Hong Kong News
Nonpartisan, Noncommercial, unconstrained.
Saturday, Feb 22, 2025
Real, Diverse, Unbiased.
If Hong Kong is to have a future, both sides must say no to violence
Indiscriminate violence, whether deployed by protesters or pro-government thugs, destroys Hong Kong’s reputation for pluralism. If both sides turn a blind eye to violence perpetrated by affiliates, hopes for democracy will recede further.
In four months, the Hong Kong protests have spiralled into some of the city’s worst civil unrest on record. The city has become the scene of regular clashes between tear gas- and gun-wielding police and civilians armed with Molotov cocktails and projectiles. A violent, radical minority of protesters have smashed storefronts, destroyed public infrastructure and made arson attacks on political targets – only to have pro-establishment vigilantes entering the fray and retaliating.
A ban on face masks, which was imposed with the ostensible purpose of de-escalating the crisis, has led to heightened paranoia and resentment among the moderate and the apathetic members of the public, as evidenced by the storm of protests that erupted the day after the law took effect. It suffices to say that the next few weeks will be critical for the future of Hong Kong.
Our actions today – as a city, as a collective of individuals with different political beliefs and moral values – will decide where we are headed in the next 28 years, before Deng Xiaoping’s promise to preserve Hong Kong’s way of life for 50 years expires.
Choosing the option of mutual violence – both by and towards civilians – would only put us on the path of no return.
The pursuit of violence has already taken its toll on our economy. As tourist figures collapse, business revenues dwindle, and the livelihoods of the most vulnerable workers are threatened by rampant police and protest violence, an economic downturn is likely imminent. Should such violence continue, the large-scale flight of capital and investors might undermine Hong Kong’s status as a global financial hub, further weakening our ability to make a case for democracy as far as Beijing is concerned.
Many in the protest movement have argued that they turn to violence because non-violent methods do not work. They see violence as the only efficacious tactic for compelling Beijing to make concessions.
But this argument neglects several core issues: the central government’s political interests lie within Zhongnanhai and the military-supported maintenance of stability in the mainland; its economic interests are distributed among its various rising metropolises and economic hubs. It is indubitably true that Beijing is unwilling to see Hong Kong descend into absolute violence – there is some credence to the claim that Hong Kong matters vastly to China’s currency regime, financial markets and legal infrastructure.
A ban on face masks, which was imposed with the ostensible purpose of de-escalating the crisis, has led to heightened paranoia and resentment among the moderate and the apathetic members of the public, as evidenced by the storm of protests that erupted the day after the law took effect. It suffices to say that the next few weeks will be critical for the future of Hong Kong.
Our actions today – as a city, as a collective of individuals with different political beliefs and moral values – will decide where we are headed in the next 28 years, before Deng Xiaoping’s promise to preserve Hong Kong’s way of life for 50 years expires.
Choosing the option of mutual violence – both by and towards civilians – would only put us on the path of no return.
The pursuit of violence has already taken its toll on our economy. As tourist figures collapse, business revenues dwindle, and the livelihoods of the most vulnerable workers are threatened by rampant police and protest violence, an economic downturn is likely imminent. Should such violence continue, the large-scale flight of capital and investors might undermine Hong Kong’s status as a global financial hub, further weakening our ability to make a case for democracy as far as Beijing is concerned.
Many in the protest movement have argued that they turn to violence because non-violent methods do not work. They see violence as the only efficacious tactic for compelling Beijing to make concessions.
But this argument neglects several core issues: the central government’s political interests lie within Zhongnanhai and the military-supported maintenance of stability in the mainland; its economic interests are distributed among its various rising metropolises and economic hubs. It is indubitably true that Beijing is unwilling to see Hong Kong descend into absolute violence – there is some credence to the claim that Hong Kong matters vastly to China’s currency regime, financial markets and legal infrastructure.
