Feb 13th 2016
ON SOCIAL media the rioting that erupted in Hong Kong on February 8th has been dressed up as a righteous political protest: “#FishballRevolution” is the hashtag used to discuss the violence that racked a working-class district of the city for ten hours, resulting in injuries to 124 people, including 90 police officers (see article). The mayhem was triggered by reports that officials were trying to clear away illegal food stalls selling fishballs, a local delicacy.
In no sense was the violence righteous. Most Hong Kong residents were appalled. Their city is renowned for the peacefulness of its many protests. In an unusually prolonged outbreak of unrest late in 2014, known as the Umbrella Movement, pro-democracy protesters mostly remained on good terms with police. Not since the 1960s, during the madness of Mao’s Cultural Revolution in mainland China, have the territory’s streets seen such bloodshed.
Nonetheless, #FishballRevolution was undeniably political. Activists from a group called Hong Kong Indigenous, which stresses Hong Kong’s separateness from mainland China, were involved in the mêlée. Their pretext was the protection of a cherished tradition—eating from food stalls during the Chinese new-year holiday—from zealous officialdom.
Hong Kong Indigenous is a fringe group. Officials will be tempted to dismiss its resort to violence as an aberration over a triviality. In fact the central government in Beijing, and that of Hong Kong, should see what happened as evidence of social and political discontent. They have a role in putting it right.
When the Umbrella Movement eventually sputtered to an end in December 2014, both governments hoped that the public’s misgivings would abate. China had refrained from leaning on Hong Kong’s government to follow up its tear-gas assaults on the Umbrella protesters with even tougher measures and the tactic was quickly abandoned. But China also turned a deaf ear to the demonstrators’ demands for fully democratic elections for the territory’s leadership. Leung Chun-ying, the unpopular chief executive, showed no willingness to explain the protesters’ anxieties to his overlords in Beijing.
As a result, resentment towards officials has grown. The emergence of radical groups such as Hong Kong Indigenous is an extreme manifestation of the simmering discontent. Fears of China’s influence are evident even in debates about building transport links with the mainland (see article). Anxieties have been fuelled by the apparent abduction in recent months of five Hong Kong booksellers by Chinese agents—three while visiting mainland China, one from a resort in Thailand and another from Hong Kong itself. Many suspect that the men were “disappeared” because of plans to publish a tell-tale book about China’s president, Xi Jinping.
A fine kettle of fishballs
The months ahead in Hong Kong will not be calm. Elections will be held this year for the Legislative Council; and there will be a (rigged) election in 2017 for the chief executive. Mr Leung could help reduce tensions by launching a thorough investigation of the recent violence, including its social causes. Young people are concerned not just about high politics, but also about everyday issues such as unemployment and house prices. But it is China’s government that most urgently needs to act: by releasing the booksellers, apologising for their treatment and heeding calls for political reform. Above all, it needs to recognise that its “one country, two systems” formula depends on preserving Hong Kong’s freewheeling way of life. It should seek to persuade the people of Hong Kong to see themselves as Chinese through attraction, not intimidation.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21692880-violent-unrest-hong-kong-suggests-need-political-cures-wounded-society
