Hong Kong’s social upheaval only petered out under the double whammy of a transplanted national security law and the Covid-19 pandemic. As pre-pandemic life resumes, we will return to Hong Kong’s political evolution.
Politicians in Hong Kong could learn from Winston Churchill’s observation that in history lie all the secrets of statecraft. Or from Henry Kissinger’s book, Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy, in which he writes that great leaders must be able to withstand solitude, sustained only through studying history.
Several recent cases illustrate our politicians’ deficiencies.
Media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s sedition trial features a saga over him hiring a British barrister. Ahead of the Court of Final Appeal’s judgment, several pro-government politicians called for a National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee interpretation on the case.
In pre-empting the court’s authority and, indeed, the NPC’s decision, these politicians forget that history shows the NPC does not interpret Hong Kong law lightly, doing so on only five occasions in 25 years. Perhaps they oversimplified Beijing’s call to safeguard national security, misunderstanding terms used by the leadership such as “struggle” as Beijing encouraging them to further extend local political extremities.
Lai’s supporters have continued their cheerleading, sensing the possibility to embarrass Beijing internationally. Ironically, this farce has allowed Lai’s political enemies to reiterate that Hong Kong is unable to safeguard national security.
But these politicians fail to recognise that the true Chinese meaning of “struggle” contains an important aspect: self-criticism. This Confucian concept of self-control and discipline runs deep in the Chinese mindset. This type of enlightened “struggle” seeks to elevate one’s inner self to avoid making decisions based on pressures of the moment and narrow self-interest.
Du publicly suggested that Mao should have conducted localised experiments before implementing his full programme. In the current context, “little continuous steps” mean giving local authorities greater discretion in implementing policy.
Any policy initiative involves risk, but without taking responsibility through action, good leadership is impossible. Hong Kong government officials need to understand this.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong politicians on both sides should think through the consequences of their actions. The pan-democrats rejected moderate electoral reforms in 2014 that would have facilitated broader political participation, then recklessly attempted to force central government concessions through international pressure. This strategy backfired when protesters turned violent.
They have failed to produce leaders capable of leading popular opinion, rather than following it. Instead, they fed off the pro-establishment faction, providing each other with a reason to be and subjecting policymaking secondary to their vested interests.
Responsible Hong Kong politicians ought to be seeking strategies for economic recovery and addressing urgent social problems such as economic inequality, innovation stagnation, falling educational standards and the tendency for rent-seeking in laissez-faire capitalism.
This requires leaders who can, through studying history, assess the current atmosphere accurately and discern where Hong Kong’s evolution within China can lead. Such leadership requires the wisdom to unify and the boldness to be divisive. We must conceptualise a new future. For that we need better leaders.
China’s historic stability has been punctuated by periodic internal collapse. This fundamental consistency helps explain the political focus on internal security.
The Chinese political psyche believes the solution to one problem leads to another problem, as opposed to the Western view that an orderly, stable society can be achieved once all the problems have been solved. Hong Kong’s continued prosperity as a key civilisational bridge between China and the West depends on our leaders understanding this.