When thousands of students called for a weeklong boycott of classes to demand open candidate nomination for Hong Kong’s upcoming Chief Executive election, the narrative of Hong Kong residents’ quest for ‘genuine’ universal suffrage struck a sympathetic chord with the Western media. The latter not only parroted the protestors’ claims, but reported the ensuing protest within the frame of a Hong Kong seeking democracy from an authoritarian China.
Thus Western media rejected other plausible explanations for the massive unrest, such as the youthful demonstrators’ sense of dislocation, scarcity of desirable jobs and affordable housing, other economic factors and antipathy toward China and Chinese mainlanders. This last factor of antipathy which some called an identity crisis proved to be especially difficult to fit into the media’s democracy frame because it led young people to demand a return of Hong Kong to the UK. But Hong Kong was a colony, never a democracy, under the British. Prior to and during Occupy Central, as the protest was collectively termed, Hong Kong youth demonstrated this desire in various marches by prominently displaying the UK colonial flag with the message: ‘I am a Hong Konger, not a Chinese’.
Early in the protest, the media often downplayed the context for the Hong Kong police’s use of force. They discounted the fact that the first confrontation between the police and students was actually precipitated by one of the student leaders. In coverage in which it was reported that protestors were urged by the student leader to break into the off-limits forecourt of a government complex, the subtext was clear: protestor actions were understandable given that Beijing rejected demands for ‘free elections’, while police use of tear gas in the ensuing chaos was inexcusable.
The media framing brought out many more Hong Kong residents to occupy the central district, bringing the central city to a standstill. Police attempting to disperse the crowd on 28 September were shown in a video titled ‘Who initiated the attack’. Vastly outnumbered, police stood tensely behind low barricades against a surging crowd of angry protestors. They raised a red banner warning the crowd to ‘stop charging or we will use force’. Suddenly, protestors at the front charged the police with their pointy umbrellas.
But media coverage of this incident generally started with the police crackdown which followed the umbrella charge. The non-contextualised image of police tossing tear gas into the crowd helped mobilise those who thought the police action was unwarranted and excessive. Participants of the 2013 protest, which was also called Occupy Central, joined the students at this point and assembled en masse to swell the protest after 28 September. Although the original leaders who started the 2013 Occupy Central had hoped for a turnout of a few thousand supporters at their 2014 demonstration, the media had delivered massive mobilisation beyond their wildest dreams.
The Western media clung to the myth that the protestors were ‘peaceful’, but as early as 3 October, they were blocking an ambulance from reaching a collapsed policeman. Being incongruent with the narrative of a peaceful demand for democracy, incidents of protestor violence went unreported: off-duty police officers were attacked, fire extinguishers were turned on, and weapons such as bricks or boards spiked with nails were used against the police. Also unreported was a nine-day petition drive in late October (garnering 1.83 million signatures) supporting police action to return the roads to the citizens.
Responsible media would have explored what the protestors truly had in mind when labelling the protest as ‘pro-democracy’. Did Beijing, as protestors claimed, contravene the principles set forth in the 1984 Sino–British Joint Declaration and betray its promise of universal suffrage? Despite it being a central rallying point, do protestors have a clear notion and an agreed-upon definition of ‘democracy’? What is ‘genuine’ universal suffrage and ‘open nomination’? What, if any, are the rules and procedures of an ‘open nomination’? Is open nomination — a form of direct democracy — the only acceptable model? Or would the representational democracy of the West suffice? The media failed to address these central questions.
With their ingrained prejudice against China and idealised assumptions about the protestors’ motives and demands, Western media outlets were not only biased, but failed to appreciate the complexity of the situation. Instead, they streamlined the coverage to fit into their preconceived notions about democracy. Thus the saying ‘if you don’t read the news, you are uninformed; if you do read the news, you are misinformed’ is a fitting description of the Western media’s coverage of the protest in Hong Kong.
Ivy Lee is Emeritus Professor at California State University, Sacramento.
Indeed, “if you don’t read the news, you are uninformed; if you do read the news (as portrayed in western media), you are misinformed.
Ms. Lee has presented a balanced analysis of the Occupy movement in Hong Kong. To not read her piece is to remain misinformed.
The HK government was not effective in handling the protest. It should have used US tactics to quickly suppress the protest at the beginning instead of letting the protest to last that long, causing enormous economic loss to law-abiding citizens. Now those main protesters were only recorded and their persecution is no end in sight. Such leniency without punishment only encourages protesters to repeat similar chaotic and disruptive protests in the future. The Hong Kong leaders only complain about this and that doesn’t achieve anything that is effective.
I think the HK government was extremely effective in how it handled the crisis. Thankfully, there was no violence. I believe there are actually people who hoped for some kind of bloodshed and the protest will galvanized around some martyrs who are “unfortunately” sacrificed for the movement. Ukraine’s government underwent crisis of legitimacy once blood is spilled (although to this day, nobody knows who actually did the shooting).
I do think that China and previous Hong Kong governors should have done a better job. They focused winning over HK tycoons in exchange for their support but failed to build consensus with the majority of Hong Kong citizens. Also, they failed to monitor the inflow of mainlander to the island that caused unnecessary social conflict between Hong Koner and mainlanders. But none of this justifies any blantant xenopobia such as the “Get Out Chinamen” slogans painted on Chinese bus to Hong Kong, or the firebombs at mainlanders, ostensibly carried out by the “democracy loving” youths of Hong Kong.
This is a flashback to pre-1997 when the media was reporting on Hong Kong’s future. Practically all were against Hong Kong being returned to China citing communist rule over a former British colony. They predicted riots in Hong Kong, loss of basic freedoms, especially that of speech and expression, and rule by the PLA. The BBC, for example, even hired actors to dress up as PLA soldiers and march down the Central business district. Who said the Press was objective in its reporting?
@mark pinkstone
“The BBC, for example, even hired actors to dress up as PLA soldiers and march down the Central business district.”
Please provide references to evidence for this claim.
I was there. The reporter was the late Brian Baron, Cameraman was Eric Thirer and producer was Thea Guest.
Best analysis of Hong Kong protest. The world is much more complex and nuanced. The identity complex of Hong Kong youth is the most accurate assessment. Resentment of mainland ever increasing economic and social dominance is shared both by Hong Kong and Taiwan. Of course, the West and long time, hard core anti communists will enjoy and facilitate any impediments to China’s rise.
Unfortunately the xenophobia and sense of disappearing self importance for Hong Kong can lead to darker episodes as history readily attest. The youth are not so innocent as they are portrayed and Bosnia is not as far nor a distant reminder.
It is ironic that Ivy Lee commits the very sin that she accuses the Western media of committing. The article contains no reference to the “astroturfing” behind the anti-Occupy protests. It also grotesquely overplays the “violence” of protesters on 28 September 2014 – which, by any objective measure, did not justify the use of CS gas (see e.g. the HK Bar Association’s statement on the use of force, dated 29 September).
Had Professor Lee actually done some digging, she would have found that there are objective measures for what counts as “free and fair elections”. Nor would she have committed the error of misidentifying civil nomination as “direct democracy.”
Ultimately, Professor Lee presents a narrative that is equally simplistic – and that contains (and repeats) not merely misinformation, but disinformation.
In addition to the video linked in the article about who initiated the violence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgBqBImQQoo
What is even more grotesque is the current anti-Chinese tourist violence committed by the pro-democracy gang in Hong Kong. In this video, these brainwashed protesters not just scolded at people they think are visiting from China, they also caused bodily harm to the people they targeted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-MMOVAalRM
The violence in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long against perceived cross border traders is a disgrace. Those protesters in Hong Kong who hoist the colonial flag pronouncing they are not Chinese are ignorant, see http://travelwithcyrus.com/2014/10/01/why-this-american-expat-is-100-against-the-protests-in-hong-kong/
If Mr. Cheung had paid attention to how police react to unruly demonstrators in other parts of the world, he would not have thought the Hong Kong police use of tear smoke was unjustified. In fact, the Hong Kong police have been extremely tolerant of the demonstrators. Their counterparts in other parts of the world have faced much stronger police response.
Mr Wong conflates two developments – the emergence of a “Jacobin” fringe in Hong Kong (which had long had misgivings over the role of the HKFS and OCLP during the movement) – and the Umbrella Movement itself.
Mr Wong also ignores factors unique to Hong Kong, like the stringency of gun control regulations. The old canard of “look what the US police get away with” ignores a little something called the Second Amendment.
Since Mr Wong appears not to have taken the time to read the Bar’s statement, I shall reproduce extracts of it here:
“Even though on occasions, a minority of demonstrators became confrontational with the police, the overwhelming majority of the demonstrators were visibly conducting themselves peacefully.”
“There can be scope for disagreement on the underlying political debate or demands leading to the demonstration. Some demonstrators may have committed criminal offences during the course of the demonstration. However, none of the above matters can justify the use of excessive or disproportionate force by the Police against unarmed civilians as a matter of law and common decency. Even after giving due allowance to the professional judgment of the police force in the maintenance of public order and the prevention of a public disorder in a difficult and delicate situation, the HKBA still considers that there was plainly no justification to commence the use of CS gas against peaceful demonstrators, let alone repeated, systematic, indiscriminate and excessive use of CS gas.”
As for comparing the HK police response with police responses elsewhere – that’s an old canard that ignores trifling matters like the Second Amendment in the US. The fact of the matter is that HK protesters were far more restrained than those elsewhere.
Mr Wong also seeks to conflate and confuse the emerging localist movement (which is a distinctly Jacobin phenomenon) with the Umbrella Movement. The localists’ discontent with the HKFS and OCLP leadership of the Umbrella Movement was well known, and ultimately prompted the HKU Student Union’s departure from HKFS. Notably, the original story wasn’t about the Jacobin anti-smuggler protests at all.
IMHO, the Hong Kong Bar Association was no better than a Monday night quarterback. Unless they were trained in law enforcement and were present at the scene where the 87 canisters of hand thrown tear gas were deployed by the police on September 29, 2014, they really had no real idea what the situation was like. That is why the Hong Kong police kept saying it was a decision made by the commanders at the front line. On top of that, with all due respect, lawyers are not trained in law enforcement. The fact of the matter is the Hong Kong police has been far more restrained than the police force in most parts of the world. Which police force would yield to the protesters and let them search their police vehicles entering the government compound, not to mention the constant insult and taunting during the two-month occupation last year?
For the HKBA to say the protesters were unarmed and peaceful on that evening is bending the truth, not to mention the use of words like “repeated, systematic, indiscriminate and excessive” to describe the police use of tear gas. As can be seen in the Youtube video, protesters used their pointed umbrellas to attack the police. Who knows what else they threw at the police? Police have a right to protect themselves.
Tear gas is often used by police all over the world to control combative crowd. A simple Google search will show that to be true. Tear gas is an “irritant”, causing discomfort for no more than 30 minutes. All the tear gas did in Hong Kong was to temporarily disburse the crowd. Indeed, there were no injuries caused by the tear gas to speak of that evening. In fact, pepper spray often causes more harm than tear gas. Why did the Occupy Central trio went on TV to tell protesters to bring goggles with them to the protest?
I don’t know that the U.S. Second Amendment has anything to do with it. Gun ownership in Switzerland has to be as high as here in the U.S.
Anyone who has been reading the news from Hong Kong will find that many of the victims of the current anti-Chinese tourist violence are Hongkongers, not what you libeled as smugglers. I have no doubt these anti-Chinese tourist protesters are the most die-hard Occupiers. The current protest has gone on for four weeks now, organized on Facebook. So I am not sure this is just a small fringe element. Can this be what Prof. Benny Tai threatened late last year that the Occupy protest would turn violent?
I actually feel sorry for these protesters heckling the Chinese tourists, saying Chinese people should roll (滾) back to China. What are they? Aren’t they Chinese? They should be grateful for the jobs and opportunities created by the 47 million visitors from Mainland China last year.
The people in Hong Kong kept insisting that unless everyone has the right to be nominated, there would be no genuine democracy. If the U.S. presidential election is a guide, then the U.S. does not have genuine democracy as not even famous politicians like Dr. Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and Arnold Schwarzenegger, among others, have such a right.
Unfortunately for Mr Wong, none of his responses hold up to scrutiny.
“IMHO, the Hong Kong Bar Association was no better than a Monday night quarterback. Unless they were trained in law enforcement and were present at the scene where the 87 canisters of hand thrown tear gas were deployed by the police on September 29, 2014, they really had no real idea what the situation was like.”
…therefore nobody outside the police is in a position to comment on the use of force by the police. Seems reasonable…
“Anyone who has been reading the news from Hong Kong will find that many of the victims of the current anti-Chinese tourist violence are Hongkongers, not what you libeled as smugglers.”
There can be no serious dispute that the stated target of the protests are smugglers. Not even the local media (which escaped much of Professor Lee’s criticism – and which, perhaps coincidentally, is the subject of extensive self-censorship) disputes that. Nor can Mr Wong seriously dispute that there is perceived to be a smuggling (or parallel trading, to adopt a less rhetorically loaded term) problem.
“I have no doubt these anti-Chinese tourist protesters are the most die-hard Occupiers. The current protest has gone on for four weeks now, organized on Facebook. So I am not sure this is just a small fringe element.”
It’s organised on Facebook – therefore it’s not a fringe element?
My reading of the local (mainstream and independent) media (see e.g. Mingpao HK, HKEJ, InMediaHK, HKCactus) over the past several months suggests that there are serious internal disagreements over whether the Jacobin wing (represented by Civic Passion and others) are doing the democratic movement a disservice.
Coverage of the protests also reflected serious internal disagreements even when the protest encampments were still up – there was a clear move by radicals to pull away from “the dais”.
It would be fair to say that the likes of Civic Passion are the most vocal, but a stretch to go further than that.
“The people in Hong Kong kept insisting that unless everyone has the right to be nominated, there would be no genuine democracy. If the U.S. presidential election is a guide, then the U.S. does not have genuine democracy as not even famous politicians like Dr. Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and Arnold Schwarzenegger, among others, have such a right.”
Ah, the old “but everybody else does it” canard. See ICCPR Art 25(b) and Donald Clarke’s piece on “Hypocrisy and Human Rights”.
Ultimately Professor Lee’s post (and many of the responses to it) reflect precisely the sort of hackneyed logical fallacies and confirmation bias that my original comment criticised. I think I’ve proved my point.
Perception is often misleading. It doesn’t matter who the primary targets are in the violent protest when some of the victims are fellow Hongkongers and you are one of those? Or in the mind of these pro democracy folks, they are simply collateral damages? Here is what American journalist Michael Chugani wrote in a recent column in the South China Morning Post:
“TV images of young Hong Kong protesters pushing an elderly shopper to the ground left Public Eye speechless. We were disgusted by images of protesters so violently confronting a mainland mother with a shopping trolley that it made her four-year-old daughter burst into tears.”
(http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1734490/dont-force-us-choose-sides-mainland-shoppers)
As it turned out, both the elderly shopper and the mother with her young daughter are both Hong Kong residents. The suitcase the mother was towing was her daughter’s books. And the assailants have been arrested by the police. In fact, at least forty people have been arrested by the police in this recent skirmish, almost as many as the number arrested in mid-October during the Lung Woo Road confrontation at the height of Occupy Central. The only logical conclusion is that the protest is rather large and violent.
The pro democracy people kept talking about genuine universal suffrage under international standards. Of course it matters how the U.S. and the UK elect their respective chief. Both countries are well accepted as gold standards on how democracy should work.
After students at the Hong Kong University voted to withdraw from HK Federation of Students, Ling Nam students are now in the process of doing the same thing. We will know the outcome soon. And I would not be a bit surprised if the Ling Nam students decide to withdraw as well. Let’s face it, most people in Hong Kong know what’s best for themselves and the pro democracy movement is losing steam.
I was in Yuen Long on March 1st and saw the demonstration from afar. In fact, I spent a week there, staying at the Harbour Plaza Resort Hotel and visited malls in the areas. The malls are no busier or crowded than many of the malls I frequent here in the U.S.
Many rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) are residual in nature; they are meant to be used as discretionary aids. Assuming VCLT is applicable to a particular treaty, states are still free to depart from the rules on such issues as reservations, interpretation etc. to devise their own. Therefore, it does not make much sense for Mr. Cheung to claim that China “has ignored the established rules of treaty interpretation in the VCLT.” I encourage him to find commentaries from legal experts on the VCLT to verify the above. Or see VCLT, edited by Dörr, Oliver, Schmalenbach, Kirsten
Further Mr. Cheung may want to look into the concept of direct democracy of which ancient Athens is frequently given as an example. He will find that the concept does not preclude, as representational democracy may, civil nomination.
“Astroturfing” is a mutual allegation coming from the Occupy Central and anti-Occupy forces without hard and sufficient evidence.
Finally I have said nothing regarding whether objective measures exist for what counts as free and fair elections. Instead, I question whether the rank and file of Occupy Central know the specific procedures and features they are advocating in “genuine universal suffrage” or whether that phrase is simply a slogan devoid of meaning.
Would interesting to see the author of this article go to mainland China and critique the media there.
We could then attempt to visit Lee in jail.
In all the article seems close to fair. All it needed was a closing statement explaining the ability to write the article without repercussion was due to the freedoms enjoyed in North America.