Tag Archive for ‘freedom’ at The Blog by Si Chun Lam

The Olympic torch relay went through Hong Kong successfully on Friday. This marks the end of the ‘international’ relay and the first leg of the torch’s relay on the Chinese mainland. Combining the HK citizens’ love for the many local pop stars and sports stars with the joy of being the nation hosting the Olympics, the Olympic Flame was welcomed home in a sea of red. Well-wishers lining the streets actually had the opportunity to see the torch relay –– unlike in many parts of the world where violent protesters stopped people from actually seeing anything.

From looking at the astoundingly long 15 minute coverage on Hong Kong’s TVB news, plus a variety of news sources from HK, China and internationally; as well as Flickr photos, it appears that:

Hong Kong held a fantastically successful relay, without the disruption seen in foreign countries;
People – from people believing in a more democratic China, to supporters of a free Tibet - were allowed to air their views in public protest.

This should keep (almost) everyone happy:

The Hong Kong government avoided criticism locally and internationally about stifling freedom of speech by allowing a number of protestors – including government critic Mia Farrow into the city;
It also saved itself from a dressing-down from Beijing by having it successfully pass through HK without any incident.
Hong Kongers, though often apathetic about the ‘motherland’, showed up in force to support the relay, lining the streets of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories – in red.
The minority of protesters – wearing orange – exercised their constitutionally-protected rights to protest. This included a number of opposition politicians, a couple of foreign protestors, as well as local ones. The attempt by a local university student to display a Central Tibetan Administration flag was subdued by a sea of red (not the authorities) – and had to be taken away for her own protection.

~*~

Commentary:

I think there’s a time and place to protest – and a time and place to celebrate. The olympic torch relay was certainly NOT the time to protest – and protesting such events just takes away your credibility, as you’ll be seen as a bit of a idiot/lunatic/extremist or all three.

There is no doubt that the relay will be welcomed in the same way across the rest of China – but there’s no room for opposition there. In contrast, Hong Kong is special: The fact that people were free to protest or celebrate is what makes the celebration of the Olympic torch even more special. Given the free choice, the majority of Hong Kongers showed up in red, immensely happy and proud to be hosting the Olympics.

It is this tolerance that makes Hong Kong wildly successful. The day other mainland Chinese cities recognise this not-so-secret formula is the day they’ll have a chance of competing with Hong Kong.

Postscript and feedback

Cynthia wrote: (2008-05-02 22:32)

I don’t know if I would agree that the Olympics Torch Relay was not the time to protest. After all, people protest when heads of state come to visit or at other major events. That’s the whole point of protesting: you want to be able to spread your message to as large an audience as possible.

However, the protesters should refrain from disrupting the event (e.g. grabbing the torch is a big no-no). Similarly, those who are in support of the event should refrain from tussling with the protesters (e.g. yelling obscenities at them is not a good idea).

I mean… let’s look at it from another perspective. Say President Bush came to visit Hong Kong for some sort of positive diplomatic trip and, as part of the visit, there was a long walk with the appropriate security and such. Plenty of random HK people might want to go see him and there’ll probably also be some people who want to protest various US policies (e.g. Iraq war).

Would you say that because the intent of Bush’s trip was unrelated to the Iraq war that this would not be the “right” time to protest?

Si Chun wrote (2008-05-02 22:39):

My point about it being NOT the place to protest was about the fact protesting the torch in HK meant you were going to be completely and utterly overwhelmed by the majority of people who support the torch relay; thus I went on to explain how the tolerance of opposition views in HK is a major asset and reason for our city’s success.

There is a time and place for protest – e.g. a Chinese state leader visit to HK has historically been a rather better opportunity to protest; and the opposition politicians know that.

E.g. I thought the pro-democracy politicians were somewhat idiotic to be protesting in face of the majority of public opinion. It is one thing standing up for your rights as an individual e.g. as the university student with the Tibetan flag did; but another thing altogether when you’ve got an election to win one month after the Olympics. Sometimes - you’ve got to pick your fights.

Cynthia wrote: (2008-05-02 23:06)

Just because you’re overruled by the majority doesn’t mean that it’s not worth being that speck in the hay. Would you have asked Rosa Parks to give up her seat because she’d be “completely and utterly overwhelmed by the majority of people” who thought she should? The Relay might not be the most effective means of spreading the word (e.g. as you mentioned, a Chinese state leader visit might be more appropriate) but I wouldn’t say that it’s not the place to do so.

As for the politicians: Maybe they did pick their fight and this was the one they chose. Sometimes, you just have to take a stand, even if it’s not the popular or politically expedient one. Perhaps they did this knowing full well that it would affect their chances for reelection. It’s not always about the ends, you know?

The disruption of the Olympic torch relay by anti-China groups such as Students for a Free Tibet have probably single-handedly destroyed any chance of a more liberal, tolerant, and democratic China for the foreseeable future.

The Chinese sees the right to host the Olympics as a matter of personal pride and joy. It is one thing protesting (however misinformed) against Chinese policies in Tibet, Sudan, or Burma; but another thing altogether to attempt to disrupt the torch relay – which is widely seen as a racist insult to ordinary Chinese people.

When faced with threats to their national identity, what do people do? Yep - rally around the flag. We saw it in really destructive ways in America, when the events of 9/11 gave legitimacy to the lame duck Bush administration, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq.

Similarly, recent events have stoked Chinese nationalism in ways not even the Chinese Communist Party thought was possible. Advocates for democratization or for greater autonomy in Tibet will suddenly find their room for negotiation greatly diminished, as they will be seen as agents of the west. (Example).

Then, there is the great disconnect between the stated aims of these anti-China groups – and the effect of their actions. Democracy – and the associated increase in freedoms – is a change that can only be fought by people within; and similarly, Tibet can only be liberalised by those within, not by a bunch of misinformed protestors. The ’shotgun democratization’ favoured by Western governments clearly doesn’t work – and countries like Afghanistan and Iraq only goes to show why.

If anti-China groups such as Students for a Free Tibet, human rights groups, and other groups seriously wanted to bring increased freedom to the lives of ordinary Chinese, including Tibetans, there is few things worse than boycotting an event of national pride, such as the Olympics.

Instead – what would be much more effective would be for such groups to engage ordinary Chinese people in constructive dialogue. Sadly, it is rather ironic that these groups ask the Chinese Government to engage with the Dalai Lama, but completely fail to engage ordinary Chinese people in their aims.

Unfortunately, such slow, human, participatory change makes no headlines, and instead, we have the western governments, media and anti-China groups conspiring to make short-term, hard-hitting headlines by provoking the Chinese government and people in order to score domestic political points; actions that could potentially cause lasting misery to the lives of billions of people in China, including Tibet.

Postscript and feedback

Cynthia wrote: (2008-04-09 22:35)

I get your point but I do think that headlines actually do help to an extent by bringing attention to an otherwise neglected cause. As long as the rest of the world doesn’t seem to “notice” China has no incentive to cooperate. I think the point is not “shotgun Democratization” per se but, rather, public humiliation in an attempt to shame China into doing something.

Not always effective, but I think that’s the intent, at least.

Si Chun wrote: (2008-04-09 22:47)

Is this public humiliation of the Chinese government, or is it directed at Chinese people?

A protest is (thankfully) protected in the West by enforced laws guaranteeing freedoms of thought, speech and action. However, wilful acts of disruption is, to me, the latter.

Change always has to come from within. Unfortunately, we have had serious missteps in the past month:

The Tibetan riots have destroyed community cohesion such that a democratic election would produce a mayor promising to ’strike hard’ against crime.

The protests have effectively denied the opportunity for those working to create change from within. This was most visible when China saw no problem imprisoning activist Hu Jia (胡佳) at this time.

Yin wrote (2008-04-11 09:48):

As my professor once told me. It’s no good trying to piss into the establishment from outside. You must piss out from within

Clarice wrote: (2008-04-11 07:21)

I’m not a very political person and I don’t know enough politics, so I can only comment on this with simple words:

Firstly, the olympics is a sporting event, where the torch relay symbolises peach, harmony and unity between the nations. By disrupting it, the protestors themselves are fighting against the very thing they’re trying to stand for.

China is trying to improve. If they’re truly communist, then no amount of the so called ‘public humiliation’ will have any effect whatsoever on China’s policies

Do people from outside Tibet really understand what they are fighting for? By discrupting the torch relay, they have involved and harmed people from other nationalities. Torch bearers fear for their lives, and yet, they have nothing to do with all these apart from being chosen as torch bearers.

As a result of these threats, the Chinese Olympics Committee had to employ guards for the torch and bearers, but what did they get for helping to ensure the bearer’s safety - that they’re rude and barge people out of the way regardless of who they are. These guards are necessary, as you can see from the London leg where protestors managed to escape the police

In agreement with the above, people’s attack on the human rights condition in China is no longer attacking the government, but Chinese people themselves.

Si Chun wrote (2008-04-11 22:20):

Clarice - I agree with your insight into the issues. Perhaps, the most obvious example of an attack on the Chinese people themselves can be seen when a pro-Tibet protestor attacked Jin Jing, the Chinese paralympian fencer carrying the torch in Paris who heroically prevented the torch from being snatched away (http://zonaeuropa.com/20080410_1.htm).

It’s quite disgusting really – do the protestors realise just how their actions will inflame ethnic tensions in China?

It is a bit of a shame that the flame protection squad was thought of as “thugs”. They clearly had to behave this way when we’ve ‘human rights’ and ‘free Tibet’ protestors who will stop at nothing to destroy an event.

The Blog by Si Chun Lam