| Home > North-East Asia >> Hong Kong | |
Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement is about inequality. The elite knows it
The Guardian (UK) - July 28, 2014
On 4 June, Hong Kong's Victoria Park filled with people to commemorate the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989. Less than a month later, massive numbers of Hong Kongers – many of them young – once again turned out on 1 July for the annual pro-democracy march throughout Hong Kong's financial hub. Both of these events exhibited the excitement and tension associated with increasing levels of political activity which has all too often been characterised as stemming from democratic deficits currently built into the region's governance.
It's true that in recent years, anti-mainland sentiment has increased, with popular targets being Beijing's influence on the special autonomous region (created subsequently to the 1997 "handover" from British colonial rule), high profile stories about the behaviour of mainland tourists, and the ostensible impact of mainland investors on inflating property prices.
Beijing asserting its authority over Hong Kong, although possibly part of its broader geo-strategic posturing rather than simply a discrete attempt to curtail political freedom, has undoubtedly contributed to simplistic narratives to explain the large mobilisations recently seen. Moreover, the increased presence of mainlanders in the autonomous region has quite likely contributed to exacerbating inequality in certain sectors.
Mainland tourists have of course been an important customer base for retailers, a reality painfully evident when Xi Jingping's anti-corruption drive was highlighted last month – in a city that prides itself on the rule of law and lack of corruption – as having a drastic impact upon watch and jewellery sales, reported to be down by as much as 40%. Having largely shed its once famous manufacturing base to the mainland and beyond, retail matters a great deal to employers. Furthermore, anyone familiar with Hong Kong also knows that real estate agencies, in a city with very limited employment options, also play a big role in terms of employment.
But to unmask the real reasons behind dissent, it is also important to look at the city's sky-high inequality rates, which are more about market dominance and governance than simply mainland influence.
In 2013, around 1.3 million people (19.6%) were deemed to be living below the official poverty line in Hong Kong. In 2011, the income distribution Gini coefficient hovered above a startling 0.53 (up on previous years and regularly cited as the highest of any developed economy in the world). The city is also famous for its painful delays to access to public housing (up to 10 years). And the mention last weekend of a new release of miserably-sized private apartments (just over 170 square feet) for under HKD$2 million would hardly calm the nerves of those already at breaking point.
Indeed, such announcements likely only add to popular anger, highlighting unattractive living spaces on offer in a city where many are forced to live in what are bleakly known as "cage homes" and informal housing in former warehouses.
For the last couple of months, we have seen a steady who's who of elite financial and economic figures instilling fear with respect to political mobilisations, one of which (Occupy Central) is yet to actually occupy any public space. The stunning stream of paranoid predictions has been revealing, although not nearly enough has been made of what this vocalising of concern reflects in terms of an irreconcilable division of interests.
Li Ka-Shing – Hong Kong's most prominent tycoon, apparently worth over $USD31 billion and whose every word is treated with the veneration normally accorded to oracles – barked that Occupy Central would contribute to eroding Hong Kong's prospects. Peter Woo Kwong-ching, a prominent property developer, also came out to dissuade protesters from taking action in relation to demanding greater representation.
Add to this the world's four largest accounting firms – Ernst & Young, KPMG, Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers Hong Kong – which collectively issued a statement published in a local newspaper to the effect that if Occupy Central were to proceed, it could hurt the attractiveness of Hong Kong as a location for multinational corporations and investors. Also contributing to the alarm was HSBC – the Hong Kong-based bank – which released a report downgrading its projections for Hong Kong, initially levelling the blame at Occupy Central and later, after receiving considerable criticism, adding a whole raft of other non-related concerns as more important, including the anti-corruption drive in China.
But what, really, is the positive impact on most people of Hong Kong's status as a financial centre? Are the interests of people facing high property prices, high costs of living and diminished social mobility really aligned with a system centred upon low taxation of corporate interests, rather than a redistribution system which could be channelled into better public education, healthcare and housing?
Elite interests and the interests of most Hong Kongers are perhaps more diametrically opposed now than ever before. The real concern of many of these elite figures is that people in Hong Kong will convert demands for increasing suffrage into robust demands for redistribution; that in the face of plenty, those with little or no positive prospects won't stand for obscenely concentrated wealth, power and privilege anymore.
In this last respect, the alignment of Beijing's political aspirations and those of a tiny but very powerful elite may prove a formidable pairing. However, given Hong Kong's material conditions, political dissent will not easily be contained.
See also:
 |