The problem with ‘OC’

The High Court, after hearing the petition by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp (HSBC) to regain the ground-level space occupied by the “Occupy Central” (“OC”) movement for the past 10 months, ordered the occupants to clear their camp underneath the HSBC Tower in Central by 9 pm on Aug 27. “OC” by nature is not the same as “Occupy Wall Street” (“OWS”) of the United States, because local banks did not cause the global financial crisis or hurt their customers for their own benefit like the American financial tycoons did. Those who carried out “OC” not only had no good reason for their action, but also trespassed on private property and challenged the capitalist system and lifestyle as we know it.

The court order to vacate tells us Hong Kong does not tolerate acts that threaten our social order in the name of confrontation and local residents are increasingly annoyed by some radical protesters’ disruptive behavior in violation of the law in recent years. It’s only a matter of time before the agitators are met with rejection by popular will as well as by the law.

Although the ground-level plaza under the HSBC Tower was designed as a public passageway, it is nevertheless private property and protected by law against trespassing by anyone on any ground. Also, the plaza is a key passageway for pedestrians in Central and any extended occupation inevitably inconveniences passers-by, not to mention the fact that the space is often used by charity organizations for public-spirited causes. Since the occupation it has been difficult for some charities to use the site for charitable purposes because of OC’s occupation.

It should also be noted that “OC” changed from what it was originally conceived. Most who started the occupation have left the camp. The occupants today are mostly homeless people, travelers or even hawkers doing business there without permission. Their presence not only creates an eyesore but poses a hazard to public security and to hygiene in the vicinity.

The “OWS” movement in New York was a reasonable cause, because it aimed at stopping financial tycoons from continuing to hold the US political parties and economy hostage, whereas “OC” in Hong Kong never had a plausible foundation to begin with.

This is an excerpted translation of a Wen Wei Po editorial published on Aug 14.