LONG READ: Hongkongers Lost Everything Pan-Dems Gained in 30 Years? A Debate Between Pan-Dems / Elites and Localists / Younger Gen

Real Hong Kong News

19 January 2022

A recent interview with Ivan Chi-keung Choy, a famous political affairs commentator and lecturer, lead to many debates and several localist commentators wrote their responses on Patreon and other non-news outlets – given the closure of several outspoken media outlets recently.

Picture: HK01

In his interview with HK01 (a media outlet believed to be “(Communist) Red to the Core”), Choy, Senior Lecturer at Chinese University’s Department of Government and Public Administration, said that he plans to retire this year because he is dispirited by Hong Kong’s political environment. Choy said that Hong Kong’s political ecosystem in the past decade has been led by “radicals” who do not understand “the art of advance and retreat”, and who incorrectly assessed that the “three-decade-long pro-democracy movement achieved nothing”. The total collapse of civil society has been a result of the intensifying of radical views, Choy said, adding that everything the old pro-democracy hands had gained had been lost in a flash.

Background

The split of the “pan-dem camp” began in 2010 when the campaign “Mass Resignation from Legislature for a De-facto Referendum” was launched. The Democratic Party refused to take part and went to meet with the China Liaison Office for a closed-door negotiation, following which they threw their support behind the government’s proposed political reforms, describing the closed-door negotiation as an important step towards “constructive interaction” with China’s Central Government. Yet, several “radical” members of the pan-dem camp began attacking the Democratic Party. In subsequent years, major events took place: 2012 Anti-Patriotic Education Curriculum protests, 2014 Umbrella Revolution and subsequently students unions withdrawing from membership of Hong Kong Federation of Students, a de-facto pan-dem youth branch. The radicals became a mainstream camp.

During the 2019 Anti-Extradition Bill protests, “radicals” dominated the pan-dem camp, and the Democratic Party, according to Choy, fought hard inside- and outside- the LegCo Chamber.

The civil society that had been led by the traditional pan-dem movement dissolved after the implementation of The National Security Law and the Improving Electoral System Bill in 2021, and Hong Kong officially entered an age of “purges” – as described by the Chief Advisor of HKSAR Government’s Central Policy Unit and CPPCC member Lau Siu-kai.

Choy admitted that China’s Central Government is also responsible for the “radicalisation” of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, because it failed to “follow up” after the Democratic Party supported its political reform proposal during the period in which the conflicts between Hong Kong and China (e.g: the formula powder shortage caused by Chinese smugglers; public defecation of Chinese tourists becoming commonplace, and; D&G discriminating against Hongkongers) – which led to the Democratic Party’s major defeat in the 2011 District Council and 2012 LegCo elections.

The One-Country-Two-System white paper published in 2014 said that Beijing has “overall jurisdiction” over Hong Kong, and the NPC Standing Committee’s “8.31 Decision” triggered the Occupy Movement and Umbrella Revolution. This signified the complete collapse of negotiation between the pan-dems and Beijing.

Choy said in the interview, “You must demonstrate real results if you wish to persuade the public that communications and compromise are necessary. It didn’t happen, so the entire society was forced to move towards the radical side… When the old method was completely discredited, people would naturally want to try the methods another camp proposes. This is how we got to where we are now.”

In the interview, Choy also said that it is wrong for the younger generation in Hong Kong to accuse the old-pan-dem camp having “achieved nothing in the three-decade-long pro-democracy movement” in Hong Kong. Choy said that the younger generation should ask themselves a question: are you sad to witness all the things we have lost in the past year or so? If the answer is yes, then you have no grounds on which to criticise the old-pan-dem camp for achieving nothing. “Civil society, press freedom, freedom of speech, a semi-democratic electoral system (sic.) are all things that (the younger generation) take for granted. We didn’t have any of these when we were young. Therefore, the 30-year-long pro-democracy movement has actually gained a lot. But within a year or so, we lost all those precious things we gained over the course of three decades.”

Choy said that some people were too “ambitious” and failed to understand the art of advancement vs retreat, pushing the movement to an extreme which led to its complete destruction. He added that the “radical camp” wanted to win it all and wanted China to lose the whole game: “we now see the result of not providing China a platform to save its face” he concluded.

To many localists in Hong Kong, Choy’s interview is blaming the victims. Localists have long charged that the pan-dems have failed to evolve with times, refused to admit the “habitual liar” nature of the CCP, China’s track record in making empty promises over decades and ditching those who compromised when they are no longer useful lackeys. Several localist commentators wrote their rebuttals, and RHKN translated three of the most popular pieces. Some of these articles focus on reminding Choy that the pan-dems’ problem is that they never shoulder any responsibility for the results of their actions (or inactions), while others highlight that the awakening of Hongkongers and their shift to localism are the consequences of the people’s disappointment in the pan-dems’ repeated betrayals and their sole agenda being to keep a well-paid job.

Choy, you are one of those who achieved nothing in 30 years

Commentary by Edward Tang (first published on his Patreon page)

Before his departure, Ivan Choy laid all the blame on localists.

Let’s not look at what happened in 2019, but rather to the beginning of 2014 when the pan-dem camp’s comfortable life was disrupted. Emotional blackmail had been the pan-dem’s default tactic in every election. They didn’t have to move a finger, yet their LegCo and District Council seats were almost guaranteed because more often than not, they would tell voters to vote for them even if they do not approve of them in order to prevent pro-establishment candidates from taking those seats – portraying themselves as the opposition. During this golden era of the pan-dems, they would simply recite platitudes on TV, day- in, day-out, to get their big pay check.

Let’s not talk about the “democratic reunification with China” led by the pan-dems since decades ago. Let’s focus on the legendary period of 2003-2004 when overwhelming anti-SAR government sentiment among the public led to massive support for the pan-dems. They had a major victory in the subsequent election, leaving them holding lots of political bargaining chips, and there was no “radical camp” in sight to “stir trouble”. I dare ask: what did the pan-dems successfully achieve during this period of “unparalleled fame”?

And then there was the 2009 “Mass Resignation from Legislature for a De-facto Referendum” campaign – which led to a split within the pan-dem camp. The Democratic Party, which terrified of losing its leading position in Hong Kong’s political spectrum, turned to support the HKSAR government’s political reform proposal. This was endorsed by the then Chief Executive Donald Tsang and the Chinese Government. Their reward for their “compromise” was their “share” in the five super-seats at LegCo, yet it destroyed the whole game: the credibility of the leader of the opposition camp collapsed, the result is that they lost their leading position in this camp.

During 2014, 2016 and 2019, if it wasn’t for the “unorthodox” camps in the political spectrum and front-line activists, those struggles would have died because of the pan-dem’s decades-long ethos of compromising at every turn: retreating after every insignificant “victory”, and surrendering in front of a stronger opponent. The scenes of endless people marching and fighting the authorities would never have happened. Hongkongers had been “pocketing it first”, the slogan spouted by the pan-dems, and were pleased to enjoy a “happy-go-lucky type of pseudo-democracy”, yet we were living a life of utter prostration that is worse than being defeated by a Goliath.

The reason the CCP managed to inch forward through the years is because of the so-called opposition’s practice of retreating without making an inch of gain, and consistently snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The pan-dems allowed the enemy, the CCP, to continuously push Hongkongers’ bottom line. The only change is that instead of kid-gloves and appeasement, the CCP has adopted a speedy and strict approach. China has only returned to what she knows best and readopted the iron-fist approach that they have long used – including during the 1986 Chinese student demonstrations and 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Its problem lies not with those who fight against it.

As someone who claims to know China’s history well, Choy failed to acknowledge the heavy price people have to pay when fighting against tyranny, for freedom. He believes that the little sweets China handed out are “results” the pan-dems fought for. Choy doesn’t understand the very concept of China’s attitude towards Hong Kong: “You must not try to steal it if I, your King, doesn’t grant it to you.” The regime that controls whether one lives or dies, and whether something is given or not, can give as well as take back any sweetener they offer. All these “gains” are merely sandcastles – the almighty sea can wash them away in a snap of the fingers.

Although I didn’t want to be too critical towards anyone during this period of political darkness, yet as Confucius said: “It (first priority) most definitely would be to rectify the names.”

Being Honest

Commentary by Cheng Lap (published on Facebook page)

I’m going to be very honest.

The fact is, I could tolerate the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong that saw no progress whatsoever. The things the pan-dems did in the past were vague, if not fake. The reason the pan-dems exist is exactly as Stanley Chau-pei Ng (a well-known pro-China figure in Hong Kong) said: because the CCP allows it. This is a fact. What Ivan Choy said (in the interview) is also a fact within these constraints: they existed because they were being tolerated. I am not a die-hard democrat, but I can accept the idea of democracy. Therefore, my view on the pan-dems is fundamentally positive.

I have no issue with a society that only pretends to be civilised: the fake freedoms were only in existence thanks to the tolerance of some. This is what Hong Kong had always truly been. The CCP and the British monarch treat Hong Kong the same way: tolerance. At the same time, Hongkongers enjoyed it. Of course we can talk about democracy, but if we really seek it, we won’t be tolerated.

This reminds me of the movie The Matrix*: Zion does not exist because humans’ fight was effective: Instead the Matrix understands that giving humans the hope to fight is a part of maintaining stability. Permitting the existence of a persona of Zion allows humans to feel they are free from control and willingly suffer in Zion for their cause. Humans feel they are liberated and free as a result – this is fundamentally the same as what the pan-dems feels. It is, in fact, a device of entertainment. The only difference is that some people prefer horse racing, some prefer dancing, some prefer driving, while others see volunteering as their entertainment. But the important differentiator of this entertainment is that you must not let the subject know that it’s just an entertainment.

There is nothing bad about everyone being content to live the rest of our lives the way it is. Humans need to have hope even until the moment they gasp their last breath. This is a form of kindness. In battle fields, before a soldier dies, they often ask their comrades: are we going to win? The answer is almost always: yes, we’re about to win. Your sacrifice is valuable. Then, this soldier will die in peace even if they lost the war in the end. The pan-dems represent exactly this white-lie. This white-lie is still good: good for our psyche.

My staff told me that my words are more and more mean lately. I don’t want to be like this at all, for I don’t want others to feel bad. When I went to school the first time, I asked myself: what do I, mediocre as I am in the intelligence, physical build and looks departments, want to be when I grow up? A wealthy person? Boss of a company? Movie star? Scientist? None of these were possible. And then I asked myself “what is something that anyone as mediocre as I am can become?” My answer was: “an honest person”.

I always wanted to become an honest person. This is a wish I had since I was in primary school: I speak out about whatever I see – Just like the child in the Emperor’s New Clothes story. I later on realised that being honest is a cruel thing, because it will always hurt some people and make some desperate and sad. In return those people will make things worse for others. That is why I understand better every day that lies are not necessarily evil. If there is hell in this world, there must be a hell where no one can lie.

In the past few years, I find myself less and less happy. Yet, I always appear to be in a good mood because I want others and myself to be happy. At the end of the day, I want everyone to be a little less down when living in these dark times, even though I might only be able to bring others a tiny moment of joy. However, I find myself a little tired and I sometimes cannot hold back my true colours, and be too honest.

I feel better after speaking clearly about what I have seen – to tell the truth helps me deal with my emotions and stress. I do not take pride in speaking the truth because I know that I am hurting some people. To make it worse, sometimes speaking the truth is meaningless – except that it makes me feel better.

Now that I have spoken the truth that Zion is only an amusement park created by The Matrix, things may never return to the way they were before. When humans are exposed to the truth, we cannot return to the Nirvana where ignorance is rewarded. I am sad because I knew Zion was made up, and I let everyone know about it which made everyone unhappy. However, have I become a “prophet”? No! I cannot predict anything. I only shared the information that is making me sad, telling the truth I know from the bottom of my heart.

Of course, for redemption, turning a fake world into a real one is most desirable, yet it would be the toughest route to take.

*NOTE: the metaphor used is not accurate  

Winning for 30 years

Commentary by Louis Loud (published on Patreon)

I think the most problematic things in Hong Kong are the definitions of winning and losing: people seem to think they are winning when they are actually losing. From the university students who, way back when, supported the “democratic reunification with China”, to the pan-dem’s “golden era”, they somehow think that they have been winning for thirty years rather than losing bit-by-bit over the course of three decades. Would you say that the Southern Song, a rump state, was enjoying partial peace? Or would you say it was dying a slow death? This is perhaps how we view things differently. If you say that Hongkongers must not anger China and the CCP, let’s look at Macau. Macanese didn’t do any of the things Hongkongers did, but they didn’t have China’s mercy – for example the gambling license law amendments and the arrest of Alvin Chao in Macau.

I can understand why Ivan Choy and many other elites can’t handle the situation: because they believe they are the wizards of the game – and that everything appeared to be going smoothly was the result of them wizards casting spells. However, in the end, they realised that all those glorious times they bragged about were merely a result of the political climate they were born in. The sovereignty transition created a climate in which both the UK and China offered them sweeteners as part of the “united front effort”. Everything went smoothly then because both sides were playing a strategic game, which let the elites in Hong Kong believe the illusion that freedom and civil society existed because of them.

When people grieve, like when the elites and pan-dems face the fact that their bubble has burst, they first deny, and then blame those (i.e. “radical camp”) who speak the truth and drag others out of their pan-dem comfort zone. I am not referring to protests on the streets in 2014 or 2019, but the battle over procedural rules in LegCo, the 2010 localist conservation campaigns outside of LegCo, protests against smugglers who caused formula powder shortage in Hong Kong, etc. All of these angered China, there’s no doubt about it. However, the elites and pan-dems always jumped to blame localists for angering China when the conflict got worse.

As an ordinary netizen, or whatever they call me, I would like to list things in a chronological order: the Extradition Bill was tabled in early 2019, right after the US and Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s CFO. On 28 January 2019, the US requested Canada to extradite Meng and decided to file 20 plus cases against Huawei. The timing of Meng’s arrest (1 December 2018) and the announcement of Hong Kong’s Extradition Bill (official announcement was made on 29 March 2019) were very close, as if the two events were directly related. Reuters wrote that the Extradition Bill was first proposed by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), and the HKSAR Government was given the order to execute it. It was expected that once the Bill is made into law, suspects of the CCDI will be arrested in Hong Kong and be sent directly to China for “trial”.

All these policies evolved from  Peter Navarro’s economic nationalism under Trump’s administration: to suppress China’s global domination on both technology and trade, and then followed by sanctions, trade bans, tariffs, and the restructuring of global supply chains.

The final piece in the puzzle was using the fight for democracy as leverage to fight against China.

Trace it further back: the conflicts between the US and China began after China joined the WTO and the UN, and began its global fight against the US. We should remind ourselves that the old pan-dems lobbied the US government extremely hard after Tiananmen, explaining the commercial benefits of the opening-up of China, encouraging them to admit China into these global organisations. In fact, the pan-dems, back then, encouraged the US to separate human rights from economic benefits, because they naively believed that China would open up continuously at all levels. The HKU and CUHK students back then made a huge fuss to demand repudiating the three treaties that sealed Hong Kong’s future and prosperity under the British rule. They even protested in front of the Prime Minster. Shouldn’t this be accounted one of their mistakes? Of course, this is history. If the elites and pan-dems claimed that the battle in 2019 was lost because “some didn’t recognise the gains Hongkongers had achieved” (remind me of what we’ve gained, please?),  shouldn’t we trace it back to the origin, as far back as the conflicts between the US and China on trade rules and technology, or even a more conceptual idea of global hegemony? None of these was remotely related to Hongkongers nor the front-line protesters. Although Hongkongers were in the thick of the 2019 events, we were never the centre of the world order. In fact, we have always been the tail of global events.

Could the “radical camp” (including the radical pan-dem LegCo members) lose everything Hong Kong once had? This is the claim Choy made, but who actually held the power in the society besides the government? Yet, Choy still likes to believe that the non-politics-professionals are the ones that are responsible for the decay of Hong Kong.

He, like many elites and pan-dems, would never point their finger at the real culprits – preferring instead to blame those who are actually suffering from the events. Hasn’t LegCo been dominated by the pan-dems for decades? They managed to keep their seats and pay cheques up until the last minute, yet they failed to deliver the promises they made: to fight against the tyrant every day. Many of us understand that they have done all they dared to do within the system and its constraints, but at the same time we know the grudges they hold against us.

In 2019, all of us were being reactive to the situation. However, people like Choy had to resolve to assume that they had been winning for the past 30 years and believe that they are almighty pro-democracy warriors with massive influence – even today. This is perfectly fine too, because it’s been like this for a few decades, let’s have a dream and go gently into the night.