“Why Should We Hide Our Faces?” Hong Kong’s Voices on the Ground

We spoke to a working professional from Hong Kong who has participated in the demonstrations that began this summer in response to a controversial extradition bill, and which have blossomed into a fully-fledged movement seeking political change. She shares with us her perspective as an educated, middle-class Hongkonger concerned about the city’s fate.

Q: To the outside world, the protests may seem scattershot or chaotic, breaking out across Hong Kong. How do people know when to go out, or which demonstrations to join?

A: Demonstrations do not occur randomly, nor do they take place everywhere around the city. The protests are announced in advance, with dates and timings. It is relatively organized, with calendars published and shared online.

Life does continue amidst these events. If a person wanted to avoid the sites of protest on the street, it would not be difficult for a Hongkonger [to] steer clear of them, although it might be harder for visitors to do so.

Q: How often do you join the protests?

A: As a working professional, I try to go on weekends when I have time. At most legal protests, I try not to wear masks. It’s about exercising our legal right of assembly and showing our support for this movement. Why should we hide our faces?

You don’t really know if a demonstration will ultimately be legal or illegal. It might start out as a legal assembly in a designated area, but then it spills onto the street because so many people are joining. If that crowd walks down the street and deviates in any way from the original route, it can technically be interpreted as an “unlawful assembly.”

The police are supposed to inform protesters when an assembly has been declared “unlawful.” However, protesters may hardly be aware when this happens—officers may put up a sign, in a place not within our eyesight.

If the police start shooting tear gas, you will know the demonstration is now considered illegal. This is when I put on a mask. The surgical mask I carry is not a chemical mask, so it’s not effective protection against the tear gas; but when police deem things an “unlawful assembly” and charge in, it’s better not to have your photo taken.

Many protesters are concerned about photos being taken, no matter if the assembly is legal or not, since China is renowned for using face recognition technology to monitor its people. A sense of “White Terror” is increasingly felt in Hong Kong, and we are quite worried that such images could be used against you later. Look at what is happening at Cathay Pacific and TVB—staff were laid off because they posted pro-protest messages on Facebook.

A calendar of protest events in Hong Kong in August.

Q: Does your family support you taking part in these civic actions?

A: My father has never been supportive of any protests. He has been reading Chinese propaganda and other false reports circulating around. He would like to think he’s one step ahead of everyone, and has started to believe in the conspiracy theories. For example, he was once against the triads who attacked innocent passengers inside the metro station in Yuen Long; but now he thinks the attackers were actually protesters themselves. It’s a little sad to see him getting hoodwinked.

My brother is a financial expert, so for him, the bottom line is that he doesn’t want anything to impact Hong Kong’s economy. People like him are determined not to take any sides, because it’s uncomfortable for him to get emotionally involved and affect his “rational” thinking.

Q: Are there recent developments with the August protests that you have noticed?

A: Young people have been powering the movement, but they are joined by Hongkongers from all walks of life, including middle-class professionals and the elderly as well. The key driver, I believe, is the use of excessive force and brutality by police, who have been quite unaccountable since the Umbrella Movement. This is the primary reason that the protest continues, despite the [controversial extradition] bill being claimed as “dead”—although officially not yet withdrawn. School will come into session in coming weeks, and students will be returning to the classroom. This doesn’t mean the demonstrations are ending, but the rhythm of protests will change. 

Q: We’ve heard that students from ten universities and perhaps a hundred secondary schools are talking about boycotting classes in September. Is that going to be a problem for students’ learning?

A: There are discussions in the universities about this, but if it happens, it does not mean students will forgo their education. In the event of boycott or organized cancellation, individual departments have the ability to determine how to maintain students’ access to education.

In the previous Umbrella Movement, professors would videotape their lectures and put them online, so protesting students did not miss out. We have also seen classes being moved to open areas on campus before, as well as professors giving public lectures at the site of the demonstrations and teach in the open, in solidarity. Some professors would also adjust the weight of attendance in calculating a final grade.

Technically, it may be easier for secondary schools to adjust, as many operate according to a six-day rotating schedule. If classes are canceled every Monday, for example, teachers will only occasionally have to adjust their lesson plans. The problem with secondary school boycotting classes is that most students are underage, not adults. Many would claim that secondary students are not “mentally mature enough” in understanding their actions and the consequences to follow.

Q: There are have been a number of violent incidents, including bricks thrown at police and vandalism of police stations. Do people support these violent actions?

A: It’s true that there are protesters resorting to violence because they are extremely frustrated. While most protesters won’t take part in such actions, you only need a small number of people who are very angry to cause major damage.

I consider myself a protester, but I am also non-violent. The local term for this segment is called the “和平理性非暴力” (和理非 for short), which means we are “peaceful, rational, and non-violent.”

Overall, working-age protesters are less prone to violence than the youth, probably because we have more responsibility at work and greater financial losses if we get arrested. But our patience for the government is wearing thin, and our tolerance for the students’ choice to take radical, even violent, action is growing.

This is because after so many peaceful protests, at the end of the day, you get nothing. I do not commit any acts of violence myself, but at this point, I can understand the radical fringe of students who are resorting to it.

That said, if you commit violence, you should be ready to accept responsibility and take the consequences of those actions. Violence is a choice that you make.

“After so many peaceful protests, at the end of the day, you get nothing.”

I can respect what they are choosing to do, even if I do not take part in it, because there has been no progress whatsoever on the part of the government. The Umbrella Movement demonstrations were five years ago, and not one step has been made since then.

District Council elections are already coming up in November, and critically, the Legislative Council elections are in 2020—yet nothing has been done to reform the political system. People are losing faith in peaceful protest.

Q: What do you bring with you when you go to the protests?

A: I bring masks, as well as saline water to wash-off pepper spray or tear gas in the eyes. Hong Kong is a well-off society, and many of the protesters and supporters of the movement are working professionals. They have a decent amount of money to support the students by providing these kinds of items.

Most of the students who participated in the Umbrella Movement five years ago are now young professionals. Not only are they earning salaries, they are also using their skills to have an impact. For instance, they may create marketing materials or draft statements in Chinese that explain the protesters’ point of view to reach a wider range of audiences, such as elders who are not on social media. They also design advertisements to inform global media.

Hong Kong medical professionals like doctors and nurses are also quite proactive in criticizing the police’s unnecessary use of tear gas that causes physical harm to nearby residents. Some even provide medical support to protesters at the protest site. Many lawyers and experts across other industries have also been quite vocal. A number of professionals have formed groups to express their concern about politics, since the Umbrella Movement.

Q: Should Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam offer a dialogue with the protesters?

A: There are no “leaders” who she can really dialogue with, as it’s a very flexible, decentralized movement. In any case, the protesters have already made their five demands very clear, but unfortunately, the government has not addressed a single one of them. Even if dialogue were offered, the protesters would simply ask, “What is there to talk about?” If the government wanted to create the conditions for a dialogue, it could offer meaningful action on even one of the items, but it has so far declined to do so.

During Occupy [the Umbrella Movement protests], under the C.Y. Leung administration, Carrie Lam was the Chief Secretary, the head of Hong Kong’s civil service. She stepped up to be a bridge between the protesters and the government. Today, it appears no one is willing to be that bridge for her. The current Chief Secretary, Matthew Cheung Kin-Chung, tried to make conciliatory remarks when police were accused of failing to respond to attacks against protesters and innocent bystanders in Yuen Long (or possibly even colluding with the attackers)—but then he was harshly criticized by the police. He’s stayed silent ever since.

Q: Some suggest that the “oligarchs,” or real estate “tycoons,” are the real cause of much of the protesters’ misery. Are they also targets of the protesters?

A: We recognize that they are the origin of Hong Kong’s inequality. But it’s the responsibility of the government to regulate them and change the dynamics. If the political system is fundamentally broken, there isn’t any hope of real reform. That’s why we are calling for a more responsive government, which arises when we have an electoral system that allows us to choose accountable leaders. The “five demands by protesters” originally included “Carrie Lam to Step Down,” but has now changed to “Universal Suffrage,” because we know that the root cause is the fact that our leaders are not accountable to the people.

Actions by some developers related to the protests are being challenged. For example, Sun Hung Kai allegedly led police into their mall to arrest protesters, and that is being condemned. But overall, it hasn’t risen to a strong movement against developers.

Interestingly, Li Ka Shing, a billionaire developer, actually gained public esteem by putting out a very smart advertisement. He used a Chinese poem tactic to signal tacit support for the protesters—at least that’s how it’s being interpreted by the public. Unlike the other tycoons, he’s the only one courageous enough to come out and say something to Beijing.

Li Ka Shing placed front-page advertisements in all major Hong Kong newspapers, ostensibly calling for non-violence, but with a hidden message that appears to recognize the righteousness of the protesters’ cause and affirming Hong Kong’s autonomy. A separate advertisement, a quote from a Tang Dynasty poem, was ostensibly directed toward leadership in Beijing.

Q: If real estate developers are so despised, why aren’t the protesters running around and attacking the malls?

A: Well honestly, Hong Kong people love malls. We don’t destroy the things we like. Those malls are actually our public spaces!

Q: Some people claim the protesters are in the minority, and there is a silent majority against the demonstrations. Do you believe this is the case?

A: A lot of people don’t like the current situation. They want the tensions to stop. But does this majority support the government? No, they do not. They just don’t have a solution to the impasse, which is why they might support suppressing or ending the protests, to return to the status quo.

“Carrie Lam stepping down doesn’t matter. That won’t mollify the Hong Kong public.”

Q: It doesn’t seem the students or the young professionals have a solution to the impasse either. Can anything be done?

A: Carrie Lam stepping down doesn’t matter. That won’t mollify the Hong Kong public. There are two things the government could do to rectify the situation.

First, the extradition bill needs to be officially retracted. They say it’s “dead” but have refused to formally withdraw it. It is still in the Hong Kong Government Gazette, the official publication in which laws are promulgated. They can restart the bill at any time. Retracting it would reassure the public that this law is out of the picture.

Second, something must be done about excessive use of force by the police. It’s been quite shocking to see the lack of restraint, the level of violence used against protesters. People simply do not trust the police anymore.

An investigation by a trusted entity would be crucial. In Hong Kong, this could be an independent commission with a judge. We still believe in our judges, to some degree.  The government is currently only investigating police brutality through the 監警會, the so-called Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). The problem is, this body does not have the power to really investigate or change anything. They only have the ability to read police reports and give comments to the 投訴警察課 Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO), an internal police body.

Even if the IPCC raises issues to the CAPO, they cannot change how police behave. During the Umbrella Movement, we already asked for a truly independent body with the power to require changes by the police, but nothing has happened since then.

If our government were really trying to resolve the problem, it would initiate discussions about political reform—universal suffrage in the election of Chief Executives, and ideally abolishing the functional constituencies*. But I don’t think this will happen.

[Editor’s note: In Hong Kong’s electoral system, only half of the seats in the 70-member Legislative Council are popularly elected. Small interest groups called “functional constituencies” are permitted to select the other half of legislators. This system undermines the democratic principle of “one person, one vote” because the limited number of functional constituency members gain outsized influence over the composition of the legislature.]

Q: Given that things are moving so quickly in Hong Kong, how can people stay informed about the protests?

A: Even as a Hongkonger who is plugged in, it can be hard to know the truth immediately. It is in fact quite dangerous to react too quickly, since there are many rumors or unverified information on social media. It may take one or two days for the real facts to come out, so we must be patient. But I still believe that truth exists.

Some Chinese trolls or government propagandists are trying to sow chaos by publishing false stories that muddy the waters. When that happens, certain people will say you cannot believe anything at all, and therefore we shouldn’t take sides. But that’s exactly what Beijing wants—for people not to care.

We need to look at things critically, and separate fact from fiction, but we shouldn’t let any momentary confusion cloud our resolve. Just because a politician claims everything is “fake news” doesn’t mean that reality doesn’t exist.

We have to keep believing in and fighting for Hong Kong’s freedom.

(Cover photo: Studio Incendo via Flickr, CC BY 2.0)