A concession to Hong Kong

Extradition Bill withdrawal may not stop protests

In a concession to protesters who have repeatedly taken over the streets of Hong Kong, the territory’s Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, has finally withdrawn the controversial legislation that sparked the protests. The Bill, which permitted extradition from Hong Kong to mainland China, was widely opposed because the city’s residents feared that it would be used to trample upon their remaining political rights, and subject them to the capricious and authoritarian legal system of the People’s Republic. Ms Lam had earlier “suspended” the Bill, but that was not enough for protesters who wanted it withdrawn completely — a concession that both Ms Lam and her masters in Beijing were unwilling to make. Indeed, the tone of Beijing’s official statements was becoming increasingly strident with an official spokesman of the mainland’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office publicly warning Ms Lam earlier this week that “there is no middle ground, no hesitancy and no dithering, when it comes to stopping the violence and controlling riots in Hong Kong.” 

While the Hang Seng stock index showed some gains after the announcement, the fact remains that this is unlikely to defuse a crisis that has grown beyond the immediate provocation for protests. The protesters now have four other demands to which Beijing or Ms Lam have shown no signs of heeding. These include an independent investigation into the suppression of the protests by the police; a rhetorical shift, so officials stop calling the protests “riots”; an amnesty for arrested protesters; and, most crucially, restoration of political reform in the territory. The latter has been stalled for five years, but residents of Hong Kong clearly see their rights as constantly threatened unless they can directly elect their leaders. Currently, the city-state’s Chief Executive is selected by an oligarchy of about 1,200 that is dominated by pro-Beijing business leaders. Pro-democracy politicians are usually considered ineligible. Elected pro-democracy members of the legislative council have also been disqualified, creating an acute crisis of representation that has fuelled the anger underlying the protests. 

Many in relatively apolitical Hong Kong who were angry mainly at the lack of response from Ms Lam’s administration might be appeased by this withdrawal of the extradition Bill. But the great mass of younger protesters — some of the protests have seen as many as two million participants, a quarter of the city’s population — are unlikely to be satisfied, and will continue to press for the remaining four demands. It is not certain whether, however, their numbers and tactics can remain the same if there is a falling-off in support, thanks to this concession. Ms Lam’s handlers are no doubt aware that, among the younger generation of the city’s residents, the Chinese Communist Party and its government are far less popular than among those who lived in the city when it was still a British colony prior to 1997. Hong Kong’s young people are fighting for identity, liberty, autonomy and their future and are unlikely to stop at anything less than universal suffrage. Xi Jinping has shown himself to be a hardliner in such matters, but Beijing should choose its battles. Even if the mainland has grown richer in recent decades, there is no replacement for the liberal, cosmopolitan and finance-friendly environment that Hong Kong provides. Making “one country, two systems” a political reality is a small price to pay.