Benedict Rogers: Four options for HK democracy movement down the road

Hong Kong no longer has a credible legislature, it has a puppet show, a rubber-stamp body that is nothing more than the local branch of the National People’s Congress. With the disqualification of four pro-democracy legislators on Wednesday, as a consequence of an edict imposed by Beijing without any semblance of due process and designed to remove anyone the regime dislikes, Hong Kong has lost the very last vestiges of quasi-democracy. The Chinese Communist Party’s absolute takeover of Hong Kong is nearing completion.

Of course the imposition of the national security law already destroyed Hong Kong’s freedoms and autonomy. The postponement for a year of the Legislative Council elections in September – ostensibly due to COVID-19 – was a further sign that Beijing would use every trick to prevent the pro-democracy movement from advancing. Arrests of journalists and activists in recent weeks have provided yet more indicators of Beijing’s heavy hand.

But to disqualify four of the most moderate, mainstream legislators shows to the world the full intent of Xi Jinping’s regime. After all, Alvin Yeung, Kwok Ka-ki, Dennis Kwok and Kenneth Leung are not exactly radicals. The Civic Party and the Professionals Guild which between them they represent have always worked within the system, not questioning China’s sovereignty, certainly not advocating independence, merely defending Hong Kong’s promised autonomy and the rule of law. If the system has no place even for them now, it is well and truly broken.

The decision of the entire pro-democracy camp in LegCo to resign en masse in protest and in solidarity with their four disqualified legislators deserves our absolute respect. As the former British foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said on Wednesday, "Xi Jinping has now signed the death warrant for “two systems in One Country” which was the vision of his predecessor Deng Xiaoping. We salute the courage of the pro-democracy legislators who have resigned in protest. They are the giants. The Chinese Government are little more than bullies in comparison."

And the reality is that the pro-democracy legislators had little choice. They could not with any integrity remain in a sham legislature, and they knew that under Beijing’s new decree they could be next for disqualification at any time. But it is tragic that it has come to this.

So what next for the democracy movement in Hong Kong?

There are four options – all far from ideal, all representing a grim and rocky road for Hong Kong as a whole.

The first is that this week’s decisions may reignite radicals. Those who have advocated “laam chau” – mutually-assured destruction built around the concept of “if we burn, you burn with us” – may be emboldened. Their argument has long been that no advance can be made for democratization in the establishment institutions, and so better to take to the streets. Beijing has now proven that point. With democrats shut out of the legislature, increasingly under pressure in the media, academia and civil society, where else can they go?

This week we marked the first anniversary of the siege of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Next week we will remember the siege of Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The dramatic, horrifying scenes of young students prepared to risk everything – their very lives – in a last-ditch effort to save their city from the clutches of a brutal regime are ingrained in my mind and heart.

Their desperation is proven prophetic by the events this year: the arrests of major mainstream democrats in April, including the father of the democracy movement Martin Lee; the imposition of the national security law; and now the emasculation of LegCo. If people have no stake in the mainstream political process – and they see even the most moderate of their representatives excluded from it – then it’s no surprise that they look to Molotov cocktails for answers.

My fear is that some may now go further down this path, with devastating consequences for everyone. Let me be clear – I am not advocating extreme action, I do not condone it, but when avenues of reason close it is hardly surprising if some go down the path of revolution.

The second option: surrender. There will be some who are pro-democracy but, understandably, no longer have the stomach for the fight. Who could blame them? They have clung on to their very last hope – the possibility of having some democratic presence in the legislature to at least act as a check on the worst excesses of the regime – and even that is snatched from them. And so they give up, out of despair and fear. They don’t want to get locked up for life. They don’t want further violence. They want to live their lives in peace, and to do that they will keep their heads down. No one should judge or condemn them for that. Who knows what I would do if I were in their shoes?

The third option is exile. There will be many who see no future for themselves or their kids in Hong Kong and who want to build a better, freer life outside. They will leave Hong Kong – either to Britain, taking up the United Kingdom’s offer to British National Overseas (BNO) status holders, or to Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand or European countries, if – as I hope and have been advocating – a lifeline is offered to them.

Exile will not be easy for those who choose it, but it should never be regarded by others as wrong. People need to make personal choices for themselves and their families and should be supported in that process. And for some, a life in exile will be a way of continuing the movement. They will seize the opportunity of the new freedoms they have outside Hong Kong to speak out, to advocate, campaign and awaken the conscience of the world. When people ask me what the future for Hong Kong’s democracy movement is, I always say that it will continue, but in new ways – and that will include a key role in the new and growing Hong Kong diaspora around the world.

The fourth option is stay, fight, but in more creative, subtle, careful, peaceful ways. Some democrats in Hong Kong will resist the urge, even now, to go down a more radical path, reject surrender and refuse despair, but will find new ways to keep the candle burning. How that looks remains to be seen. For as long as there is some free press still, use that. For as long as places of worship operate unhindered, pulpits could be used. For as long as the internet is available and uncensored, that is a tool. And for as long as the judiciary has some semblance of independence, use the courts.

The challenge for the fourth option is the question: for how long will this be possible? If democrats are removed from the legislature, what will be next? The press? The courts? Already they are under pressure – how long until they’re completely taken over?

And then what happens? Do we move to a world of underground printing presses, secret house church gatherings, courageous non-violent dissent, as in mainland China? Does Hong Kong become the new Tibet, where displaying a picture of your favorite pro-democracy activist is as dangerous as displaying one of the Dalai Lama, or the next Xinjiang, where surveillance cameras on every corner will record every aspect of your life, from the length of your beard to whether you pray and whether you have relatives abroad? If Xi Jinping has his way, that’s the future. We must not let that happen.

Whichever path Hongkongers choose is up to them. Those of us who live in freedom must stand ready to welcome those who choose to leave, support those who choose to stay and resist creatively and non-violently and sympathize with those who choose to keep their heads down. And for those who attempt more extreme action, I would simply say this: I can never support it, never condone it and would strongly advise against it – I would urge you to think extremely carefully about the consequences and the wisdom of it. But now that moderates are shut out of the system, I would find it more difficult to blame you for it. Whatever further tragedy strikes Hong Kong, it will be – directly or indirectly – the consequence of Beijing’s actions, and the world must hold the regime accountable.

To avert further tragedy – of any kind – in Hong Kong, it’s up to all of us in the free world to speak out and act. The international community must unite in a coordinated effort to stop Beijing squeezing the life out of Hong Kong, breaching its international agreements, and threatening freedom itself. I for one promise to do everything I can to mobilize the world. If democrats can no longer speak in LegCo, all the more reason why I must use my voice outside – and I will.

(Benedict Rogers is a human rights activist and writer. He is the co-founder and Chief Executive of Hong Kong Watch, Senior Analyst for East Asia at the international human rights organisation CSW, co-founder and Deputy Chair of the UK Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and a member of the advisory group of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC).)

Benedict Rogers is the co-founder and Chief Executive of Hong Kong Watch. This article was published in Apple Daily on 13 November 2020. (Photo: Apple Daily)