Advertisement

'It is much worse': veterans of Hong Kong's 2003 protests fear new law

<span>Photograph: Vincent Yu/AP</span>
Photograph: Vincent Yu/AP

On 1 July 2003, in the middle of a sweltering Hong Kong summer, Mak Yin-Ting was among a crush of people trying to get into the tree-fringed Victoria Park. Sweating and crowded close together, people spilled out on to roads and highways where they waited for hours.

The experience was such an anomaly that one man climbed on top of a rubbish bin and shouted: “What the hell is going on?” He was quickly told to shut up and sit down, Mak remembers.

It was the sixth anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese control after more than 100 years of British rule. Half a million people – a tenth of the population – had come to protest against an anti-subversion law they feared would make their city more like those over the border.

“It was astonishing. The turnout was beyond my imagination,” said Mak, now 59, who was chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association at the time.

It was the largest protest since the 1997 handover and a shock to both the government and its citizens. Hong Kong’s supposedly apolitical middle class – teachers, lawyers, business people, journalists like Mak and others – streamed from the park to the seat of the government shouting: “We march for freedom” and “Power to the people!” They held signs that said: “Oppose Article 23”, shorthand for the legislation, and pictures of the then chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, with pie on his face.

A mock toilet with a picture of Tung Chee-hwa at a pro-democracy rally on 1 January 2004. He eventually stepped down.
A mock toilet with a picture of Tung Chee-hwa at a pro-democracy rally on 1 January 2004. He eventually stepped down. Photograph: Vincent Yu/AP

Even more surprising was that it worked. Support for the bill, expected to easily pass Hong Kong’s legislature the following week, collapsed and in September it was withdrawn. A senior official that had pushed the law resigned and later, after more protests, Tung also stepped down.

“We thought it was a people’s victory. That maybe we did have democracy and we did have freedom, and that if we stood up against pressure then we would succeed,” said Chan, 31, who attended the rally with his family as a teenager.

Now, those who marched that day are witnessing the plan for a national security law – returned in a new, more threatening form – to be imposed on them by the Beijing government. For many, it has been devastating – a sign of how far China will go to bring them into line.

“We are so frustrated. It is very sad. You feel lost, and you don’t know what to do. I feel we are finally entering a police state,” said Tsang, who is in her mid-40s and was at the 2003 protests. “It is much worse. This year is 10 times what we felt in 2003. It is very brutal.”

But for those who helped defeat the 2003 bill, Beijing’s aggressive move also underlines the difficulty the Chinese leadership faces in trying to bring Hong Kong to heel. In the years since, while Beijing has grown more authoritarian, demands for democracy have grown in Hong Kong while protesters have only become more organised and determined in their pursuit of political change.

A protest in a Hong Kong shopping mall last week against the new national security law.
A protest in a Hong Kong shopping mall last week against the new national security law. Photograph: Kin Cheung/AP

“It is really contradictory how Hong Kong society has developed and how the Chinese regime is trying to shape its territory,” said Chow, 43, who was also at the 2003 protests.

After those demonstrations, protests in Hong Kong became more frequent, demands for real elections grew, and NGOs, religious organisations, professional groups and ordinary residents became more involved.

“It is fair to describe that moment in history as an awakening of Hong Kong civil society,” said Alan Leong, a senior barrister and chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association at the time.

“We knew if we did not save ourselves we cannot count on the [Hong Kong] government or the Chinese Communist party to honour their promises. If we do not stand up for our own freedoms and human rights, we will lose them in no time.”

Since then, Hong Kong has seen several major protest movements, including last year’s demonstrations against legal amendments to allow extradition to the mainland. The record set by the 2003 rally was broken, with 1 million residents and later 2 million marching against the extradition bill, now shelved. The arrests of more than 8,000 people and severe police crackdowns have not stopped the demonstrations.

Anti-government protesters during the demonstrations in Hong Kong last year.
Anti-government protesters during the demonstrations in Hong Kong last year. Photograph: Anthony Kwan/Getty Images

The new national security legislation is aimed at finally ending those protests. Written in Beijing rather than Hong Kong’s legislature, it is expected to be broader and more draconian. Legal experts and human rights advocates say it will allow authorities to silence government critics and limit civic freedoms, such as the right to protest.

The law, criminalising acts of subversion, terrorism, separatism and foreign interference, could be enacted within the next few months. While there is little that can be done to stop it, experts say Beijing is in for a long struggle.

“I think this will trigger a very strong and sustained resistance. People in Hong Kong have completely lost trust in the People’s Republic of China to honour its political promises,” said Ming Sing, associate professor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

Beijing has repeatedly said the new law will not impinge on the “one country two systems” framework that promises Hong Kong a “high degree of autonomy” or threaten the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents.

But few take comfort in those promises after watching the Chinese government under Xi Jinping tighten the already narrow space for Chinese civil society over the last few years. Threats to national security have been cited in many arrests of human rights lawyers, activists and other critics of the government.

“The Chinese regime is very different now. It’s very clear it is not tolerating civil society,” said Chow.

Today, critics say Hong Kong would have been better off approving the version of the law proposed in 2003. And some see the reintroduction of national security legislation as a major setback, a reversal of that victory 17 years ago.

A protest on 13 July 2003 against the security bill.
A protest on 13 July 2003 against the security bill. Photograph: Kin Cheung/REUTERS

But those who attended the protests disagree. Mak remembers being told by Chinese officials in 2003 that if the bill were not accepted then it would be stricter later.

“I told them: ‘You can’t tell me that I will die someday so I should commit suicide now,’” she said. “I won’t regret participating. I think that is the characteristic of Hong Kong people. We will not accept things because of threats.”

Chan, who was part of last year’s protests, also said he will continue. “It is the only thing we can do. We have to put up a fight,” he said.

Others say China’s plan carries its own risks, from damage to Beijing’s reputation abroad to even more entrenched opposition inside and outside of Hong Kong over the long term.

“Many different rounds of battle have been waged. Along the way some have been won, some have been lost. The battle was won during that time but lost this time. History does not stop here,” said Ming. “It is too premature to say that Hong Kong has lost entirely.”