Protest stickers spotted on the first full day that
I went out for dinner and drinks last night with three friends who I've spent a good number of hours protesting out on the streets with over the past year and a half. For our final drink of the night, we went to Club 71 to possibly have our last drinks at a famously pro-democracy watering hole -- named after the July 1st, 2003 protests -- which will call time and close at the end of this month.
At one point in the evening, I pointed out that the day before had been the 100th day since China imposed a Security Law on Hong Kong. My friends hadn't realized this was the case. What we all recognized and agreed though was how much has happened to and in Hong Kong these past 100 days or so, much of which actually has been pretty scary and upsetting.
Its proponents talk about the national security law having brought stability back to Hong Kong. For a good many people I know though, it's more a case of the national security law (or, as someone has proposed to re-name as the anti-democracy law) having brought uncertainty as well as fear into their lives; not least by prompting a good many folks to consider uprooting themselves and families and leaving Hong Kong altogether.
In addition, even some of those who do reckon that stability has returned to Hong Kong in recent months would ascribe this development less to the enactment of the security law and more to factors such as the ongoing Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and people's "self-censorship". I, for one, most certainly can recall the voluntary cessation of mass protests for a time this year (with the last protest event I attended where people didn't think to factor in social distancing and my not thinking to wear at a mask at being back in January) and pro-democracy protestors turning their attention to getting people to combat the Wuhan coronavirus by wearing masks and such (as could be seen by the change in subject matter on Lennon Wall posters as early as February).
Something else I think is true in Hong Kong: many people worrying -- and having their actions dictated by -- the ongoing pandemic as well as the security law. For example, my friends and I spent a significant amount of time discussing the Wuhan coronavirus -- and the possibility of tougher social distancing measures, including the closure of bars and limiting of hours that restaurants can be open, being reintroduced again -- last night; more so, actually, than the security law. For even though the majority of this week's daily number of new cases have been in the single digits -- like the eight we had today -- some people are warning that the infection rate is again hitting a worrying level again and that further anti-Wuhan coronavirus measures need to be considered.
Alternatively, even while the security law most certainly has encouraged self-censorship (including by the press), I get the feeling that a number of individuals and businesses have returned to expressing their political opinions and such again in recent weeks. For example, some of those restaurants which removed protest art and signs from their walls back in late June and early July have found new ways to advertise their pro-democracy credentials: including by putting ads in Apple Daily or by buying copies of the newspaper and prominently displaying them in their establishments (and availing them to their customers to read).
I've also been heartened to see the return to Twitter action of two individuals who pro-Beijingers looked to have sought to silence. If truth be told, Kong Tsung-gan is still less active than I'd like but I give him credit for his making the effort to Tweet last month in support of People Power vice-chairman Tam Tak-chi. At the same time, I truly appreciate that even though he's been effectively driven out of Hong Kong (by way of his being denied a new work permit in order to take up an editorship at Hong Kong Free Press), Aaron Mc Nicholas is continuing to Tweet about Hong Kong matters.
As a matter of fact, it was a series of Tweets by him that alerted me to this recently past Thursdsay having been the 100th day; the following of which are excerpts from them:-
THREAD: It's been 100 days since the national security law took effect in Hong Kong on June 30, 2020. Since the legal text had not been published in advance, nobody knew for sure whether it would only target violent behaviour, which was the stated rationale for its introduction.
The next day, we learned that it was intended to target non-violent behaviour also, as the first person arrested under the law was a protester with a Hong Kong independence flag...
...despite all that we will not know for years, the international impact has been felt already. Extradition treaties have been suspended, asylum applications have been granted, co-operation with data requests have been paused and relocation decisions are being made.
In the wake of that last quoted paragraph: does this sound like the national security law has brought stability back to Hong Kong to you?!
No comments:
Post a Comment