Separatism will lead to a dead end

Many people still vividly remember how on National Day, Oct 1, 2014, during the “Occupy Central” movement, Joshua Wong Chi-fung, the teenage leader of student activist group Scholarism, and his young followers turned their backs on the official flag-raising ceremony. We agreed that whatever grandiose delusions these immature young people might harboUr, their deliberate insult to the national flag would only earn them the contempt of people across Hong Kong.

 

Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Federation of Students posted the slogan “Self-determination of our fate” outside the government headquarters, reflecting that their true demands were not electoral democracy but the Hong Kong’s total autonomy or even “independence”. Thus they echoed the rise of the nativism movement in recent years. This advocates the protection of the values and culture of Hong Kong people and challenges national unity. But this mix of slogans and goals confused people who were unsure what this all meant.

 

The true meaning finally emerged in the recent Mong Kok riot, after which Beijing categorised the rioters as “radical separatists inclined toward terrorism”. Zhang Xiaoming, director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong SAR, also branded the rioters “radical separatists”, putting them in a similar category of separatists as those in Tibet and Xinjiang.

 

Now more warning signs are emerging:

 

1) During a Commercial Radio programme, newly elected Hong Kong University (HKU) Students’ Union president Althea Suen, a 20-year-old social work student, was asked if she supported Hong Kong’s independence. She replied: “I think it is a viable solution, so I support it.” And in a separate phone interview Suen said independence was not an unthinkable taboo, and “we are just exploring the idea…”;

 

2) Chow Shue-fung, leader of a radical group, Spark, that advocates independence for Hong Kong, was elected to lead the Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, in what an academic warned was a sign of localism taking root among young people after the Mong Kok riot. (A member of Spark was arrested the day after the riot.) This shows localism is not just supported by the so-called young “social misfits”, but also by university students who are seen as youth elites;

 

3) Edward Leung, a philosophy student at the HKU and the spokesman of Hong Kong Indigenous, a radical “localist” political group formed in early 2015, was a candidate in last Sunday’s New Territories East by-election for the Legislative Council. He is on record as saying that he believed in Hong Kong people’s right to self-determination for independence. On February 9, Leung was widely reported by the international media to have been arrested by police during the Mong Kok riot. His group urged people to come onto the streets in support of the unlicensed hawkers. The confrontation later boiled over into violent clashes between police and protesters.

 

It is clear that the Special Administrative Region must get tough to prevent further riots while finding ways to deal with public discontent.

 

As to whether Hong Kong can actually lead a life independent of the mainland, lawmaker Ip Kwok-him told the media that independence was impossible. He added, “It’s not a matter of whether we can survive or not. It is sad to see that our university students are ignoring the political reality that we are part of the country ... and want to leave it. Hong Kong residents don’t want to see that.” Simply put, the issue of sovereignty is a red line that can never be crossed; and local identity and national identity can coexist as long as “localism” is not exclusive.

 

Every Western jurisdiction has relevant national security laws. It therefore makes sense that we should push for legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law to deter this increasingly violent “localist”-separatist movement. In particular we need adequate legislation to counter those promoting violence. As long as our legislation under Article 23 is compatible with international standards of similar legislation elsewhere, there is no reason why it should not be introduced in Hong Kong. But currently, different views are still expressed between the official line of “not yet the right timing” versus “the sooner the better” remarks by certain non-official figures.

 

For the time being, we are left with no choice but to monitor these groups on the Internet, and for law enforcement agencies to take preventive measures and when necessary to avert harm to our society.

 

But how long can we wait? Does anybody believe the separatists will disappear by themselves?

 

(The author is an independent scholar and freelance writer. She is also the founder and president of the China-US Friendship Exchange, Inc and champions various charitable causes.)