Skip to main content

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist.

A woman walks past bricks thrown by protesters after a clash with police in Hong Kong on Oct. 6, 2019. With the 'one country, two systems' arrangement due to expire in 2047, today’s protesters need to ask themselves whether their actions are likely to help Hong Kong people retain their current freedoms 20 years down the road, Frank Ching writes.

Felipe Dana/The Associated Press

This week marks the beginning of the fifth straight month of protests in Hong Kong. The million-person march on June 9 was focused on opposing the government’s extradition bill and that goal was finally achieved on Sept. 4, when Chief Executive Carrie Lam finally announced the withdrawal of the Fugitive Offenders bill.

But protests have continued, with escalating violence. The first police shooting of a protester, 18-year-old student Tsang Chi-kin, happened on Oct. 1, China’s national day. Now, the government has invoked emergency laws and announced a ban on face masks during all protests. This is a turning point.

Story continues below advertisement

Protesters should consider their future course, especially where violence is concerned. What can be achieved by pressing ahead, continuing and, in all likelihood, escalating the protests, followed inevitably by government escalation?

The protesters themselves are getting younger, with secondary-student numbers rising dramatically. One 15-year-old was quoted as saying: “If my death would mean Hong Kong got freedom and genuine democracy, then it would be worth it.”

A noble thought. But his death or the death of any number of young people won’t bring Hong Kong genuine democracy or significantly more freedom than it already has.

Where else in the world do people have the freedom to protest as people have in Hong Kong? Few governments, even in the West, would tolerate the destruction that has already wrought grievous damage to the economy. Few people in Hong Kong these days dare to go out in the evenings for fear of being caught up in protests.

Idealism is great, but it needs to be grounded in reality. The reality is that Britain returned Hong Kong to China in 1997, when it became a special administrative region, which gives Hong Kong residents freedoms comparable with the freest cities in the world, ones that are denied to 1.4 billion people in mainland China.

According to both the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Hong Kong Basic Law, Hong Kong’s special status will last for 50 years under the “one country, two systems” principle. It will end on June 30, 2047. This provides Hong Kong with such things as the common law system inherited from Britain and an independent judiciary.

Henry Litton, who sat on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal from 1997 until his retirement in 2015, recently wrote: “The common law system underpinning Hong Kong’s ‘core values’ is destined to expire in 27 years’ time. … There is no mechanism in the Basic Law for the system to continue beyond 30 June, 2047. All the calls for Freedom, Democracy etc. have no meaning if the common law crumbles.”

Story continues below advertisement

Again, this is reality. Today’s protesters need to ask themselves whether their actions are likely to help Hong Kong people retain their current freedoms 20 years down the road.

Isn’t it better to lock in what Hong Kong has today rather than to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Of course, that doesn’t mean that people should not fight for change in Hong Kong. But they have to ask themselves how hurling gasoline bombs is going to bring democracy, how the lives of Hong Kong people will improve as a result of damaging subway stations and putting the economy into recession.

In fact, change is occurring before our very eyes, with property developers offering land to the government for development. There is now a consensus within Hong Kong, backed by Chinese state media, that unaffordable housing won’t be tolerated. That, in itself, is a major victory.

The anti-extradition protests show how vital it is for any government to keep in close touch with the people. This is a lesson Ms. Lam and her successors are unlikely to forget.

In fact, as the highly acclaimed Murray MacLehose, governor from 1971 to 1982, demonstrated, it is possible even for a foreigner, someone who was unelected, who did not speak Cantonese, to govern well. As he later said: “My job was to make Hong Kong as contented and prosperous and cohesive as possible.”

Story continues below advertisement

There is reason to hope Beijing now understands that for a Hong Kong government to function effectively, it needs the support of the people. In 2017, China said that the most important quality a candidate for chief executive required was China’s trust.

Now, it should know that the trust and support of the Hong Kong people is just as important. That, too, is a reality.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter