Autonomy vs. state paternalism
The latest development in Hong Kong’s “Occupy Central” saga occurred
last week, when a group called “Silent Majority for HK” posted a video
on YouTube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEH_TdDwXjo#t=15) stating that they
(the protesters) can “kill this city.”
According to its webpage, the group was established by “deeply concerned citizens” in August 2013 and intends to “raise public awareness about the potential damage that the Occupy Central might bring to HK’s economy, law and order and the livelihood of the population.” In the video, the group states that the effects of thousands of people protesting in Hong Kong’s Central District will have a serious impact on road traffic and public transport.
“When they paralyze Central, traffic blockage will spread at six minutes to one kilometer,” the video claims. As a result, “400,000 people will be blocked,” meaning that they will be unable to commute from home to work. Based on traffic and transport studies commissioned by the group, they claim that 1.3 million people will be stuck in HK Island alone, and that blockages will spread to Kowloon and other areas in the HKSAR. “Like dominoes, our traffic system collapses” and “catastrophic overcrowding will occur” in the MTR, the group claims. They continued by claiming that emergency medical services will be paralyzed, endangering lives, before hinting at the possibility of robberies and looting. The video ends with a menacing message and diabolic laughter in the background (no, I’m not making this up): “Occupy Central: they can kill this city. The question is: do we let them?”
The alarming video earned a swift reply from Chan Kin-man, an associate professor of sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and one of the Occupy Central organizers. He told the New York Times that the video overstates the disruption caused by the protests.
“We’ve made it very clear that although we would block traffic in Central, we would reserve roads for emergency vehicles, and would avoid roads that block access to people’s residences,” he said.
As is the case in Macau, there are two types of protesters active in the neighboring region. The type that causes the most discomfort to governments are the legitimate protest movements such the Occupy Central movement, which demands an electoral reform allowing citizens to genuinely vote on their next Chief Executive (like in Macau, the HK leader is picked by a pro-Beijing committee). Other legitimate examples include the protests of May 25 and 27 in Macau, which caught the local authorities by surprise.
Occupy Central has remained legitimate because it hasn’t turned violent (although some speculate that it may yet become vicious), and because people are able to have a say in what they believe is best for HK’s future. This raises fear in the conservative factions of society and seemingly also in Beijing, which issued the controversial “white paper” asserting the Central Government’s authority over the SAR.
Unfortunately, in HK, we often see protests that are not so civilized and turn violent. The most recent episode happened last week and is related to a proposed development in the north-eastern New Territories. Opponents tried to storm into the Legislative Council (Legco) building with bamboo poles, and the scene ended in chaos, forcing lawmakers to abort the vote. The police resorted to pepper spray to subdue the crowd.
Inside the Legco, it is normal to see radical lawmakers hurling projectiles at speakers (especially if the speaker is the Chief Executive CY Leung) and interrupting proceedings.
This kind of behavior doesn’t benefit the democratic cause. On the contrary, it only hurts it and allows a paternalistic approach, like the one advocated in Beijing’s “white paper.” “See what happens if we let them loose. They will cause chaos and misery. They will ruin our city,” we clearly hear in the aforementioned video and read between the lines in the “white paper.”
In Macau, there are some professional activists who attend all the protests (whatever their nature) with surly faces and sour looks. Beware of them. When asked for an interview, they will refuse because they don’t like non-Chinese media (and foreigners in general) and, of course, they have nothing to say. I wonder who backs these local ‘confusionists.’
Let’s just hope that they will not be able to contaminate (although they will surely try) a potentially powerful movement like the one awoken on May 25.
(By PB; published in MDT)
According to its webpage, the group was established by “deeply concerned citizens” in August 2013 and intends to “raise public awareness about the potential damage that the Occupy Central might bring to HK’s economy, law and order and the livelihood of the population.” In the video, the group states that the effects of thousands of people protesting in Hong Kong’s Central District will have a serious impact on road traffic and public transport.
“When they paralyze Central, traffic blockage will spread at six minutes to one kilometer,” the video claims. As a result, “400,000 people will be blocked,” meaning that they will be unable to commute from home to work. Based on traffic and transport studies commissioned by the group, they claim that 1.3 million people will be stuck in HK Island alone, and that blockages will spread to Kowloon and other areas in the HKSAR. “Like dominoes, our traffic system collapses” and “catastrophic overcrowding will occur” in the MTR, the group claims. They continued by claiming that emergency medical services will be paralyzed, endangering lives, before hinting at the possibility of robberies and looting. The video ends with a menacing message and diabolic laughter in the background (no, I’m not making this up): “Occupy Central: they can kill this city. The question is: do we let them?”
The alarming video earned a swift reply from Chan Kin-man, an associate professor of sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and one of the Occupy Central organizers. He told the New York Times that the video overstates the disruption caused by the protests.
“We’ve made it very clear that although we would block traffic in Central, we would reserve roads for emergency vehicles, and would avoid roads that block access to people’s residences,” he said.
As is the case in Macau, there are two types of protesters active in the neighboring region. The type that causes the most discomfort to governments are the legitimate protest movements such the Occupy Central movement, which demands an electoral reform allowing citizens to genuinely vote on their next Chief Executive (like in Macau, the HK leader is picked by a pro-Beijing committee). Other legitimate examples include the protests of May 25 and 27 in Macau, which caught the local authorities by surprise.
Occupy Central has remained legitimate because it hasn’t turned violent (although some speculate that it may yet become vicious), and because people are able to have a say in what they believe is best for HK’s future. This raises fear in the conservative factions of society and seemingly also in Beijing, which issued the controversial “white paper” asserting the Central Government’s authority over the SAR.
Unfortunately, in HK, we often see protests that are not so civilized and turn violent. The most recent episode happened last week and is related to a proposed development in the north-eastern New Territories. Opponents tried to storm into the Legislative Council (Legco) building with bamboo poles, and the scene ended in chaos, forcing lawmakers to abort the vote. The police resorted to pepper spray to subdue the crowd.
Inside the Legco, it is normal to see radical lawmakers hurling projectiles at speakers (especially if the speaker is the Chief Executive CY Leung) and interrupting proceedings.
This kind of behavior doesn’t benefit the democratic cause. On the contrary, it only hurts it and allows a paternalistic approach, like the one advocated in Beijing’s “white paper.” “See what happens if we let them loose. They will cause chaos and misery. They will ruin our city,” we clearly hear in the aforementioned video and read between the lines in the “white paper.”
In Macau, there are some professional activists who attend all the protests (whatever their nature) with surly faces and sour looks. Beware of them. When asked for an interview, they will refuse because they don’t like non-Chinese media (and foreigners in general) and, of course, they have nothing to say. I wonder who backs these local ‘confusionists.’
Let’s just hope that they will not be able to contaminate (although they will surely try) a potentially powerful movement like the one awoken on May 25.
(By PB; published in MDT)
Etiquetas: Crónica
0 Comentários:
Enviar um comentário
Subscrever Enviar feedback [Atom]
<< Página inicial