Hong Kong’s taste of rebellion

In 1997, when Britain turned over Hong Kong to China, everyone agreed the change would leave Hong Kong with a “high degree of autonomy.” It would keep its own legal system as well as freedom of speech and religion. Under the Basic Law, passed by Beijing, Hong Kong would be run by a legislative council, elected by Hong Kong residents and business groups, with representatives of the Chinese government.

This arrangement, worked out by Margaret Thatcher’s government with Deng Xiaoping’s, was less than realistic. It assumed that a vast empire of 1.3 billion people could be trusted to protect the rights of a minuscule community with seven million. It sounded clumsy, and so it proved to be. For one thing, the interpretation of the Basic Law is in the hands of Beijing bureaucrats and judges.

Education was one cause of contention. A bill in the Hong Kong legislature ordered that schools teach pro-China “patriotic” history, with the emphasis on praising Mao Zedong’s policies, calamitous or not. In response, a student association staged large demonstrations and the idea was dropped, at least for the moment.

Two years ago, both Beijing and Hong Kong officials floated the idea that only Beijing-approved candidates would run in the election for the post of chief executive of the territory. This was not what Hong Kong had in mind and the Umbrella Movement against the Chinese government paralyzed the city for weeks. Crowds of 100,000 or more flooded the main streets. Police used pepper spray. Demonstrators tried to shield themselves with umbrellas, which gave the rebellion its name.

The movement faded when residents decided it was creating nothing but chronic inconvenience. Not everyone agreed with the demonstrators or admired their tactics. Many feared that political action would threaten local stability and cost them their jobs.

Even so, the events of 2014 left an exhilarating taste of rebellion. Several groups of young people began quietly organizing. One of them, Youngspiration, advocates autonomy for Hong Kong. Members argue that its prosperity and its well-educated population would make it an economic success, just as in the days when it was Britain’s last major colony.

Two members of Youngspiration, Sixtus Leung, 30, and Yau Wai-ching, 25, won seats in the recent legislative election. At the swearing-in ceremony they brought banners saying: “Hong Kong is not China.” That was just one offence. Another: when swearing allegiance to the “Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China,” they pronounced the word China as “Chee-na.” That’s how the Japanese said it when they were at war with China. Nowadays, on the mainland, “Chee-na” is considered a slur. THE BASIC LAW ASSUMED A VAST EMPIRE COULD BE TRUSTED TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF A MINUSCULE COMMUNITY.

Their movement is called localism, or sometimes separatism or even independence. Many Hong Kongers do not consider themselves Chinese. “We want to strengthen the Hong Kong identity,” Yau says. “Hong Kong is a nation: a political and economic community. For historical reasons, this people have the same ways of life, the same culture.” All they lack is a government of their own.

In the midst of this controversy, China’s President Xi Jinping gave a vehement speech against separatism. “All activities that intend to divide the country will certainly be firmly opposed by all Chinese people,” he said. “We will never allow anyone, any organization, any party to split off any tract of territory from China any time, or in any way.”

The behaviour of Sixtus Leung and Yau Wai-ching at the swearing-in was, according to the officer presiding, improper. It contravened the agreed-upon custom. So they were not authorized to take their seats.

Beijing, interpreting the Basic Law, agreed they could not be seated. The High Court in Hong Kong ruled with Beijing. Soon demonstrators, wearing face masks, began gathering outside the liaison office, where Beijing bureaucrats work. This week, it appeared that another prodemocracy movement was taking to the streets of Hong Kong.

The two rejected councillors will appeal the High Court ruling. If they lose, and their seats are considered empty, can they run again in the byelection? Beijing will decide.