Hong Kong’s Security Bureau submits a paper to legislatures proposing additions to extradition would allow reciprocal extradition agreements between mainland China, Taiwan and Macau.

Thousands of protesters take to the streets in opposition of this

Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam introduces the bill and then suspends it shortly thereafter upon seeing the intensity of the protests

By Elias Asefa

HONG KONG – Amidst mass protests and civil unrest, Hong Kong’s future remains unclear as Chief Executive Carrie Lam suspends controversial extradition bill that has caused disillusionment and unease among residents. If passed, this so called ‘fugitives bill’ would ultimately allow extradition to China, Taiwan and Macau. The government introduced the bill after a Hong Kong national, Chan Tong-Kia, murdered his pregnant girlfriend in Taiwan, with whom Hong Kong did not have any official extradition treaty with.

….so why the outrage?

Concerned opposition parties fear that though the bill only proposes extradition be applied for crimes punishable by seven years or more, the Chief Executive might feel compelled to comply with China’s requests for extradition on political and commercial matters. A quick peer into her election journey, that comprised of a 777 out of 1,194 pro-Beijing elitist vote, is supported by a notion that if the Chinese Communist party meddles in otherwise autonomous affairs, then they’ll likely get their way. This election was brought under heavy scrutiny during The Umbrella Movement of 2014, in which several groups of protesters demanded a more transparent election.

But have protests to date been a forlorn attempt to maintain an identity that took 100 years to shape? And what of protection of value and identity? Well for starters, there’s also the issue of palpable dissimilarities in political identity that Mainland China and Hong Kong cannot seem to reconcile. Concerns stem from the fear of encroachment on Hong Kong’s civil liberties, which includes fundamental human rights like freedom of speech. This is the ‘Otherness’ that’s so distinct in affairs between the mainland and the territory.

Hong Kong, as an inherently westernized region, clings to its acceptance of freedom of speech. But Mainland China’s criminal justice system and authoritarian ruling methods – as it stands – does not often favour free thinkers and liberal media. This is made apparent in a ’Committee to Protect Journalists’ statistic that places China in second place (only to Turkey) as a country where the most journalists are imprisoned worldwide, with a total of 47 as of 2018.

In stark contrast, prior to the transfer of Sovereignty from the United Kingdom to Mainland China in 1997, Hong Kong boasted one of the highest degrees of press freedom in Asia. It has, however, declined in ranking from 58 in 2013 to 73 by 2019 according to the Press Freedom Index. This is often attributed to the Beijing government’s strong-arm tactics in influencing media coverage.

We know the concept of ‘nationalism’ to be a political one when two groups of people cannot assimilate. But what can be said of the social and cultural trivialities? Like the ones that make global headlines wherein a couple from Mainland China allowed their child to urinate on the street in Hong Kong. Apart from causing outrage among Hong Kongers and Mainlanders, it sparked a further rift between the two regions. Isolated or not, the mishandling of incidents like this by both sides does very little for their already strained relationship. It’s studies like the ‘Public Opinion Programme’ survey carried out by University of Hong Kong that illustrates the extent of Hong Kongers’ disdain, in which they cite the desregard to local norms as a major factor in why they have increasingly not identified as ‘Chinese’ in recent years.

The Hong Kong protests are a passionate cry for preservation of socio-economic status and heritage. It is understandable, however, that Mainland China sees this as the advocation of “Gang Du” or Hong Kong Independence, which is frowned upon by Beijing leaders. But to allow for civil discourse – one that refrains from mutiny, rioting and vandalism – is surely the way forward. If anything can be taken away from the recent events that have swept Hong Kong by storm, it’s that capturing the government’s attention is needed. To fight for your democracy when it is under threat is Hong Kong’s way of showing Beijing that autonomy of the region has to continue. And if their rich history of protesting is anything go by, then this can go one of two ways. But do legal freedoms translate to identity preservation? Only time will tell.