, allowing them to engage without unwanted attention, and also hinders cyber-police investigations into protest timelines and strategies.

For comparison, Reddit’s UI has been designed with emphasis to personalisation according to thread topic, and its informational hierarchy prioritises the user identity over content (Fig 16a, 16b). Reddit and LIHKG is also distinguished in its user interaction (UI) features: the former has the ability to ‘private message’ other users, whereas the latter does not, confining all interactions to the public domain. This major difference highlights how LIHKG is considered to be less a form of ‘social media’ but rather, an online discussion forum masking political dialogue, in protection of user anonymity.

Fig 16a. Screenshot of Reddit’s landing page Fig 16b. Screenshot of Reddit’s thread page

Another disruptive UX feature of LIHKG is the integration of the ‘boss key’ mode, which disguises the interface as an Excel sheet to avoid suspicion even when users are active in public view (Fig 15c). This mode is a creative prototype that retains the same degree of UI, whilst being mindful of the user demographic comprised of everyday students and workers (McLaughlin & Cheung, 2020). Fig 15b is exhibited once again to draw a direct comparison between ‘normal’ and ‘hidden’ mode on LIHKG:

LIHKG is only one of the many digitally disruptive tools that have benefitted Hong Kong’s youth activists. ‘Telegram’ is a popular messaging tool that guarantees anonymity through end-to-end encryption (Hill, 2019). ‘HK.map.live’ is web-mapping service that tracks and documents police presence according to real-time data, also providing crucial information such as locations of where tear gas has been deployed (HK.Map.Live, 2020). Though youth activists have largely relied on technology as a tool for disruptive change, Hong Kong social science professor Simon Shen notes that culture still embodies the most irreplaceable part of the mechanism (2019, cited by McLaughlin & Cheung, 2020). The iteration of disruptive mindsets, leaderless organisation and digital tools are just some of the aspects that represent this irreplaceable culture.

Fig 15b. LIHKG’s thread page (‘Normal’ mode) Fig 15c. LIHKG’s thread page (‘Hidden’ mode)

2.4 Disruptive structure adopted by youth activists

Beyond the digital space, disruptive techniques have also been adopted to the protest tactics used by the youth demonstrators of Hong Kong. We see evidence of Acaroglu’s “Disruptive Design Method” (2017) constantly iterated in the youth movement, and how it has presented certain implications for being disruptive, for better or worse.

Although the protests of 2019 were first initiated by the extradition agreement, a social goal that was later met by the government, their objectives shortly evolved to what the activists deemed as “Five Demands, Not One Less” (Chan, 2019). With no horizon in sight for those who seek independency from China — independency, being a far-sought, unrealistic goal — five ‘demands’ were hence formed as compromise, iterated by the violent escalation of events. The demands are as follows (Wong, 2019):

1. Full withdrawal of the extradition bill 2. A commission of inquiry into alleged police brutality 3. Retracting the classification of protestors as “rioters” 4. Amnesty for arrested protestors 5. Dual universal suffrage, for both the Legislative Council and Chief Executive

The Five Demands are a realistic inquiry of what the activists aim to achieve, rather than a reductionist view of purely ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’. It demonstrates use of Acaroglu’s disruptive method by establishing their ‘problem scope’ in an otherwise impossible sociopolitical course (p.13). These demands also represent a main talking point in Hong Kong’s sociopolitical dialogue, where it has a shadow in both online and offline. Youth activists tend to use journalistic techniques in public spaces and social media as a mode of carrying information, much like the BLM movement. This strong channel of awareness also has a presence in the West, prompting the bill passage of the “Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act” in the US (United States Congress, 2019). Certain acts of international support have been hugely practical: the UK announced citizenship passage for the three-million Hong Kong British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders (BBC, 2020). This move will allow even the children of BNO passport holders to immigrate to the UK — particularly benefitting the youth protestors that have been charged with rioting in Hong Kong, and is a key insight in the form of an opportunity (p.14), drawn from Acaroglu’s disruptive method.

Evidence of leveraging strategic change can also be seen in the ‘Yellow Economic Circle’ conceptualised by the protestors (Lau, 2020). The colour ‘yellow’ represents the visual political identity of the pro-democracy movement, whilst the colour ‘blue’ is associated with proestablishment, pro-government and pro-police. Whilst this colour is typically personified from individuals, reputable businesses in Hong Kong have also sided with ‘yellow’ or ‘blue’. This ideological divide patronises typically small-sized businesses whom are yellow, whilst ostracising blue businesses — known as the biggest food and beverage groups in Hong Kong — such as Maxims Catering, local franchise of Starbucks and server for more than 645,000 daily customers (Thistle, 2020, p.15). Protestors have even taken the steps to vandalise and destroy blue restaurants and shops to damage their operations (Fig 17)

The Yellow Economic Circle encourages the boycotting of blue businesses, flooding support to yellow businesses instead. For a city known as an international finance hub, even consumption can be politicised and leveraged for social change. Whilst this aspect of culture has a play over disruptive tactics, it also presents a feasible solution (p.13) for protestors or anyone prodemocratic to follow suit. Again, there is a creative pattern of emerging digital prototypes, in light of the Yellow Economic Circle. Various apps and websites provide updated directories for locations of yellow businesses (Shen, 2020). Whilst some yellow businesses achieve their status through financial donations to support protests, others host spaces for ‘Lennon Walls’, a public display of ideas and thoughts around democracy, as well as hopes for the future (Fig 18). Visually, these displays cultivate empathy and a do-philosophy, and are solution tools advocated by Acaroglu in her disruptive design method (p.17).

More importantly, this tactic reduces local economic dependence on Mainland China, through supporting like-minded business owners and creating job opportunities for youth activists. The Yellow Economic Circle has proven to be quite effective: Maxims Catering saw a 22% decline in revenue (HKET, 2020), whilst yellow businesses that were less business-resilient (especially during COVID-19) mostly saw an incline in their profits (Yu, 2020). Kenneth Chan, Hong Kong political scientist, describes the “conscience-driven initiative” of the Yellow Economic Circle as as a “form of protest in daily life which breeds a sense of self-determination and solidarity against the government” (2020, cited by Yu). The feasibility and circularity of this tactic is reflective of Acaroglu’s ideation rules, and has shown to be capable of enacting productive change. It is a move that breeds disruption in a sociopolitical system weighed down by economy, policy and politics. Through systematic disruption on an economic scale, youth activists were able to structure a course towards lasting, ideal change — albeit, at the cost of a polarising divide in consumerism and acts of violence towards opposition businesses.

Chapter Two has highlighted how disruptive techniques have been employed in only some of the many ways Hong Kong demonstrators have used to oppose the police and government, with mention to mindsets, systems thinking and disruptive methods. Disruptive tactics used by youth

Fig 18. ‘Yellow’ tea shop in Hong Kong, featuring a Lennon Wall (Lam, 2019)

activists include, but are not limited to, digital tools as specific as UI/UX of LIHKG, Five Demands, Yellow Economic Circle and the widely seen Lennon Walls (Fig 19). Having provided an analysis of how disruption has been designed into a sociopolitical course for change, the next chapter will analyse the implications of this use.

Fig 19. Screenshot of (now removed) Instagram profile “lennonwallhongkongarchive”, featuring various Lennon Walls seen across Hong Kong (Instagram, 2021)