Polarisation perils; my objective assessment of Occupy Central’s impact
Legislator Sin Chung Kai takes a hard look at Occupy Central’s impact on Hong Kong’s economy, society and political structure.
Polarisation is often the bane of objectivity, and there is no doubt that Hong Kong’s political environment is quite polarised at the moment. The pro-Beijing Chief Executive and his Executive Council see record low approval ratings as they leverage the support of mainstream opinions and silent majorities, while radical parties and leaders throw objects and insults as they point to the backing of unofficial referendums and disputed march estimates. In these times, objectivity is of paramount importance to prevent polarisation from turning into dysfunctional stagnation.
In some ways, I cannot fully meet my own call for objectivity. As a member of the Democratic Party, a party that stands for universal suffrage in line with international standards, I advocate for electoral reform. As a public servant who has been elected to serve in multiple tiers of Hong Kong’s government, I understand the mandate of genuine democracy. On the one hand, complete objectivity is a standard that is impossible to fulfill – we all have lingering blinders and preconceived notions. On the other hand, it is a standard for which I strive.
Occupy’s Impact
My primary aim is to assess the impact of Occupy Central on Hong Kong’s economy, social stability, and prospects for universal suffrage. The economic damage caused by a blockade in Central is often raised as the first objection to the civil disobedience action. The Big 4, HSBC, Barclays, business chambers, and the Silent Majority for Hong Kong have all issued warnings about business relocations, flights of capital, and transportation overload. Although many analysts have pointed out the mitigating factors of industry precautions through contingency drills and alternative work locations, it is undeniable that Occupy Central would have a discernible effect on traffic and financial markets. The critical question is one of magnitude. Professor Frances Lui Ting-ming from the University of Science and Technology, incorporating losses incurred by foregone rent, labor costs, long-term impact on tourism, and other political uprisings, has calculated a total cost of HK$ 1.6 billion at a rate of HK$ 206 million/day. Other Occupy Central critics, including my fellow Legislative Councilor Cheung Wah-fung, have noted potential crushing losses in stock market transactions.
We have a duty to follow moral laws, even if they contradict the edicts of Beijing leaders
Short term pain, long term gain
While the economic shock could be substantial in scale, it would also be short-term in nature. Tom Holland, in an empirical examination for the South China Morning Post, demonstrated how work and transactions rebound by highlighting above-average economic growth in typhoon season and London’s financial sector development despite frequent protest marches.
Ultimately, Hong Kong’s economic status is determined by structural factors: the credibility of its legal system, the freedom of its markets, and the reliability of its regulators. Daiwa Capital Markets has stated that the erosion of Hong Kong’s judicial independence, compared to the impact of Occupy Central, is the larger concern for economic growth. Indeed, substantive electoral reforms that guarantee government transparency and accountability will safeguard the long-term development of the economy.
Civil disobedience is only necessary when government has failed the people
Experience: Peaceful, orderly, organised
In addition to the forecasts of economic chaos, many Occupy Central opponents have painted a picture of social chaos. The worst case scenario, Chinese troops violently suppressing the movement, seems utterly preposterous due to the backlash from the international community, but the world would be remiss to forget what happened on June 4th. The critical factor is whether the civil disobedience turns violent. Both the security chief and Chief Executive have warned that radical elements could hijack the movement and violently confront the police, but they would do well to take into consideration the following information. The leaders of Occupy Central are moderate intellectuals, pastors, and academics. The students have displayed their passion for peace through a march against patriotic education and a nonviolent sit-in. The participants attend deliberation workshops to avoid confrontation, organise civil referendums to gauge public opinion, and identify with Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. While it is impossible to rule out fringe protesters lashing out with individual acts of violence, the evidence clearly supports a peaceful movement.
Governance Goals, Own Goals
The greater social risk is the movement’s effect on governance. Civil disobedience is only necessary when government has failed the people. The issues are formidable: rising income inequality, balancing development and conservation, and declining press freedom. Legitimacy in leadership and deliberation between legislators, which is dependent on genuine democracy, are necessary to resolve these problems. If the Hong Kong government and Beijing cannot agree on an electoral reform package that meets Article 39 of the Basic Law, which incorporates the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, then both Occupy Central and complete government paralysis will be unavoidable. This would be the endpoint of subjectivity: ideological excess and a government so afraid of change that it fails to govern at all.
OC KPI
Now that risks have been assessed, the important question of Occupy Central’s impact on universal suffrage can be addressed. From a pragmatic political standpoint, the threat of a civil disobedience action provides leverage in negotiations that could result in an electoral reform package in line with international standards. The movement fulfills all the qualities of a credible threat: it was announced beforehand, it has demonstrated a willingness to follow through, and it poses a significant risk to the other party. Adding to the economic and social disruptions, an actualisation of Occupy Central would magnify international attention on Hong Kong’s struggle for universal suffrage, thereby multiplying pressure on the central government.
Officials “will find it difficult to ignore 10,000 people willing to go to prison for what they believe in.”
Mainland officials have taken hardline stances that extremist acts will not be tolerated; Hong Kong government officials have refused to even acknowledge the movement in its official reports. But they will find it difficult to ignore 10,000 people willing to go to prison for what they believe in. It would be an unprecedented action, but history can still provide context for its impact. In 2003, a 500,000-strong protest resulted in the withdrawal of Article 23. In 2012, a massive demonstration resulted in the abandonment of the compulsory national political studies curriculum.
More than political calculus
Beyond political calculus, Occupy Central is, to me, so much more. It is a reminder that human beings are subjective, not objective, beings. We have a duty to follow moral laws, even if they contradict the edicts of Beijing leaders. The Chief Executive campaigned on the principle of this city’s One Heart. Occupy Central would be a test of how powerfully it beats.
The Honourable Sin Chung-kai (單仲偕) is the LegCo member for Hong Kong Island (GC) and and Executive Committee member of the Democratic Party. Next year will mark his second decade in LegCo.
