Thoughts triggered by reports that Article 23 will be passed (very) soon

  

Spotted in Hong Kong yesterday

 

Sharing some things I wrote on Twitter late last night after seeing the news that Article 23 would be gazetted today (with typos there hopefully corrected here):

 

Something many people outside of Hong Kong (still) don't seem to realise is that: People went on protest marches because Hong Kong didn't have democracy but they still felt the government would listen to over 500 thousand protest marchers. But when Carrie Lam didn't listen on June 9th and then 16th, 2019... 

 

Put another way: if we had genuine universal suffrage, there probably would not have been those mega protest marches. And what REALLY killed off the will to have those mega marches wasn't the national security law but the feeling/knowledge that the government WILL NOT LISTEN.

 

 Those people lamenting that Hongkongers have lost their courage and don't want to comment (on camera to the BBC, etc.) about Article 23: why should we risk arrest, jail, etc. when we knew/know what we say will just fall on deaf ears?

 

I mean. Think about it: 2 million people out of a population of some 7.5 million went out on the streets on June 16th, 2019. Young, elderly, some pregnant women, people on wheelchairs, etc. And still our message was ignored. And we -- non-violent protestors -- were derided as rioters. How insane is that?!

 

And for those who say 2 million is less than one third of the population: think of the people who couldn't attend that day -- who were working that day, in hospital, who happened to not be in Hong Kong that day, etc. And, also, that the majority of the voters on November 24th, 2019 voted for pro-democracy candidates.

 

And when you look at just 2019 (not even 2020, 2014, every July 1st from 2003, etc.), with protest rallies and marches taking place weekly (with some weeks and days having more than one event): we are talking about A LOT of (committed) people.

 

In sum: there were/are lots of people who wanted democracy, who didn't want Article 23 to be passed, who really f**king love Hong Kong. And that's what keeps us going (and the majority of us here): the knowledge that We. Are. Still. The. Majority. In. Hong. Kong!

 

And for the record: As Anna Kwok (yes, that Anna Kwok), noted: "Article 23 will likely pass next week"; with her Hong Kong Democracy Council noting that "the [Legislative Council's] Bills Committee will host special sessions on Saturday & Sunday to go through every provision of Article 23."

 

Today, I saw someone Tweet that after Article 23 is passed, he will delete his Twitter account.  And, sadly, I think he isn't the only one who will do so.  We saw this happen after China imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong back in 2020 after all -- and what's been described as Hong Kong's own national security law is threatening to be quite a bit harsher and thus scarier.

 

I would be lying if I said that I've not thought about deleting my social media accounts and also this blog.  But I also got to thinking that if the Hong Kong government wanted/wants to go after me, they'd already have copied those of my writings they found/find offensive.  So if I delete this blog or Tweets, etc., it just means "the public" won't be able to read them -- as opposed to the authorities.

 

Consequently, they will stay.  Though for how much longer I will update them... well, let's see how it all goes (or not, as the case could be), shall we?  If nothing else, I learnt a long time ago to: a) never say never; and b) to not try to predict the future -- because so much has happened and can happen, both bad but also good, that we just really couldn't envisage or imagine until it all did!