![2[1].jpg](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5abadf_f310244424a443b29215dadb17bba49b~mv2.jpg/v1/crop/x_5,y_0,w_1069,h_1080/fill/w_101,h_102,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/2%5B1%5D.jpg)
Since the summer of 2019, Hong Kongers have been protesting against legislation that threatens Hong Kong’s democratic freedom. The Western media have depicted the protests as a series of freedom uprisings, as if they are another form of an East Asian “Arab Spring” (Garcia, 2019). My experience has led me to believe that the protests have been described in a one-sided manner and I would like to share the other opinions I have witnessed. I have been in Durham University since the pre-sessional course, which started late August 2019. During that time, I had made many friends from mainland China. I had the chance to talk about the Hong Kong protests with some of them and what I caught was their unsurprising disagreements with the protesting. However, the opinions struck me as taking an unexpected shape.
One of my friends did not disagree that Hong Kongers are fighting for democracy and freedom, but he did, however, disagree with how the protesters are illustrated in the western mainstream media is not fair to the Chinese Government. He described how the protesters have been ‘playing the victim card’ and ‘taking morally higher ground’, whereas mainland China has been described as a tyrant, and thus the destruction and social chaos they have caused has been overlooked. ‘Is Hong Kong safe?’ is not a question that would usually be asked due to the city’s low crime rate, but is increasingly becoming a concern for visitors and tourists. He concluded that he believes the protesters are ironically anti-democratic because they have been acting in a way that does not promote democracy and conversation, but are still somehow illustrated as democracy fighters by the Western media. Moreover, another friend of mine simply told me that there will be no Hong Kong soon, and that these legislation debates should come as no surprise given they are part of preparations of the Chinese government for the ‘one country, two systems’ arrangement to be removed in 2047, as agreed between China and the UK. Under the constitutional principle that is ‘one country, two systems’, Hong Kong currently operates its own governmental system, legal and economic affairs and international trade separate to mainland China.
He went on to highlight that careless democratization is not preferable in China in order to maintain stability and peace due to the huge scale of its population and diversity. This statement reminded me of peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina; Mac Ginty (2011) illustrated that after the attempt of democratization, it manifested itself as a disastrous conflict. A continuity may be observed between the socialist era of Yugoslavia and the post-Dayton Accord, in terms of a contributive element to peace. A multi-ethno religious population was summed under one constitutional nation, and peace was dependent upon all the people who have co-existed over generations and their everyday life culture (Mac Ginty, 2011). It seems the difficult question of what is really needed for peace may also be asked in China as well. It is undeniable that the Chinese Communist Party is highly regarded in China and therefore it must be questioned outside of the Western perspective as to why so few Chinese citizens are looking towards democracy, and what this means for the future.
Another friend of mine, who finished his postgraduate course last year, was an interesting figure to me. He was born in Japan and lived there for twelve years, later moving to mainland China (his parents are Chinese), and then he came to England for a master’s degree. He speaks English, Chinese, and very fluent Japanese as well, which is my mother tongue. He was aware of Chinese political imperfections and reiteratively told me that “what I would say is give us more time”. I still remember this, because he kept repeating this idea, as if I was blaming him for something he does not agree with. Probably, because of his particular international background, he has been able to see things wider than the most of us. Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, has advocated for China to maintain a free and open Hong Kong.
I am aware that there is no representation from the Hong Kong side in this article. It may be critiqued for the one-sidedness here. What I have written is dependent on what I have personally encountered. I do not intend to belittle what Hong Kongers are aiming to achieve. I do not think that their motive for protesting is deceitful and in-genuine. But, I do not think my friends from mainland China were in-genuine in their concerns either. It seems that we are blinded by the ideological mindsets that have resided strongly within us, limiting us from seeing things deeper, and forsaking conversations that are beneficial to us. I know there is a difference between the perception of the West, of which Japanese shares a similar view, and that of the Chinese. We have a great number of Chinese representatives in Durham University, certainly in the postgraduate courses at least. Maybe the time is ripe for us to be a little more serious about conversations that might take us beyond prejudices.
Author: Shumpei Tsujimoto
References
・ANON (2019). Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems [Accessed November 6, 2019]
・ Garcia, R.T. (2019) Hong Kong Protests Revive the Spirit of the Arab Spring. The News Lens 關鍵評論網. Available at: https://international.thenewslens.com/feature/hkantielab/124994 [Accessed November 3, 2019]
・ Mac Ginty, R. (2011). International peacebuilding and local resistance : hybrid forms of peace, Springer
Comments