Why Hong Kong's Occupy Central Ended Peacefully

Why Hong Kong's Occupy Central Ended Peacefully
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 8, 2014

Summary: Hong Kong students are also engaged in civil disobedience. But they have never attempted shirk legal responsibility. They declared that they were prepared "to assume the risks and bear the consequences." Compare the two. Perhaps the rule of law tradition in Hong Kong, inherited from the British, is rooted more deeply than it is on Taiwan. Perhaps Hong Kong students have greater respect for the rule of law. In June, "anti-New Territories development" demonstrators twice occupied the Legislative Council. Later, they either retreated or were arrested by the police. By contrast, when students on Taiwan occupied the Legislative Yuan, the government dithered for over 20 days. The rule of law took an incredible hit.

Full Text Below:

Many observers have compared Hong Kong's July 1st "Occupy Central" protest, to the late March occupation of the Executive Yuan by students on Taiwan. They have expressed surprise at how peacefully the protest in Hong Kong ended. DPP Legislator Lee Ying-yuan noted how Hong Kong police did not use water jets, batons, or shields. He wondered "Is Taiwan really second to Hong Kong?"

This is true. In March riot police on Taiwan expelled protestors occupying the Executive Yuan. In July, four Hong Kong police officers carried away each student demonstrator. Everyone on Taiwan was impressed, and noted the sharp contrast between the two. Lee Ying-yuan wrung his hands. He wondered, "Is Taiwan really second to Hong Kong?" What he meant was the police in Hong Kong treated the protestors gently, while the police on Taiwan used excessive force. The only problem was the two groups of student demonstrators behaved differently, and Lee swept this difference under the rug. If Taiwan is in fact second to Hong Kong, it is because the public on Taiwan lacks Hong Kongers' respect for the rule of law.

Look back at Hong Kong's July 1st "Occupy Central" protest. The students staged an impromptu "preview." After dark, less than 1000 remained in the Central District. At two in the morning, Hong Kong police dispatched 3000 police to the scene. They urged crowds to leave. They carried away those who did not. Five hundred and eleven people were arrested. They were bussed to the Wong Chuk Hang Police Academy for questioning. The entire eviction process took six hours. Hong Kongers estimate that any future "Occupy Central" protest will probably involve over 10,000 people. The police may need to deploy riot police and use tear gas to disperse the crowd. Bloodshed my be unavoidable.

During the Occupy Central protest many students linked arms and shouted slogans. In this respect it resembled scenes from the Sunflower Student Movement in Taipei. Perhaps this was the result of communications between students in Hong Kong and Taipei. But when students and others were evicted from the Central District, they did not resist as violently. They allowed police to carry them off. The reasons were twofold. One. Most Hong Kongers have reservations about the Occupy Central protestors' methods. Therefore the student demonstrators were unwilling to fight to the bitter end. Two. The students reached a consensus before the demonstration. They agreed that they must be "willing to bear the legal consequences." They were willing to be arrested. This was why Hong Kong students displayed greater restraint than members of the Sunflower Student Movement while being evicted. 

Compare this to the March 23 student occupation in Taipei. The students occupied the Legislative Yuan for six days. They stormed the Executive Yuan. Morale soared. Taiwan society faces the threat of chaos. The Sunflower Student Movement received green camp backing, from within and without. The ruling KMT was rendered helpless. Police did not know where they stood. At dawn, on March 24, the Ma government issued eviction orders. Students at the scene numbered over 1000. Crowds nearby numbered 6000 or more. The cacaphony was unimaginable. That night police advanced in six waves. The crowd dispersed, then regrouped. Some even began attacking the police and puncturing the tires of police vehicles. Early that morning, the police were forced to use water cannons to expel the protestors.

The eviction of demonstrators in Hong Kong proceeded smoothly. The implication that police on Taiwan used excessive force when they evicted the students is entirely one-sided. Students in Hong Kong and students on Taiwan both waged "civil disobedience" campaigns. But had dramatically different attitudes from students in Hong Kong held dramatically different attitudes from students on Taiwan. Political protests on Taiwan exhibit all the characteristics of "dang wai"era street protests waged by the DPP. These protests deliberately maximize conflict without regard for bloodshed. The Sunflower Student Movement adopted a number of different protest methods. But they knew they would be difficult to pick out from the masses in the streets. As a result, they took full advantage of this ambiguity.

The paint flinging incident during Zhang Zhijun's Taiwan visit, and the Wulai road chaining incident, show that student protests on Taiwan invoke "civil disobedience" to rationalize all manner of behaviors and give them a moral sheen. They need only shout anti-China and anti-Ma slogans. Then they can do whatever they want yet bear no legal responsibility. Taiwan society has invented a myth. This myth asserts that the rule of law must yield before democracy. This myth is seen as obvious and unchallengeable truth. Under the circumstances, government administration and police enforcement have become tentative and have lost all legitimacy.

Hong Kong students are also engaged in civil disobedience. But they have never attempted shirk legal responsibility. They declared that they were prepared "to assume the risks and bear the consequences." Compare the two. Perhaps the rule of law tradition in Hong Kong, inherited from the British, is rooted more deeply than it is on Taiwan. Perhaps Hong Kong students have greater respect for the rule of law. In June, "anti-New Territories development" demonstrators twice occupied the Legislative Council. Later, they either retreated or were arrested by the police. By contrast, when students on Taiwan occupied the Legislative Yuan, the government dithered for over 20 days. The rule of law took an incredible hit.

Compare the two Occupy movements, one on Taiwan, the other in Hong Kong. Taiwan has more democracy, but Hong Kong has far greater respect for the rule of law. Students in Hong Kong behaved better. So did the police. The July 1st Occupy Central protest is  over, But it has taught both sides of the Strait a valuable lesson.

同是占領，為何香港「占中」能和平收場？
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.07.08 03:09 am

香港七一遊行的「占領中環」預演，被很多人拿來和台灣三月下旬的學生占領行政院事件相提並論，並對港方驅離過程之平和感到驚訝。民進黨立委李應元對此評論說，香港警方沒有噴水，沒有動用警棍或盾牌，難道「台灣輸香港嗎？」

確實，看過三月台灣鎮暴警察驅離行政院的占領行動後，人們對這次香港警察以「四抬一」的方式輕易移走示威學生，莫不印象深刻，覺得港台兩地的對比鮮明。然而，當李應元談到「台灣輸香港」時，他企圖強調的是台灣警方處理的手法與陣仗過當，不如港警的平和溫文；問題是，他對兩地示威學生迥異的抗爭態度卻避而不談。事實上，如果「台灣輸香港」，其實是輸在公民的法治精神。

回看香港七一的「占中」行動，由於是學生臨時發動之「預演」，入夜後留守在中環的人數不足一千。凌晨二時，香港警方出動三千警力，一方面勸離群眾，一方面將人抬走，共逮捕五一一人，以大巴送至黃竹坑警校拘留訊問；整個驅離行動，達六小時之久。也因此，港方人士估計，萬一未來「占中」上演真實版，人數一旦超過萬人，警方可能必須出動防暴部隊、祭出催淚彈等來驅散人群，恐難避免流血衝突。

觀察這次占中抗議，許多學生手勾著手、重複呼喊口號，和台北太陽花的某些場景極為類似，或許也是兩地學運「交流」的成果之一。所不同的是，在中環的驅離過程中，包括學生和其他民眾皆未激烈抵抗，聽由警方將他們架離送走。其中主要原因應是：一，一般香港居民對「占中」行動仍有諸多疑慮，示威學生不願貿然將抗爭推到極致；二，學生示威前已有共識，「願意面對法律後果」，接受拘捕。正因為如此，香港學生遇上驅離，表現遠比太陽花學運節制。

反觀台北的三二三占領行動，當時學生占領國會已經六天，又奪下行政院，氣勢一片高漲，台灣社會卻面臨脫序的嚴重危機。由於太陽花有綠營的裡外接應，執政黨束手無策，警方維安更陷於無所適從之境。三二四凌晨，馬政府下達驅離命令時，現場聚集的學生多達一千多人，周邊地區群眾更多達六千人，場面喧囂難以想像。那夜，警方總計發動了六波行動，人潮散去又復湧來，甚至有人開始攻擊警察並刺破警車輪胎；直到清晨，警方不得不使用水柱驅離。

因此，從香港驅離行動的平順，要推論出台灣警察鎮壓學生太過凶殘無情，完全是片面觀點。其中最值得關注的是，港、台兩地學生從事「公民不服從」運動，態度卻有偌大區別。台灣的抗爭文化，承續黨外時代及民進黨的街頭行動，一直有一種「衝突極大化」的傾向，無畏流血；太陽花雖掌握了更多公民抗爭技巧，卻也明知「學生」與「群眾」在街頭難以區隔，因而頗能操弄其間的模糊地帶。

事實上，從張志軍訪台期間的「潑漆事件」及烏來的「鐵鍊鎖路」事件，都可看出，台灣若干學生的示威，已藉著「公民不服從」之名，將自己的一切抗爭行為都道德化、合理化了。亦即，只要打出「反中」、「反馬」口號，他們可以盡情挑戰一切既有體制，不必承擔任何法律責任。而台灣社會面對這樣的挑戰，似乎也產生了一股迷思，認為法治為民主而「讓步」似乎是情有可原或理所當然；在這種情況下，政府行政或警方的執法，便愈發顯得膽怯而瞻顧失據。

從這點看，香港學生雖同樣是在從事「公民不服從」運動，卻未曾企圖脫免全部法律責任，且聲明準備「承擔風險和後果」。兩相比較，或許是香港社會自港英以來的法治傳統確較台灣厚實，或許也是香港學生對於法治仍保有更多的信任與尊重。六月間，香港「反新界東北發展」的示威群眾，曾兩度占領及侵入立法會，後來或自行撤退或遭警方逮捕；對比之下，政府縱容台灣學生占領國會廿多日，也是不可思議的法治失守。

如果台灣和香港的兩場占領可以比較，台灣的民主程度或者較高，但香港的法治絕對勝出。香港學生的表現如此，警察的表現亦然；也因此，七一占中和平收場，對海峽兩岸都是有意義的一課。