DARREN LIU compares the handling of violence in Hong Kong between British and Chinese occupiers, and its resulting effects on Hong Kong residents.
On 16th June 2019, millions marched the streets of Hong Kong. Black flags in hand, gas masks on faces, and makeshift weapons amongst all. Over a quarter of the population has been engaged in a long campaign against oppression; however, there have been no political changes as of yet. Many historians focus on the causes or methods of sorting out the situation. However, seldom do they discuss the cause of the movement’s popularity and whether it is truly due to mistreatment of the public or to newer ideologies spread amongst the youth. With the current state of social media, news, and word of mouth, it is easier than ever to spread a social movement. Protests are important because they not only act as a representation of issues faced by the public, calling for reforms from the government, but also point to the severity of an issue through the popularity of said protest.
Hong Kong is a small, highly populated Chinese region, and has been colonized by the British from 1842 to 1997. Afterwards, the Chinese government agreed for Hong Kong to retain autonomy after 1997 for 50 years. As such, Hong Kong residents are able to use social media platforms popular in more western countries, differing from the Mainland Chinese residents who are not allowed to use such platforms. This policy is known as “One Country, Two Systems,” and, for most of recent history, the lines of this agreement have been blurred and fought both for and against. Such historical circumstances allow a comparison between how the British and Chinese governments handled social movements.This essay focuses on the 1956 riots (under British control) and the recent Umbrella movement of 2014 (under Chinese control).
Before jumping into the investigation, it is first important to address some common misconceptions about Hong Kong’s history and police force. Despite the common misconception that the British were great colonizers in Hong Kong who advanced civilization and built infrastructure, they were actually quite corrupt. Many scholars, such as Chi-Kwan Mark, agree it was rather a global economic upswing paired with the previously unexplored concept of capitalism in Asia which brought Hong Kong to where it is now. In Michael Adorjan and Maggy Lee’s public assessment of Hong Kong police, they state that as the public’s age goes down, their perception of the police force seems to be more negative. This phenomenon is likely due to shifting cultures of the youth, from Chinese traditions taught by older generations to foreign influences found on western internet platforms. Another misconception is that many assume Hong Kong residents consider themselves Chinese, when in reality, authors such as Mee Ling Lai have actually found that Hong Kong residents feel their national identity is better defined as “Hong Konger” rather than “Chinese.” This instantly shows a divide between Mainland culture and Hong Kong culture, which contributes to why the youth feel their thoughts are not well received by the ruling Chinese government. Ultimately, scholars have debated the place of Hong Kong within the history of China, but few have looked at how the media impacted the public’s opinion of the ruling government.
This essay will analyze the relationship between media coverage of violent events and public perception of the government. Exaggeration of the media in a censored country seems to be rare; however, due to the unique circumstances of Hong Kong having autonomy, it is present, yet many scholars tend to overlook this. Police brutality and other forms of violence ignited from the protesters heavily spread throughout the media in times of political unrest. This will be proven by analyzing in a social and political lens, such as newspaper outlets covering violent instances. International media coverage of violent riots in Hong Kong shape the public perception of these events as well as the government which can be seen through news coverage of the 1956 riots and 2014 Umbrella Movement.
The 1956 riots started due to escalating tensions between the Kuomintang Party (KMT) supporters and the Chinese Communist Party supporters (CCP). On Double Ten Day, Taiwan’s national holiday, a national flag was erected, and thereafter taken down. This was an issue because many CCP supporters did not recognise Taiwan as a country, and instead thought of them as just another Chinese party. Afterwards, violence filled the streets for three days, until the government introduced a lockdown. Some CCP supporters were likely refugees coming from the mainland, as this was a time of high amounts of immigration, and the refugee office was then destroyed. Many other government buildings were also destroyed in the chaos, with both Asians and Europeans being attacked. The 1956 riots were three days long, from October 10th to October 12th.
Media coverage of demonstrations can often be exaggerated, whether it is for better business or inherent biases politically. Furthermore, when violence or police brutality is exaggerated in the media, especially internationally, it may suggest corrupt or poorly trained officers and a worse situation than reality, when it might just be an accident or unfortunate circumstance. This misrepresentation then shapes the international perception of the Hong Kong government, especially in a region with tense power struggles, by representing the government as being either too tyrannical or not controlling enough. For example, the Jamaican Pagoda Magazine demonstrates an anti-communist bias. From the editor’s note in the first column of the publication’s first writing filled page, the editor questions why “there is no celebration of this important day to rejoice this historic event of the Chinese people gaining freedom from the tyrannic, barbaric and dictatorship of the Manchus to join the democratic world by the father of our nation, the late-Dr. Sun Yat-Sen.” The author then titled the section on the riots as “Riots, Fear, and Sudden Death in Hong Kong.” This portrays an image of chaos and lack of control by the government when in reality this riot only lasted three days. This article, amongst others, increases the notoriety of the protests by exaggerating the extent of the riots. This representation then feeds into international preconceptions of China, which they group into presumptions of Hong Kong. Furthermore, the author also blames Chinese secret societies for the riots despite the lack of evidence, making Hong Kong seem more correlated to China than it truly is. They state that the “well-disciplined movements and anti-foreigner manifestation” was similar to “classic communist tactics.” Such phrases are used to generate attention, especially since this article was published during the start of the cold war, and communism was heavily controversial and used as a buzzword of sorts. It is important to note this publication cost nine pence, and acted as a fortnightly publication riddled with advertisements. Therefore, such dramatization would clearly give more entertainment to the reader and present the Hong Kong government as lacking control, and the Communist Chinese as out of control. As an effect of this dramatization, misinformation spread, thus changing the perception of the Hong Kong government.
Moving on, the Umbrella Movement of 2014 is infamous for yellow umbrellas used to block tear gas and other dispersing techniques employed by the riot police of Hong Kong. This movement started as a result of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress’ (NPCSC) proposal for Hong Kong Political Reform in the selection process for Chef Executive. This 79 day-movement included the occupation of territories to advocate for change, with many university students joining to spread awareness. Over three quarters of individuals involved were between the ages of 18 and 39, which explains the perceived image of youth fighting for the political environment of their future. Protestors occupied many business centers and slowed the flow of business in order to attract attention, despite being deemed illegal by the government. Furthermore, the protests ended without any changes made by the government, and the upcoming election ended with a Chinese government-approved candidate being chosen. Advocates not only took to the streets, but also went on social media platforms, such as Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube, to show the oppression and their perspective on the seemingly unbudging Chinese government.
Similar to 1956, dramatization of events by the media completely changed public perception of the government, especially with increased access to digital newsletters. Development and popularization of social media platforms now allow for the average person to easily present their thoughts. Notably, censorship is also prevalent in Hong Kong, as many news outlets are owned or funded by the Chinese government. This makes the actions of riot police easier to hide, but not impossible to find. With the new emergence of social media platforms and more radical news outlets devoted to liberty and true journalism, protestors can upload more and more videos on platforms such as YouTube. A video by Euronews shows the police “beating a handcuffed protester.” Such police brutality might not be extremely common, yet ease of sharing media nowadays also plays a role in negative perceptions of the government. Protesters have posted many such videos on the internet, making it seem like the government is out of control, especially when compared to the past where newspapers would only portray certain events that more positively represent the government. .
With self expression so easy nowadays, governments might start to fear the power of communication given to the public. Censorship might also give false meaning to what users tried to convey, with overdependence on such technology giving governments power by controlling what the public sees. Most of the participants of the Umbrella Movement are university students, therefore, much of the public treats those prominent figures like celebrities, inspired by their passion and age. The public gets attached to not only the protestor themself, but also their personality. For example, in a documentary titled “Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower,” about Joshua Wong, a prominent figure of the Umbrella Movement, Joshua states “Scholarism [the protest group] insists on being peaceful, rational and nonviolent.” Therefore, he “hope[s] the police can also be peaceful, rational, and nonviolent.” Such a statement sets an expectation for the riot police, and, if violence does occur, the public will most likely blame the government since Joshua already made his plan and goals for this movement clear. With such a large figurehead fighting for change, it is easier for the public to be swayed, even from their conservative view desiring small changes to something more extreme. Perceptions of the government would then be worse than normal, as global news outlets would show social movements requesting extreme change, and foreigners uninvolved in the issue would think Hong Kong was in an even worse situation.
Much of Hong Kong already feels the heavy Chinese influence, so when violence is put into the mix, fear spreads. All Hong Kong citizens recognise eventually the city will lose its autonomy in 2047, as per the Sino-British Joint Declaration; however, violence brings a more fearful and authoritarian side of China, which hints towards what attitude it will bring. It can be seen that China is taking Hong Kong by force earlier than stated, with British influence slowly trickling away. In fact, over 144,000 Hong Kong citizens have immigrated to the United Kingdom in the past two years—almost 2 percent of the population. Hong Kong citizens now fear, with each policy change, that China inches closer to cutting off autonomy early and taking complete control of Hong Kong.
In conclusion, the public can get heavily influenced by violence during democratic movements, as many can relate to the demonstrators. In addition, media is extremely influential, and even now, views can easily be expressed on public, global platforms. Instead, individuals should strive for expression of one’s true thoughts, rather than following popular ideologies. With censorship, the government can also easily restrict expressions of freedom, thus it is extremely important for people to fully understand the situation and self-educate. As technology evolves, different mediums of news begin to emerge, and it is only up to the reader to take no biases and fully support a cause based on what they think is right.
Darren Liu can be contacted at liudarren2007@gmail.com. Darren is a student from Hong Kong and intends to study History at University.