When “peaceful demonstrations” turn into riots

Mark Pinkstone/Former Chief Information Officer of HK government

Six years after the bloody riots in Hong Kong, China hawk, The New York Times (NYT), is still calling the incident a “peaceful demonstration for democracy.”The world was a witness as television networks from every country flashed vivid scenes of bloody clashes between the police and rioters. There was no denying the fact they were anything but full-blown riots.

The June 30 issue of the newspaper carried a special report by stringer Tiffany May reporting from Hong Kong that three activists were still “paying the price” for demanding democracy in the Special Administrative Region (SAR). But the world’s witnesses know better: Democracy was hardly an issue. May painted a picture of the trio facing hardship after release from prison where they served various sentences for rioting. They had trouble finding jobs and lost many friends, their life had become a void.

At the time of the riots in 2019, Hong Kong had a fully elected legislature (50 per cent by geographic constituencies and 50 per cent by peer-based functional constituencies), the president was elected from among its members and the SAR’s Chief Executive was elected by a 1,500 strong electoral committee. [The US president is elected by only 500 electoral committee].

So, democracy could hardly be an issue for the riots, except for the NYT and other western media which needed the catchphrase to justify their support for the rioters. After all, they could not be seen to be supporting cold blooded rioters who had an ulterior motive to overthrow the government, which was their ultimate aim.

Ms May said in her essay that her chosen unnamed three had joined the protests “hoping for more democracy.” The only step further in the democratic movement for Hong Kong is universal suffrage – one man, one vote for the entire legislature – and that is already enshrined in the SAR’s Basic Law. It is coming, it’s just a matter of time.

Hong Kong has been very vulnerable to foreign influences ever since the handover in 1997. It thrives on a unique formular of one country, two systems ( a bastion of capitalism in a communist regime). And it is against the principles of the US’s call for universal democracy.

Capitalism and communism are a contradiction of terms it argues and therefore cannot succeed. But that is why it is unique and after 28 years, the formula is working. Hong Kong is as successful today as it was in pre-1997 under British colonial administration.

It is successful because the people of Hong Kong want it to succeed. And it is absolutely necessary for it to succeed for China to fulfil its obligations to resume its administration of Taiwan. But it is not in the interests of the US to see China embrace democracy, while maintaining its communist ideology, as part of its family. The pragmatic attitude of China is a positive step towards world peace and the propagated threat of communism dominating the world does not exist, except in the mind of the US.

For the US to halt the progress of China’s growing position in the world, it needed a Chinese scapegoat to fail, and Hong Kong was the target. Through its various spy agencies, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the CIA, the US infiltrated Hong Kong’s gullible lawmakers, workers and youth to create mayhem. And through the Five Eyes intelligence network (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), it convinced world leaders that democracy was not working in Hong Kong.

In fact, since the upheavals, the legislature has been expanded to include greater elected members from 70 to 90 seats to voice their concerns when vetting government actions. The new members replaced those who were ousted because of their influence by the NED.

The NYT activists have only themselves to blame for their loneliness. They chose the path laid out by foreign forces to change the direction of Hong Kong. But it was the wrong path and, like all criminals, they had to pay the consequences for their actions.

Mark Pinkstone

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Washington-based Foreign Policy magazine has been quick to point out that the Wang Fuk Court fire confirmed that the city’s “once prized freedom have vanished.”

How the magazine in it’s December 2 edition came to this conclusion is anyone’s guess, but it is indicative that anything untoward in Hong Kong is seen as politically motivated and a bad thing.

The fire, a great tragedy in Hong Kong that claimed 159 lives and many still missing, has left the city in mourning. And yet, the American press continues to use the opportunity to lambast Hong Kong as it struggles to come to terms with the devastating tragedy. It is a time for sympathies, not political gain… but that is the American way.

Foreign Policy editor James Palmer said local authorities responded to the fire by stifling civil society aid efforts and detaining critics. According to Palmer, since the 2019 protests and the imposition of “draconian” national security laws, no public institution in Hong Kong can operate freely. “Democratic mechanisms have been gutted, and political candidates must now adhere explicitly to Beijing’s line. The city’s response to the fire has confirmed Hong Kongers’ fears that the city’s political culture is now indistinguishable from that of the mainland,” he wrote.

Such comments are coming from a magazine that is popular in the halls of the US Congress and Senate. This and other foreign news coverage of the fire, prompted the Hong Kong SAR government to issue a statement that external forces were making false and defamatory remarks about the government’s post-disaster follow-up and investigations, as well as stirring up trouble and maliciously attacking the disaster relief efforts, as they “harbour malicious intent”. The Office for Safeguarding National Security also condemned a “small clique of external hostile forces” for “stirring up trouble and taking advantage of the chaos.”

One woman has been arrested over a fake donation website for the Tai Po fire victims and others have been detained for making false claims about the victims whom they claimed were “harbouring grave sins” and “got their retribution.” Others have been questioned by police for unbecoming behaviour towards the victims.

But Palmer writes Police dismantled grassroots fundraising efforts and donation sites and replaced them with state-approved efforts. So says somebody more than 13,000 kilometres away.

Hong Kong people responded in their usual fashion, with compassion and within a short period some HK$1 billion had been raised for the victims. Food, clothing and blankets were also donated by a caring public.

What Palmer means is again anybody’s guess. If he is referring to Beijing, he is sadly mistaken. All efforts relating to the fire were Hong Kong’s efforts. Beijing did offer to help and had fire tenders on the ready at the Shenzhen boundary.

Chinese President Xi Jingping offered his condolences on behalf of all the Chinese people indicating the care the central authorities in Beijing have towards Hong Kong.

The city’s response to the fire was remarkable as more than 2,300 firefighters and medical personnel were involved in the operation, which included one firefighter killed and 12 others injured.

It is writers like Palmer who give Hong Kong a bad name for the sole purpose of sensationalism and political sway. But, unfortunately, their publications are read as 丶being authoritative in the corridors of power and impact on Sino-Anglo relations, an never ending frustrating situation.