Back

Note: This article represents the view of the author and not the University of Hong Kong.

In the first morning of the new year, a demonstration was held by the "the Defend Hong Kong's Stability Alliance", which was itself constituted by "the Concern Group for Hong Kong's Stability and Free Economy" and "the Securities and Futures Industry Staff Union". The theme of the demonstration was to protest against politicians corrupting Hong Kong. Had it not been for the South Asian tsunami disaster, the demonstration would certainly have become the headline of major newspapers.

Yet, had it not been for the tsunami disaster and hence the democrats had cancelled the "Against Government-Business Collusion, Removing Disparity between the Rich and the Poor, Fighting for Universal Suffrage in 07/08 Rally" as originally scheduled, the focus of the media would possibly be a race of headcounts between the two rallies, or even the conflicts between the two parties. Both would dilute the in-depth meaning of the New Year Rally.

In the author's view, no matter who initiated the rally and what the demands of the participants were, mass movements will definitely have some interesting points for research purposes. Besides, the rally culture has already become part of the free Hong Kong. Therefore, although the scale of the New Year Rally was relatively small, the author has not given up the chance of conducting researches.

In the morning of the new year, the HKU Student Research Team, formed by a group of voluntary HKU students, conducted on-site observations and head-counting exercises, and has already written an article to discuss the findings. At the same time, workers from HKU Public Opinion Programme also distributed a total of 3,821 leaflets in the rally to invite people to complete our online questionnaire. In the end, we have received 325 valid questionnaires within 5 days, with a response rate of 8.5%.

The online survey was different from the on-site sampling one. The former only has a limited level of representativeness and its result can only be taken as a rough reference. However, since we have conducted similar online surveys in various mass gatherings and rallies and attracted a group of internet users who are more eager to express their opinions, some qualitative comparisons can still be made among the opinions collected from the online opinion platforms. The statistics and open-ended opinions of the concerned survey have already been published in the "Opinion Platform" of the HKU POP Site.

The focus of this research is to examine the demands of the participants. According to the opinions obtained from the online survey, we discover that among the 325 valid online questionnaires, 142 respondents clearly stated that their main demand was to express their dissatisfaction with the politicians, and if individual Legislative Council members and democrats were also included, the relevant opinions increased to 227 respondents. Although the organizing body has once expressed to the media that no politicians would be criticized by name in order to avoid litigations, according to on-site observations and survey figures, the "politician" whom the participants were dissatisfied with was primarily Albert Cheng, whereas Leung Kwok-hung and Albert Chan were their secondary targets only. One point we can be certain is that the majority of the rally participants were against the democrats. The "politicians" mentioned by the participants were in fact referring to the "democratic politicians". The participants did not have much dissatisfaction with the Chief Executive and the HKSAR Government, showing the direction of their discontent.

Some respondents pointed out that they took to the streets because they were unhappy about the destruction of the economy. They demanded prosperity and stability, and were dissatisfied with the abuse of democracy and rule of law. Nevertheless, these should be the minority demands. Among the respondents of the online survey, only 86 people have expressed such calls.

Combining the on-site observations, in the author's view, the rally participants in fact came from a diversified background. Some were strongly against the democrats, some were affected by Link REIT, some were mobilized by the political bodies, while some were also self-initiated participants, non-Link REIT subscribers, as well as middle-class citizens. Through conversation with some of the rally participants and on-the-spot experiences, the author believed that while some participants were radical, some were, nevertheless, relatively mild and rational, and less active in expressing their opinions in the past. If one thought all rally participants were violent and having interest in Link REIT, this is a kind of misunderstanding.

Yet, from the slogans held by the rally participants and the speeches made by people either on or under the stage on that day, there was quite a lot of hidden language violence in the rally. Vulgar vocabularies were found and seemingly challenging the limit of the civil society. The author himself and our research workers had also received impolite treatments in the rally.

This brings us to two questions which require careful consideration: Were violence used to combat violence in the New Year Rally? How should the rally culture be developed in the future?

Before and after the handover, language violence widely known in the political sector has become more and more popular. With the presence of radical old men in the Victoria Park, the beginning of current affairs talk shows, the appearance of outspoken radio talk show hosts, the flood of Cultural Revolution-like commentaries in the newspaper, together with the Cultural Revolution-like tone of some mainland officials, Hong Kong people have started to get used to the language violence. As time goes by, people's critical thinking ability has begun to decline, senior officials have not dared to resist against the language violence of the talk show hosts, the police has been apathetic about those radical old men in the Victoria Park. The civil society can only use violence to combat violence.

From the angle of the participants in the anti-politicians rally, the democrats have gradually transformed the mass gatherings and rallies to their opinion platforms since the July 1 Rally in 2003. Besides, with the wide media coverage, the number of participants and the momentum of rallies seem to have become an indicator of the strength of the public opinion. The rally organizers therefore tried to break the monopoly of the democrats and take another kind of demand to the street.

Quite a lot of rally planners and participants told the author that they did not have much rally experiences, while the online survey has also demonstrated the same point. In the assembly, the representative of the organizing body said that hopefully this could be the last rally for the rally participants, as well as the last rally in Hong Kong. Seemingly the organizing body was responding to some previous criticisms that they used radical measures to fight for social harmony, which contradicted their vision. Besides, the organizing body probably has also felt the pressure from political parties which demanded participating in the organization of rally, and thus did not want to be under the same pressure again.

Yet, no matter what the will of the organizing body was, the author is sure that the rallies in Hong Kong will not be dampened as a result. On the contrary, whether different camps will initiate more adversarial rallies and mass gatherings to occupy more space for free speech is an issue that we should look at.

Due to the limitation of space, the author would not go into the origin of the language violence in Hong Kong politics. Besides, a careful analysis at least has to be dated back to the Chinese Communist Party's agricultural revolution, the transfer of ruling power in mainland China, the fierce conflicts in the Cultural Revolution, the riots in 1967 in Hong Kong, the local conflicts among different political camps, as well as the struggle of various powers before and after the handover. The author only hopes to make one appeal here: Just let bygones be bygones. We should leave those languages used in mainland during the Cultural Revolution in mainland. If some mainland officials cannot get rid of their political tone, we should then understand the meaning of their sayings rationally and peacefully, and respond with the civil languages in Hong Kong, so as to avoid meaningless conflicts.

Here the author appeals to all rally participants to get rid of the language violence. You may be the sacrificed of absolutism, the victim of the incapable government, the deprived of the present system, or the oppressed of the immoral politicians. Yet, using violence to combat violence, no matter who initiates, is not the solution to problems in a civilized society.

The story of Gandhi in India is extolled for his non-violence resistance. Gandhi understood the essence of Christianity well, which was to return good for evil, and to use life and forgiveness to win everybody's heart. Even though one is an absolute monarch, or holding guns and arms, only if we insist on peace and rationality, public support can then be won and the highest level can be reached.

Those who get used to political confrontations of course will not agree with these views, and it is also not easy for people who have been under the long-term attack of language violence and Cultural Revolution to adopt an open mind. But just imagine, even though two sides have not really fought against each other, if vulgar languages are used between them, won't the image of Hong Kong be severely tarnished?

Participating in rallies and mass gatherings is our basic human right protected by laws. The mainland officials may not get used to the freedom enjoyed by Hong Kong people and think that rallies and demonstrations will definitely threaten the governance. This is the thinking in the Cultural Revolution. In fact, if the rallies and mass gatherings can be conducted peacefully, the slogans can be rational and restrained, the aims can be more on wining public opinion than merely letting the anger out, the functions of the rallies are largely positive.

Hong Kong is a diversified metropolitan city. Rallies and mass gatherings should not be a privilege to any one of the political camps. Moreover, before full democracy can be realized, rallies and mass gatherings will become a safe way out for grumbles and anger of the people. Instead of fighting among various camps, it would be better for different camps to organize the rally culture together, so as to form a peaceful, rational and creative civil activity with Hong Kong's characteristics.

Classification of demands of New Year Rally's participants (Online survey)

* Since each person can have more than one opinion, the total can be over 100%.