Who should decide who I am

Patriotism, to a large extent, depends on one’s sense of belonging to his/her country. The sense of patriotism heightens when people feel proud of their country or want to protect their country at a time of crisis. In Hong Kong, loving one’s country may mean loving its history, culture, tradition and/or people. However, in mainland China, loving the nation may require one to love the Communist Party and the Chinese government at the same time.

Since the changeover of Hong Kong’s sovereignty from Britain to China in 1997, the Chinese government has tried to promote the sense of patriotism among Hong Kong people. In recent years, the sense of belonging to China goes downward consistently, due to the tension between the Chinese government/ mainland Chinese and Hongkongers. Such tension comes from different values on human rights, democracy, civility as well as daily life practices and shopping behaviors. In order to enhance the sense of belonging and patriotism, a number of measures have been introduced in Hong Kong, such as making Chinese history a compulsory subject in secondary schools and the legislation of (respecting) national anthem law.

The most recent measure is the broadcasting of a speech on the role and mission of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) under the national constitution and the Basic Law, the mini-constitution of Hong Kong, by a senior mainland official in secondary schools, apart from addressing the Hong Kong top-ranking officials. In his speech, Li Fei, deputy secretary-general of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee and the HKSAR Basic Law Committee Chairman, urged Hong Kong to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty, security and development interests. He pointed out that there are three main questions that Hong Kong has to face: Where are you from? Who are you? Where are you heading to?

These three questions were raised under the assumption that China’s Central Government is the origin of the Hong Kong government and the national constitution is the root of the Hong Kong Basic Law. No matter how special Hong Kong is, Li emphasized, it is under the rule and supervision of the central leaders and the national constitution. The central administration enjoys the comprehensive ruling power.
Li highlighted that Hong Kong should not tolerate any attempts that promote separatism or jeopardize the country’s security, honor and interests. This was referring to the advocacy of Hong Kong’s independence among young people in university campus and the booing of Chinese national anthem in international football matches by some Hong Kong fans. Moreover, Li discussed Hong Kong’s responsibility to guard national development interests.
It is interesting to see that the three questions mentioned by Li are also often asked by moral theologians and virtue ethicists, though the intention and underlying assumption are very different.
Virtue ethicists view moral agents as people freely pursuing their desire for happiness in life. The moral agent, rather than moral action or its consequences, is at the center of moral reflection. They understand human agency as a means of shaping character, which is an important component of decision and action. It emphasizes a person in relationship with others through one’s character and choices. The answer to each question of the three interrelated questions—Who are we? Who ought we to become? And how do we get there?—refers to the virtues. Linking virtue ethics to social ethics would also urge us to think what constitutes a good human life that promotes common good? What virtues do we need to be just and caring? What would a person with relational and social virtues look like? How does one cultivate these relational virtues in our context?

When someone ask who are we that live in Hong Kong, we would say, we just want to be Hongkongers that can decide our own destiny, involving in the decision-making process of those policies that affect our own lives, in order to build a society with just and care.

However, for Li Fei and other leaders of the central government, their main concern is not so much about the moral agency or freedom of Hongkongers. The ruling authority is not inviting Hong Kong people to seek for our identity and explore where to go and how to get there. Rather, the ruling authority has decided the goals of Hong Kong as well as its people. The Beijing Government does not want to see any action or even thought that is not in line with them. This has been exercised explicitly through the Hong Kong government. Thus, when Hongkongers asked for democracy and political participation, they were rejected. Those who employed more radical ways were punished through harsh terms. This can be seen through the harsh punishment of some young pro-democracy activists who joined protests.

It seems that the Hong Kong/Central Government officials neglect the fact that a sense of belonging cannot be taught or imposed on, or be dictated by officials in Beijing or here in Hong Kong. Enough space should be given to Hongkongers as we search for our identity. It is impossible to allow only one way of expressing belonging or patriotism. The only way to foster understanding and respect is authentic dialogue among various parties on an equal base. Meanwhile, to nurture democratic character, practicing democracy in daily life and persistent reflection are indispensable. The words of Alex Chow, one of the student leaders being jailed may inspire us. He said after his release on bail, “Democracy will be my practice in my whole life, as a scholar or an activist, even if there will be suppression.”

This is also true among Hong Kong people who support democracy. Since the Umbrella Movement, there is a split in the pro-democratic camp on the strategy of striving for democracy and social change. On the one hand, the older generation opts for a realistic and pragmatic way of accepting the political reality. On the other hand, the younger generation chooses a more radical way of resistance in order to take charge of their destiny, opting for self-determination or even independence, though they may not achieve much at present. Some of them even have to pay a high price of being jailed.

Such difference is based on the different experiences and realities of generations, as a commentator said. There is no one absolute answer to the right way of striving for democracy and justice. More important is to maintain our ability of reflection and reasoning, willing to listen to the other side and to analyze the pros and cons of various strategies. We should bear in mind that our political stance or strategy is not the only truth and the other side may not be all wrong. Willingness to dialogue and listen is always an imperative to reconciliation in a split society.

Small-circle Election in Hong Kong

Small-circle Election in Hong Kong
Mary Mee-Yin Yuen
The First, CTEWC (April 2017)

Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor Carrie has been elected Hong Kong’s next chief executive (CE) on 26 March, 2017. However, it was not an authentic election as Lam gained only 777 votes from the 1,194-member Election Committee – around 0.03 per cent of the population – composed mostly of Beijing government’s loyalists. A former chief secretary and deputy to the existing chief executive, Lam is the fourth Hong Kong’s chief executive since the change of sovereignty from Britain to China in 1997.

Unlike democratic elections in many other countries, the Hong Kong’s chief executive election has been considered as a small circle election which involved only a very small number of people. Only some of the 240,000 people from selected sectors had votes in December last year to choose a 1,200-member election committee. The committee is composed of four main sectors with representatives from the professional sector; the industrial, commercial and financial sectors; and the social services, religious and other sectors. The fourth sector includes legislative members, District Councilors, members of the Heung Yee Kuk rural group, and Hong Kong representatives to China’s decision-making bodies. The makeup of the committee has been criticized for over-representing sectors close to Beijing, whilst under-representing sections of the populace which are more pro-democratic.

Two other candidates in the CE election are the former financial secretary Tsang Chun-wah John and retired judge Woo Kwok-hing. Although all three candidates are regarded as pro-establishment figures, it is widely believed that Beijing government has its own choice before the election.

The State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office said the election had been “open, fair and orderly”, and that Lam “fitted” Beijing’s requirements for a chief executive. However, Lam was heavily rumored to be Beijing’s favored candidate over the past two months before the election though she was behind in public popularity polls. Some electors claimed that before election day they were pressured by the Hong Kong-based Chinese liasion office to vote for her.
Critics called the election result “a defeat of the people’s majority views.” Tsang was popular among the public for his more successful public relations campaign and his image of inclusivity. In spite of the small-circle election, Tsang did not merely appeal to the members of the Election Committee, he also appealed to other Hong Kong people through offering the vision of unity, trust and hope, attempting to gain popular support. Many people think that he can bring reconciliation in a splited society though they may not fully support his policy platform. This brought a new experience and standard of election campaign to Hong Kong people, in spite of the small-circle election nature. However, Tsang was said to have lacked the central government’s full trust despite his high public popularity, thus, he could not gain much support from the pro-establishment camp in the Election Committee. The election result shows the gap between the choice of Hong Kong people and members of the Election Committee, reflecting the absurdity and ridiculous of the small-circle election.

The Civil Human Rights Front, a non-governmental organization organised a rally to protest on the day before the election against Hong Kong’s small-circle leadership race. They claimed that Beijing blatantly meddled in the election. The group calls for full democracy and genuine universal suffrage.
This election is the first CE election after the Occupy Movement in 2014. On 31 August, 2014, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress passed a decision that the chief executive in 2017 can be elected by one-person-one-vote, but only after a “broadly representative” nomination committee. The decision triggered a week-long class boycott, which developed into the 79-day Occupy protests demanding fully democratic elections.

This election was expected by some people to be a chance of healing the wounds of Hong Kong created in the past five-year rule of the existing chief executive C.Y. Leung and the rift among people after the Occupy protest or the so-called Umbrella Revolution. Lam is seen as inheriting the ruling strategy of Leung whereas Tsang is regarded as a person who can bring reconciliation and dialogue among people of different political stances. However, the election result brought disappointment to many people.

In the Catholic social tradition, democracy and equal political participation are highly valued and small-circle election is not preferred. In the social encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II highlights that, “The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate. Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for ideological ends (no. 46).”
Therefore, Hong Kong people should insist on the goal of striking for authentic universal suffrage and continue to cultivate a culture of democracy with relational virtues although we know that the road to democracy is a long and winding one. We must not lost hope in spite of the dim light in front of us. We need wisdom to discern how to move forward.

With low popularity, Lam has to face questions over her governance and the many challenges for the coming five years – from the rising tide of anti-mainland sentiments to skyrocketing property prices and political tensions.
It is interesting to note that Lam, as a Catholic, claimed that she stood for election because of calling from God. Although Lam was seen as a person under Beijing’s or pro-Beijing’s control, during the election campaign, she insisted that she was willing to listen to people’s opinions and became more humble. When the result of her winning came out, she said that she would try her best to unite people of various political standpoints, mending the rift and disentangling the frustration of Hong Kong people. I hope that she would keep her promise and uphold the Catholic values of common good, solidarity and subsidiarity as they are imperative in building a good society.