Hostage Hong Kong

A Letter to the Editor from Kim Salkeld, a former civil servant and resident of Hong Kong since 1980.

Hong Kong is a spot of lubricant between the major cogs of the world’s economic system and a point of tension between different conceptions of what constitutes good government. Focus on the cogs and conceptions draws attention away from Hong Kong as a community in itself and away from the fact that it is failure inside Hong Kong that is the black-hand behind the present crisis here.

It is much easier to blame outside forces, whether the Chinese Communist Party or meddling Western governments, rather than to face up to our own failings, but face them we must if we are to stop living in a world of fantasy where the lines of a Hollywood movie can be used to justify black guards smashing infrastructure, institutions and individuals in this city in the name of fighting for it while others dream of the PLA coming as a Deus ex Machina to impose peace without attending to the frustration and rage among so many at the way this city has been run.

One might say that Hong Kong has allowed itself to be held hostage by a number of myths. What do I mean by this? There is a myth that Hong Kong’s liberties and way of life are fated to end in 2047, 50 years after China’s resumption of sovereignty. In fact the Basic Law contains no mechanism for its termination. China’s sovereignty and Hong Kong’s separate system can run on indefinitely. It is therefore worthwhile and necessary to work ceaselessly to uphold Hong Kong’s system within that constitutional arrangement rather than despairing, lashing out or giving up on Hong Kong.

There is a myth that Hong Kong prospered through libertarian capitalism and must hold fast to the ideological strictures of the Heritage Foundation and its ilk if it is to stay prosperous. But the ‘liberty’ that this is conceived of is the liberty of the few to plunder the many, not the liberty of all to live to the best of their abilities in contentment with their neighbours.

There is a myth that an executive can operate effectively with a legislature when neither is broadly representative of the community that the government has to serve. Indeed, in this age of the ‘sovereign individual’ with their cell-phone sitting amid the old ruins of social, economic and environmental certainty, is there not also a myth that the old machinery for giving voice to the community is sufficient to allow government and community to find the knowledge, guidance and consent needed to act in the face of uncertainty today?

There is a myth that violence in word or deed against one’s neighbour is an acceptable form of civil discourse, compatible with the pursuit of a decent system of government and sustaining an open and tolerant society.

There is a myth that Hong Kong’s government cannot change and cannot help to redress past failings.

There is a myth that the Government of the PRC will not permit change.

There is a myth that each one of us in Hong Kong is absolutely right and that failure is on the part of others to listen to what we are saying while we are not listening to them.

We can let these myths paralyse us or we can draw a picture together of how this city can continue as our home. Without such a picture we will remain trapped in our nightmare and none will wake us.