The protest in Hong Kong is reaching its sixth month. From peaceful sit-in objecting the extradition bill to stochastic violence — conducted by part of the protesters — enacted upon the city’s infrastructures, pro-Beijing citizens, and even mainland tourists. The aim of the movement has already shifted from the withdrawal of the extradition bill to the realization of all of the “five demands,” which include releasing the arrested demonstrators and setting up an independent committee to investigate police violence besides the withdrawal of extradition bill.
The movement is losing the support of many former pro-Hong Kong within and outside of China mainland and becoming more helpless in the international society because of the mass violence that is occurring. In August, Lianhe Zaobao, a Singaporean news journal, published commentary claiming that “the movement has reached its time for reflections.” Yan Feng, a Chinese Literature professor at Fudan University, shifted his attitude from strongly supporting the protest to strongly opposing it, since he sees the same “craziness of the red guard in cultural revolution” when radical protesters attack people who have different opinions from them.
Indeed, the acts of “yongwupai,” or the group of protesters who normalize the use of violence in the process of achieving the five demands, can no longer be extenuated, since besides reacting to the police violence, they also impose violence and humiliation on citizens who express dissent in regards to their radical deeds. Guohao Fu, a journalist of a pro-Beijing newspaper was beaten so badly that he became concussed. More recently, Mr. Law, an old man who worked as a janitor was set on fire. Due to the intolerance of different voices and use of extreme violence towards innocent people we must consider how the radicalism of the protesters should be treated.
However, we should not forget why the original peaceful protest has evolved into mass violence in the first place. This is also why peaceful protesters still stand in solidarity with the radical protesters. And why it’s necessary to recognize the five major demands they put forth. Once Beijing is willing to directly face the dissent and demands of Hong Kong citizens, along with those of mainland citizens; agree to compromise with the protesters, and make the move to stop equating mass demonstrations with “treason” and “aiming for independence,” we can fundamentally solve the problem of Hong Kong and eliminate the violence on both sides.
In June, one seventh of Hong Kong citizens were on the street peacefully demonstrating their demands, and they received no response besides tear gas and rubber bullets from the police. Their voices have not been represented in mainland news. When mainland citizens post the situation of Hong Kong online, it is quickly censored. Under this stubborn attitude of the Hong Kong government and Beijing, I have to say that the utilization of violence is inevitable, since you cannot expect every person to be mild and rational after being teargassed for a month while receiving no response. In such a mass social movement, not everyone is privileged enough to know how to rationally express their demands when the authority is not responding positively. Also, statistically, you cannot expect every protester in this movement to be a “good person” when the bill concerns such a large proportion of Hong Kong residents, just like you cannot expect every person to be of upright morality and rationality with no potential vices in any given society. Once the central government’s non-responsive attitude triggers the perceived irrationality of some protesters among such a huge group, it is hardly surprising that such things would happen.
After the failure of 2014’s peaceful protest, also known as the “umbrella movement,” some of the milder and more peaceful protesters reflect on whether they are failing because they are being too mild towards such a horrendously well-oiled totalitarian apparatus. They fear that peaceful protest would be ultimately shut down without manifesting any of their demands, with leaders in jail just like what happened five years ago. This is also why the mild protesters tolerate the radicals’ deeds and have not drawn a line between the two factions. They need to maintain a unified front to make sure the movement is in on-going status. The radicals help them to maintain this status to some degree, especially the moment when the Hong Kong government for the first-time compromises to retract the bill. The retracting of the bill is seen by some people as a victory earned by violence, since what Beijing fears the most is the instability of the society brought by the radicals’ deeds.
It’s important to know that violence does not occur every day. On November 24th, when the district election took place, though pro-Beijing media claims that the radicals would damage the election, it went smoothly. The number of people who voted had broken the record and the pan-democracy camp received an unprecedented huge victory. This is a hopeful sign that reveals people are still willing to express their demands rationally when they have the option to do so, and many see this as a positive turning point that might mitigate the tension in the protest, reduce the abuse of violence, and ultimately bring all pro-democracy citizens a desirable end.
Ultimately, despite not supporting the use of random violence and disagreeing with hurting innocent people (excluding police) as a means to promote democracy, I see this as inevitable and originating from the staunch attitude and non-negotiating posture of the central government. To some degree, violence is chosen by radicals and tolerated by moderates because there are no other ways to bargain with the authority, and rational protesters themselves are also victims of the obstinacy of the government. They are powerless when faced with such an immovable political apparatus. Writing to this point, I’d say that I would never stand with violence, but I would always stand with Hong Kong and rational protesters who do not hurt innocent people, even though my meager support seems useless in the face of the government.
