Perhaps somewhat surprisingly for someone who retired from full time employment almost 15 years ago, and who has been described as being “in his winter”, I still receive lots of approaches from journalists for a comment, even from some who try to disguise themselves as being journalists, particularly when there is something controversial going on in Hong Kong. Recent events have proved no different, and neither has my stance.
I have always tended, even when working full time, to leave political commentary to those better qualified than I am. Matters affecting business and the future are however different, and that is where I find myself at present. My own global associations - i.e. where I have lived, can be split pretty much into three distinct geographical areas - 20% Middle East, 30% UK and 50% Asia (mostly Hong Kong).
I am therefore saddened by what is happening in Hong Kong today where I have spent most of my life and I worry about the future of the protesters - particularly the young. Job security for them must be a genuine risk for the future if all goes badly, and the chance that they may be worse off in future as a result of their protests than they might otherwise have been, does not sit happily in my thoughts. As I suggested in a previous Blog, about hindsight, and perhaps what the protesters have overlooked is that if China had assumed full control of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997 life could already be very much different from today.
The genesis of the current protest movement was discomfort over the introduction of an unpopular extradition bill. The manner of its introduction and the lack of ensuing debate could have been avoided perhaps, and I can understand the level of discomfort that ensued. But that bill has largely been dismissed; not to the satisfaction of the protesters for sure, but that initial issue has been overtaken by the protesters calling for full democracy in Hong Kong (of which more later), or even independence from China as is being called for by some. This is something that was not on the table before July 1997, it was not on the table after, and was never likely to be on the table in future. But consider this. Look at the significant developments that have been, and still are, taking place in the Greater Bay Area. An area of intense and continuing economic growth. Then look at some of the major Chinese companies that are profitable and increasingly global. I don’t need to name them as they are largely household names; not the sort of thing though you would have expected from an apparently repressive, business-unfriendly state. But then, what do I know? I only have my experience to go on.
Just as an aside, I have seen a comment today that is being widely reported in the media apparently from a “victim of the police brutality". The comment from the victim said the police should “concentrate on upholding the rule of law”. Now that is a sentiment with which I fully agree - but what are they supposed to do when people are breaking the law and damaging property? Does upholding the rule of law mean they have to stand still and be pelted with bricks and everything else that comes to hand? Please!
Moving on there seem to be those in Hong Kong who see Britain as the defender of Hong Kong’s rights to democracy. A democracy, lest they forget, that did not find its way to Hong Kong under British control although in all honesty I have no idea whether they tried to introduce it, but that’s another story. However, now take a look at Britain today where the Prime Minister (elected by 0.3% of the population), has decided to shut down Parliament for three weeks in advance of Britain leaving the European Union. He says, of course, that this is not designed to thwart attempts to debate the rights and wrongs of leaving the Union without a deal, as seems likely, but if that is not the purpose then I am having difficulty in finding people who can explain why he is interfering with the democratic right to debate. If that is the sort of democracy craved in Hong Kong, then good luck.
I am in favour of protests that make a valid point and that have been properly and seriously thought through. In this regard, China too has been a supporter of protests in the past. In the 1960s and 1970s when I was signing documentation for the import of goods from China which called for the provision of insurance covering such eventualities I would receive notes from China saying they could not provide such insurance because they believed in "strikes, riots and civil commotion".
The world is already in a difficult place - there are major protests in the United Kingdom because of the "coup" attempt to close the democratic process of parliament and then the attempts taking place in mid-September to close Heathrow airport by climate change activists. But it does not have to be that way - and especially in Hong Kong. It needs some rational thinking, some cool heads, dialogue and a realisation of what is realistically possible and what is not; also, a real understanding of the actual concerns of the protesters by the administration.
Failure to debate is likely to lead to a destruction of the future.