Occupy Central
Occupy Central is a civil disobedience movement which began in Hong Kong on September 28, 2014. It calls on thousands of protesters to block roads and paralyse Hong Kong's financial district if the Beijing and Hong Kong governments do not agree to implement universal suffrage for the chief executive election in 2017 and the Legislative Council elections in 2020 according to "international standards." The movement was initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting (戴耀廷), an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, in January 2013.
Umbrella Movement
The Umbrella Movement (Chinese: 雨傘運動; pinyin: yǔsǎn yùndòng) is a loose political movement that was created spontaneously during the Hong Kong protests of 2014. Its name derives from the recognition of the umbrella as a symbol of defiance and resistance against the Hong Kong government, and the united grass-roots objection to the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of 31 August.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
Occupy Central site in an area surrounding the Legislative Council and Central Government Offices at Tamar were cleared 22-06-2015.
Hong Kong reform vote
The Hong Kong government’s political reform proposal for how the city elects its leader by universal suffrage for the first time in 2017 is based on a strict framework set by Beijing. The plan limits the number of candidates to two or three and requires them to win majority support from a 1,200 strong nominating committee. Arguing that this does not constitute genuine universal suffrage, pan-democratic lawmakers have vowed to reject the package, while pro-democracy groups have protested. The government’s resolution was to be put to a vote by the 70-member Legislative Council in June 2015, requiring a two-thirds majority to be passed.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 201
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 16
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 16
Full coverage of the day’s events on 04-07
Coconuts
Debate denied on motion of no confidence against Jasper Tsang
The House Committee has voted down debating a motion of no confidence against the President of the Legislative Council Jasper Tsang, after he was criticised by pan-democrats for directing pro-Beijing lawmakers via Whatsapp message during the reform vote last month.
On Friday, Chan Chi-chuen of People Power sought the agreement from the House Committee over putting forward the motion of no confidence against Jasper Tsang onto the agenda. The committee is responsible for setting the agenda of LegCo council meetings.
Prior to the meeting, Alan Leong Kah-kit, organiser of the pan-democratic camp, said that the bloc would support the motion.
In a letter sent to Tsang last week, pan-democrats demanded the president apologise to the public and give suggestions on how to prevent the incident from happening in the future. Leong said Tsang has made clear that he would not apologise.
Alan Leong Kah-kit. Photo: Now TV
“We do not see a satisfactory answer [from Tsang] to [our] demand,” Leong continued, “Even though there is no better person in the pro-establishment camp to be the president than Tsang, pan-democrats considers defending the system is more important than protecting an individual.”
In the committee meeting, pan-democratic legislators questioned Tsang’s involvement in the WhatsApp chat group of pro-Beijing legislators. Pan-democrats referred to Tsang as both “the referee and the captain,” since Tsang moderated the council meeting while directing the pro-establishment camp.
However, pro-establishment legislators were unsupportive of the motion. Ann Chiang Lai-wan of the DAB said Tsang’s actions were sensible. Chiang said that Tsang was concerned with casting the vote as soon as possible because “[pro-establishment legislators] had received notifications that there would be an occupation of the legislature similar to the Sunflower Movement.”
Voting results of Chan Chi-chuen’s seeking to move a motion of no confidence in the President of the Legislative Council. Photo: Now TV
Following the hour-long discussion, 24 legislators voted in favour and 36 against putting forward the motion of no confidence in the next council meeting.
Tsang has been under fire recently after local media exposed that he had directed pro-Beijing lawmakers via WhatsApp message during the political reform vote last month. A secretly recorded tape has also revealed that Tsang made a racist joke about Africans during last year’s Occupy protests.
Tsang is a member and founder of the pro-Beijing party the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.
The Sunflower Movement was a 23-day protest in Taipei against the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement, a treaty which liberalised trade between mainland China and Taiwan. It was also dubbed the “Occupy Taiwan Legislature Movement” as protesters took over the national legislative chamber.
A return to fundamentals – Observations from July 1
In this essay, Evan Fowler shares his observations on this year’s July 1st march. He notes a far smaller, and far less impassioned, creative and intense demonstration, that nevertheless retains its significance. He sees not a fading democratic protest, but one that at a time lacking a clear fight has returned to its core, to represent neither a reaction nor a need to be counted, but the continuation of an underlying hope that the free, liberal and democratic values of the Hong Kong people will be respected.
This year’s July 1st pro-democracy rally saw numbers down substantially from recent years. Organisers claimed 48,000 people to part in the march, compared to over 510,000 last year. A truer reflection of the numbers are those by the University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Programme that put the figure at 28,000. The police estimation of 19,650 continues to significantly undershoot.
Figures though tell only part of the story. This year I walked among the crowds gathered in Victoria Park. Last year I stood for hours, unable to move, patiently waiting my turn to join the procession. At 3pm the march was meant to get under way. It didn’t get under way for another half an hour in what felt like a desperate attempt to make up numbers. Barely two football pitches were full, and the trickle of demonstrators that were arriving were few in number. The scene was defined less by the crowd as metal barriers and police tape.
It was hot, but there were no showers. Last year I vividly recall the pervading smell of stale sweat from overloaded buses and trains, and in packed lines that stretched right to the northern edge of the park. This year I could watch as birds played by the bronze statue of Queen Victoria.
Sound speakers now faced rows of empty concrete pitches. Last year these mighty black boxes howled a message to a packed audience, the words reverberating with a real power among a passionate mass. Now the speakers only seemed to squawk, each sound quivering in desperation for attention, but carrying only as a hollow echo across empty, concrete playgrounds.
As I reached the front of the gathered crowd, walking with little obstruction, I saw Benny Tai take the stage. He spoke with greater fluency than he did a year before, but also with less effect. I watched his head move, searching not the skies for inspiration but the few thousand people who had gathered. As he looked around he seemed to thank each personally for sharing this stage with him.
This year the people too were different, as was their mood. There were far fewer students. Without the young the march lacked the emotional and creative energy that has so distinguished and helped define the character of a new wave of popular protests in this city. I did not see any of those tell-tale signs of foreign interference – I did not see Iron Man or the Mockingjay, nor did I see banners of Martin Luther King. Those cartoons, and that youthful, biting satire, was mostly absent. One political party had made puppet caricatures that they playfully made dance, but these were too safe and polished to really capture the imagination.
There were no groups of young friends with painted faces and tee-shirts, no pink tanks held aloft. No emotions so worn on the sleeve. As Beyond’s song Boundless Ocean, Vast Skies played many a heart may well have skipped a beat, but unlike last year there were no tears.
Also absent were the crisp shirts of the busy classes. There were no day-bags and clean towels, nor bottles of mineral water and pampered children in father’s arms. There were a few foreign faces, as some news sources reported, but no more and no different than in previous years. They were the young and young at heart for whom an ideal remains a way of life. No doubt I would have been counted among their number, for on both sides of the political divide Hong Kong is still identified as a distinctly Hong Kong Chinese city.
July 1 demonstrations, 2015. Photo: Ryann Chan.
“For an inclusive community”, declared a banner for a group representing minority rights. I would walk to that. Inclusive to all whose roots now grow in this city, my mainland friends included, but also inclusive of opposing points of view and the equal right to be heard and represented. Would the Hong Kong government please take note.
This year the rally returned to its core, and most dedicated, supporters. They are those who have lost most and have the least left to lose. Everywhere were the hushed tones of the distinctly Hong Kong Cantonese lower middle-class; of shop keepers, clerks, public servants, and those in lower and middle management. It is the voice of the middle aged and the recently retired. It is this core, often with the nature and quite determination to get an education but neither the ambition, wealth nor connections to buy into the official dream. Many are people who were once content in their modest lives to value and stand by their principles: for a free and democratic society, accountable not to any distant overlord but to themselves.
I asked a demonstrator, a middle-age woman who owns a stationery shop, why she marched for democracy when Hong Kong’s Chief Executive CY Leung had only recently and quite correctly reminded people that democracy is no panacea for inequality, and economic and social hardship. This was her reply:
“Democracy won’t solve these problems, but a political problem. No one trusts the government, and democracy is the way to rebuild that trust. There are many groups gathered here today, all with their own problems. What we want is a system that means the government that runs Hong Kong will listen to all of Hong Kong, and not just those who listen only to the Communists.”
The level of response is itself telling. And it was by no means unusual.
July 1 demonstrations, 2015. Photo: Ryann Chan.
An hour later I stood under the Canal Street flyer-over watching thirty or so supporters of Voice of Loving Hong Kong robotically wave the PRC flag and shout insults at pro-democracy marchers as they filed by. For a group that claims to love Hong Kong, the Hong Kong flag and Hong Kong songs were notably absent. The sight of several men leaving the group caught my eye. Their passionate appeal to love Hong Kong was on hold as they watched, with far greater enthusiasm, the days horse racing. The differences between the two camps, and to risk unfair generalisation the two faces of Hong Kong, could not have been better illustrated.
Under the fly-over a line of policemen separated the two camps, deployed to face the marchers. I understand that the marchers, by sheer weight of numbers, may pose more of a danger. But how does it look? Let another sign of a police force that seems disinterested in healing a divided public, as if reputation is built only from one side. It is this attitude, arguably more than action, that betrays the politicisation of “our” force.
This years July 1st march has retained the essentials of all previous rallies. It continues to reflect the diversity of interest groups, not only political but also religious, and those who fight for social, community and minority rights. All are united by a belief in a liberal, free and just society, and in a democratic ideal. They are not united by any adherence to politics, or a party or any particular democratic system, but a shared belief in what are given to be universal values.
The absence of such pro-establishment groups as the Democratic Alliance for the Benefit of Hong Kong (DAB) and the anti-Occupy Alliance for Peace and Democracy only highlights the distinction between the supposedly democratic positions. It is a distinction best illustrated by those who each chooses to venerate: on the one camp the spirit of Nelson Mandela, Mohandas Gandhi and Aung Sung Syu Ki; on the other is Deng Xiaoping. It is the difference between the liberal democratic tradition and the “patriotic” democrat, driven not by the people but by politics, power and a party.
July 1 demonstrations, 2015. Photo: Ryann Chan.
The lower than expected turnout does not reflect on a change in a people’s valuation of such ideals. Victoria Park seemed empty and subdued only because we have come to expect the extraordinary. The turnout may be the lowest since 2008, but in a way the protest has returned to its own status quo.
After an emotional and tiring year, many of the young are exhausted. Many others no longer see the challenge. There are no more referendums, no more polls, no mass anti-occupy or pro-Beijing rallies. There is no package on the table left to challenge. There is no immediate urgency for the people to be counted.
But it is also a time when the pro-democracy movement is itself changing. As Audrey Eu addressed the marchers I noted it was not to the elder stateswoman who the crowd turned, but to the young social worker Ken Tsang. Mr. Tsang was videoed being beaten by seven officers whilst constrained and in police custody at last year’s occupy protests. Mr. Tsang did not speak; his presence was more powerful than words. As the organisers called on the police to be held accountable, Mr. Tsang had, by virtue of his victimhood, come to capture this change. He was beaten because he was an everyman; to many his ordeal mirrored those faced by ordinary Hong Kong people. It is a resonance that the old guard, eloquent if not always so able, no longer has. Not only has politics changed, but so too has the nature of the struggle.
This year we saw the July 1st protests return to its core supporters. They are the few that continues to represent the ideals of the many, who this year found no urgent need to take to the streets themselves. The flare has subsided, but the spark still shines just as intensely.
In 2008 I did not march. Last year I did and proudly stood up to be counted. This year, whilst I attended and marched part of the way, I did not stay the course. This year, like many, I did not think it important to be counted. And yet, like so many, my solidarity in spirit remains as strong as ever.
A new page for democracy in Hong Kong
White smoke engulfed the horizon, the tangy smell of tear gas penetrated my sinuses, tears obfuscated my vision. In my confused state, I felt a hand grabbing onto my wrist. Accompanying it was a frantic voice, guiding me away from the epicenter. As I regained my foothold, I was met by the glaring eyes of a crowd stern with determination. A deep sense of solidarity and belonging resonated within me. That was my awakening.
Hong Kong Umbrella Movement. Photo: Wikimedia.
I think back to the Umbrella Movement not with sentimentality. It is a reflection of the democratic progress of Hong Kong and my life took on a different trajectory after the event. From being politically apathetic to being deeply involved in Hong Kong politics, the past year have been insightful, daunting and rather disappointing. The solidarity that once drove me onto the streets have all but dissipated. Localist vs ‘leftards’, blue ribbons v.s. yellow ribbons, pacifists v.s. pseudo revolutionaries. Friendships that were once so deeply bonded over a single cause, were now destroyed over ideological differences. I began questioning myself, had the Umbrella Movement, the movement which I have been so intensely involved, served only to tear apart the social fabric of Hong Kong?
The prevalence of such disillusionment is rather striking among the ‘umbrella generation’. Having spent over 70 days on the streets, many deem the traditional way of protest to be either ineffective or downright useless. In stark contrast to last year’s turnout, only around 40,000 people participated in the July 1st march organised by the the Civil Human Rights Front this year. Some blame the low turnout on the lack of urgent issues in the post-reform climate. Some see the march as nothing more than a fundraiser for political parties. Some view the objectives of the march to be stale and disconnected from the spirit of the times. Whatever the reasons, there is no doubt that the current state of affairs have dealt a huge blow to the bargaining power of our democratic movement. This depression must be addressed with utmost urgency if we were to capitalise on the momentum gained in the Umbrella Movement and drive our democratic movement to its next apex.
July 1 March 2015. Photo: Arthur Lo.
A raging torrent that was the Umbrella Movement stirred and swirled the stagnant waters, and in the midst of uncertainty and disunity a new path could be drawn. Chaos is often the engine for change. Democracy have once again come to the forefront of our vernacular. Citizens have come to the understanding that democracy will not simply be conferred, it is something that we must fight for. To do so we must make democracy a fundamental part of our culture and sow its seeds deep into the soil.
With the district council elections looming over the horizon, a group of scholars and democratic supporters have initiated a project called “the community citizen charter”. Central to their vision is the importance of fostering a bottom-up approach and incorporating democratic elements into the daily lives of the citizenry. They wish to cultivate a culture of participatory democracy, starting at the community level. Through public dialogue, shared economic resources, participatory budgeting and creating a citizen assembly in all 18 districts; their goal is to disseminate democracy into the social fabric of Hong Kong.
This community first approach has an additional effect of creating what sociologists termed “bridging social capital”. When different people of different political affiliation join together in deciding community issues, their interaction will bring about their differences but also similarities on certain issues. This basic understanding creates trust and tolerance, and is the first step in healing the deep schism within the local community.
If democracy is our goal, it is up to each and everyone of us to make our dreams a reality. We should be eagerly participating in community organisations such as the district council, rural committee, owner’s corporation and the parent-teacher’s associations. It’s time to put our words into action.
沒有留言:
張貼留言