June 4 vigil is Hong Kong’s canary in a coal mine. Will it survive Beijing’s national security law?
The candlelight vigil marking the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, a bellwether for Hong Kong’s freedoms, is banned this year. Will it ever return?
The city’s response to the crackdown was seen as subversive and prompted Beijing to adopt a more hardline approach to the drafting of the Basic Law. Those effects are still being felt today
For the past 30 years, thousands of people have gathered in Hong Kong on June 4 for a candlelight vigil to remember those who were killed in the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.
This peaceful and poignant memorial, in which a sea of flickering candle flames illuminates Victoria Park, has long been seen as a bellwether for the survival of the city’s freedoms after its return to China in 1997.
This year, there will be no such vigil. Police have banned the gathering, citing public health grounds amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Organisers are instead encouraging people to light a candle tonight, wherever they may be.
The anniversary of China’s bloody crackdown on a mass student protest movement in Beijing comes at a time of crisis and concern in Hong Kong. After months of anti-government protests, which have often turned violent, the central government is to impose new national security laws on the city.
The details of the laws, covering subversion, separatism, terrorism, and foreign interference are not yet known. But there are legitimate concerns that the legislation will change Hong Kong forever, restricting freedoms, silencing opposition voices and undermining the “one country, two systems” arrangements.
02:18
Coronavirus: Hong Kong Tiananmen vigil organisers can't hold mass gathering due to Covid-19
Coronavirus: Hong Kong Tiananmen vigil organisers can't hold mass gathering due to Covid-19
Government officials, tycoons, university chiefs, artists and others have fallen into line and rallied behind the central government’s drastic move. Others, meanwhile, publicly or privately express their fears for the city’s future.
There has been much reflection over the past week on where it all went wrong. Who is to blame? The central government for tightening its grip on the city and then squeezing till the pips squeak? Hardline protesters for turning to violence, targeting Beijing and seeking help from foreign governments? Or the failure of Hong Kong over the past 23 years to fulfil a constitutional duty to pass its own security laws? Certainly, the city government’s hopelessly misconceived attempt to push through an extradition bill last year in the face of widespread opposition played its part.
But it may be that the imaginative, ambitious and initially well-received concept of one country, two systems – under which Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy from Beijing – was destined to fail. The first and, perhaps, most devastating blow to its chances of success came when the People's Liberation Army tanks moved in to crush the protests 31 years ago today.
The crackdown on the student movement calling for democracy, economic reform and an end to corruption, had a dramatic impact on Hong Kong and the plans then being put in place for the city’s return to China in 1997.
The timing could not have been worse. The finishing touches were being applied to the final draft of the Basic Law, which would be passed the following year to provide the constitutional framework for the city’s governance after the change of sovereignty.
This was a time when Hong Kong people were increasingly seeing themselves as Chinese. They identified with the student movement, believing that Hong Kong’s freedoms would be better protected under a democratic China. The brutal crackdown in Beijing, in which hundreds – maybe more – were killed, came as a devastating blow.
Up to a million people marched in protest in Hong Kong. Support, financial and otherwise, was provided for the student protesters. Calls for democratic reforms in the city grew, along with fears that restrictions on freedoms would be imposed after its return to China.
These events also shifted Beijing’s view of Hong Kong. The city’s response was seen by the central government as subversive and prompted concerns that Hong Kong could be used to undermine communist rule.
It immediately adopted a more hardline approach to the drafting of the Basic Law. Subversion was put back into Article 23 of that law, requiring Hong Kong to pass new national security legislation, along with a ban on foreign political activities in the city.
Hong Kong people have, ever since, dreaded the imposition of the new national security laws. This explains why they have still not been put in place. An attempt to push them through in 2003 was shelved after a protest by half a million people.
The Tiananmen crackdown sowed the seeds of mistrust between the city and Beijing that still exists today. There were other serious repercussions for Hong Kong’s return to China. Britain responded to concerns in Hong Kong by offering the heads of 50,000 households citizenship in Britain. It introduced a bill of rights, to better protect the city’s freedoms. Both moves infuriated Beijing.
01:54
Hongkongers with BN(O) passports could be eligible for UK citizenship if China imposes security law
Hongkongers with BN(O) passports could be eligible for UK citizenship if China imposes security law
Then, in 1992, the last governor, Chris Patten, arrived in the colony and immediately sought to step up democratic reforms. Sino-British relations broke down. As a result, the “through-train” which would have seen the pre-handover legislative council continue, was derailed. Beijing established a compliant provisional legislature instead, which began rolling back Patten’s reforms. The foundations had been laid for Hong Kong’s post-handover political divisions.
Then, as now, Hong Kong people yearned for democracy. Universal suffrage was much debated in the 1980s when the Basic Law was drafted. Today, it stands as one of the five demands of anti-government protesters.
The security laws, seen at the time of Tiananmen as a threat to Hong Kong’s way of life, are still widely feared. And Beijing, despite the dramatic changes seen in China since 1989, continues to view Hong Kong as a hotbed of subversion which could undermine its power.
01:58
Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen visits bookseller who fled Hong Kong
Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen visits bookseller who fled Hong Kong
The young generation of protesters has, in recent years, lost interest in bringing change to mainland China and has instead focused its efforts on futile calls for the city’s independence. This “localism” has, sadly, led some to ignore the June 4 vigil seeing it as no concern of theirs.
But the catastrophic events of that day in 1989 are still being felt in Hong Kong today. Officials have promised the security law will safeguard the city’s rights and freedoms. But there is little room for optimism. Already, there are suggestions that peaceful advocacy of constitutional change will no longer be tolerated.
Will the candlelight vigil, with its call to end one-party rule in China, grace Victoria Park next year, when the new law will be in place? Or will the event be deemed subversive and driven underground? Once again, the vigil has become Hong Kong’s canary in the coal mine. We can only hope that, like Hong Kong’s freedoms, it survives.
Cliff Buddle is the Post’s editor of special projects
