Liberate Hong Kong’: For who and for what?

‘Liberate Hong Kong’: From who and for what?

A look into Hong Kong’s struggle for decolonisation

In the wake of the 2019 protests, the rallying cries and striking white words of ‘Liberate Hong Kong’ permeate the city. Each call rouses spirits during a tired rally, each graffiti trace marks an episode of mass demonstration. Yet, its emergence as the symbol of protest raises an important question – who and what are protesters liberating Hong Kong from? The question’s existence speaks to Hong Kong’s confused postcolonial identity.

By conventional sense, colonisation is a distasteful memory for many African and Asian regions, one that should be brought to a “speedy and unconditional end” as stated by the United Nations Trusteeship Council. This is what liberation typically brings to mind – the ending of colonial oppression, the beginning of territorial independence, or political or cultural autonomy. Specifically for Hong Kong, with a transfer of sovereignty from Britain to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1997. As British flags were lowered and Royal Navy Britannica left the Victoria Harbour on July 1 1997, Hong Kong formally became a Special Administrative Region (SAR) under the jurisdiction of China. Yet, in these eight months, protesters’ calls for liberation were often accompanied by proud wavering of the British colonial flags. At the same time, these actions attracted criticism from leftists, localists and the prodemocratic side condemning the oppressive elements of colonial rule. Embracing vs Liberation from Colonial Rule

One oftencited reason for embracing the city’s former colonial status is the legacy of British administration. “The question ‘who and what are protesters liberating Hong Kong from?’ speaks to Hong Kong’s confused postcolonial identity”

Many policies that emerged out of the 1970s such as the rule of law, civil service and economic freedom were noted for contributing to Hong Kong’s success. For example, the Britishstyle common law legal system with an independent and impartial judiciary is seen as a ‘gift’ to Hong Kong. The implementation of “positive non-interventionism” in the 1970s is seen as a force for elevating Hong Kong’s status as a global financial hub. Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s civil service system is regarded as highly professional, efficient and relatively clean, especially with the establishment of the ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) in the 1970s, which proposed to eradicate corruption. Although much of these policies were designed to create a local identity, and maintain popular support for colonial rule against Communist

pressure in 1949 (due to the influx of Chinese immigrants), and leftist riots in 1967, it nonetheless left positive impressions on the younger generation. These underpin some ‘baby boomers’ or youths’ desire to “freeze” Hong Kong (as described by sociologist Lui Tai-lok), and maintain the old laissez-faire economy that ensured a stable and prosperous environment before the handover. Sun Yat-sen’s remark in 1923 that Britain turned a “barren island” into modern Hong Kong persists as part of the common imagination of British colonial rule.

Another aspect that fostered a local identity is the hope of democratisation. In order to ease British and business’ fears of Communist takeover, Deng Xiaoping devised the policy of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ that kept a capitalist economic system for Hong Kong. Under the system, the city would maintain “a high degree of autonomy” for 50 years until 2047. More importantly, inscribed in The Basic Law and

the Sino-British Joint Declaration of December 1984, the treaty that set forward for Hong Kong’s decolonisation, is the goal of realizing universal suffrage. Hope for democracy thereby forms part of what makes Hong Kong distinct – another facet of a unique identity. Liberation in this sense would be maintaining this inscribed state of autonomy and achieving democracy in contrast to Chinese one-party rule. A Chinese View: Liberation from Western Imperialism On the other hand, Chinese officials dubbed the 1997 historical event as Hong Kong’s “return to the motherland”, and regards it as a symbolic end of a period of “shameful history”. As Chen Zuoer (former deputy director of Beijing’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office), remarked, “desinicization is at work, but there is no decolonization.” Contrasting the optimism for British governance, Chinese officials condemn the British colonial legacy for creating a “colony complex”, which undermined the popularity of Chinese authority for Hong Kong’s citizens. In this sense, the Chinese government does concur with the ‘liberate Hong Kong’ slogan, albeit liberating from British colonial rule and Western imperialism. It prioritizes the speeding up of ‘decolonisation’, through actions such as the introduction of national education in 2003. However, given the existence of Hong Kong’s local identity and norms, China’s moves to centralize its power over Hong Kong’s politics and culture are seen by citizens as an infringement of autonomy. The handover comes to represent the city’s reversion to a political regime that was more authoritarian than the colonial one before. On a cultural level, the meaning of ‘liberate Hong Kong’, which could also be translated to ‘restore’, thus represents for some the mourning of present oppression under the PRC and reminiscing about its colonial past.

That is not to depict a sweeping endorsement of the colonial past by Hong Kong’s population – at no point did the British government set the intention of benefitting Hong Kong’s population. British governance was founded in the 1840s to serve its own commercial interests, and institutions were designed to impose orders from London. Hence, there are considerable flaws in its institutional framework, which lay a precarious foundation for present Hong Kong. It wasn’t until 1985 that directly elected seats were introduced into the Legislative Council; the past colonial administration was able to pass legislation through a legislature of appointed members. Vestiges of such undemocratic structures remain, as only 40 of the 70 seats on LegCo are directly elected. The remaining 30 are elected by functional constituencies, where legislators

and electors are chosen from different professional sectors, such as finance, real estate, tourism, catering and labour. A similar system is used to select Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, where four professional sectors, comprised of a small circle of 1,200 people, nominate and elect a Chief Executive. Furthermore, the remnants of the executivedominant system sees limited checks and balances of police force. Hence, the prodemocratic side’s or leftists prioritise this side of decolonisation. This includes calls for dual universal suffrage – the removal of functional constituencies, and direct election - ‘one person, one vote’ – of the city’s Chief Executive. Here, the anti-extradition bill can be seen as a catalyst that revealed structural problems. In this way, it can be viewed as Hong Kong’s struggle to dismantle oppressive colonial structures, within the framework of ‘One Country, Two Systems’. Liberation is advocating for decolonisation and greater autonomy, while still under the jurisdiction of China. Liberation from Colonial Powers – Hong Kong Independence An alternative view to the two hegemonies – Chinese imperialism and the British colonial past – is localism. At its most radical end, localists see the 1997 handover as fall of Hong Kong to a new foreign aggressor. Hence, the colonial rule continues, just under another flag. With that is the recognition that real autonomy under ‘One Country, Two Systems’ is impossible and that the only solution would be to dispel Chinese intervention and achieve independence of Hong Kong. This movement is underpinned by the growth of indigenous Hong Kong nationalism, which asserts Hong Kongers’ right to selfdetermination. Liberation thus suggests independence from both China and British colonialism. Interestingly, in spite of colonial nostalgia, the pro-democratic side, localists and even China to some extent recognises the need to decolonise certain institutions, culture and identity. Yet that is the extent of common ground the concept’s meaning. While the PRC sees removing colonial political culture as an important step to consolidating power, pro-democratic side recognises the need to politically reform colonial structures, while localists acknowledge the role of decolonising to create an indigenous national identity. Each side telling its own version of the city’s story. The protests can be seen as an eruption of the built-up friction between all these forces. Returning to the question – who and what is our seven million population liberating Hong Kong from? As Hong Kong’s population is left wondering what it means to no longer be colonial subjects after the 1997 handover, what substantiates an answer is a matter of deliberation between the three forces. As eight months of protests have gone on, with an unprecedented level of solidarity (and violence) from protesters, the polarisation of ‘blue’ and ‘yellow’ stances, pressure from the Chinese administration and police suppression, perhaps it be seen as a part of this historical process. “Hong Kong’s identity is a matter of deliberation between the three forces”