SinoInsight 1
On Aug. 27, Party media Global Times published an opinion piece titled, “The Big Truth about Safeguarding Hong Kong’s High-degree of Autonomy” (就维护香港高度自治说些大实话).
Key points in the piece include:
- A “one country, one system” approach is “unrealistic. If Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy is abolished, “the entire logic of Hong Kong’s social function will be rewritten, which would bring huge governing risks, including the possibility that the city might lose its status as an international financial center.” Such risks “are not in line with China’s interests.”
- Hong Kong cannot elect “a candidate who opposes the Chinese central government” as Chief Executive.
- The PRC mainland “hopes that Hong Kong can maintain its social culture based on a capitalist system.”
- Some Hongkongers distrust the mainland politically “due to different political systems in Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland.”
- Hong Kong and the PRC mainland are “a community of shared interests” and the mainland “hopes all the best for Hong Kong and will grieve the most if the city suffers social turmoil.”
OUR TAKE
1. The Global Times is notorious for being a nationalistic, “ultra-leftist” media outlet. Often times, the Global Times will air views that the main state and Party media do not find convenient to carry. And in the past several weeks, the Global Times has issued very tough rhetoric on Hong Kong and the protesters. In this context, it is unusual for the Global Times to issue the relatively soft comments on Hong Kong in its Aug. 27 opinion piece.
The CCP’s subtle shift in tone on Hong Kong in the Global Times is mirrored in recent articles published in Xinhua and the People’s Daily. This tone shift seems to corroborate earlier information obtained by the Hong Kong edition of the Chinese language newspaper Dajiyuan. On Aug. 23, Dajiyuan reported a CCP princeling as saying that Beijing had on Aug. 19 urgently passed on a message to key agency heads in Hong Kong that “whoever provokes trouble shall have to solve it himself, and don’t add pressure again for the central government.”
2. We previously wrote that the CCP appears to be “advancing to retreat” on Hong Kong. Because the CCP has done a very persuasive job in “advancing” (hardline messaging issued by the CCP’s apparatus governing Hong Kong, as well as state and Party media; troops deployed at the border), it also has to “retreat” in a convincing manner. In this case, getting the Global Times to dial down the rhetoric on Hong Kong telegraphs a clear political signal to the Hong Kong protesters: The central government merely does not want an anti-PRC chief executive and is willing to respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy; and the Hong Kong people should quit while they are ahead.
3. With Trump expressing a clearer stance on Hong Kong and the G-7’s recent statement of support, the CCP has missed a window of opportunity to suppress the Hong Kong protests using military troops without having to pay a heavy price. If the CCP were to change its mind about using troops to suppress Hong Kong, it will very like sow the seeds of its own demise.
However, just because the CCP will unlikely dare to public deploy troops into Hong Kong for a crackdown does not mean that it will not utilize other hardline measures to suppress the protests. We believe that the CCP will continue to bolster the Hong Kong police ranks with undercover paramilitary forces (People’s Armed Police and other security forces) and use high-pressure tactics (tear gas, brutal beatings, mass arrests, etc.) to deal with the protesters. There are already many videos circulating on the internet that show Hong Kong riot police speaking in Mandarin as opposed to the Cantonese dialect used in Hong Kong, or speaking Mandarin-style Cantonese.
SinoInsight 2
In the early morning of Aug. 29, Hong Kong social media circulated photos and videos of People’s Liberation Army vehicles and armored personnel carriers traveling through the Hong Kong districts.
Later, Xinhua News Agency reported that the People’s Liberation Army Garrison in Hong Kong was carrying out its “normal routine annual rotation.” Unlike in previous years, this year’s announcement did not state that garrison personnel and equipment was unchanged.
OUR TAKE
1. We believe that there is nothing to be alarmed about the latest PLA troop rotation in Hong Kong.
First, the PLA has rotated troops in Hong Kong around the end of August for the previous three consecutive years.
Second, if the CCP does indeed want to use the military option to suppress Hong Kong, it would very likely utilize a swift and sudden strike instead of deploying troops to the border of Hong Kong in such a prominent enough manner that it gets the full attention of the international community.
Finally, as explained in the above analysis, the CCP has missed its window of opportunity to suppress Hong Kong using military troops without regime-threatening consequences.
2. We believe that the CCP elites are eager to resolve the Hong Kong situation before the PRC’s 70th anniversary founding on Oct. 1. As such, the CCP will do its best to both scare and appease the Hong Kong people into calling off the protests. Hinting that additional troops and equipment could have been deployed to the Hong Kong garrison is likely part of ongoing scare tactics.
SinoInsight 3
On Aug. 27, Hong Kong Chinese language media “Hong Kong 01” cited a source from the city’s pro-establishment camp as saying that the Carrie Lam government had decided during a closed-door meeting that it cannot deliver the five demands made by Hong Kong protesters. In particular, the setting up of an independent committee to investigate police action against protesters would “impact the police force morale” and affect the government’s ability to handle the protests. “Hong Kong 01” also reported that prominent pro-establishment figure Ronny Tong had suggested that the Hong Kong government can consider enacting the city’s Emergency Regulations Ordinance to deal with the protests; the ordinance gives the Hong Kong Chief Executive sweeping powers to handle an emergency or other situations that endanger the public.
On the same day, Carrie Lam was asked by journalists during a press conference about speculation that the government was deliberating enacting the Emergency Regulations Ordinance. Lam replied: “All laws in Hong Kong – if they can provide a legal means to stop violence and chaos – the SAR government is responsible for looking into them.”
Also on Aug. 27, Hong Kong pro-establishment legislator and New People’s Party chairperson Regina Ip said in a radio interview that it is a risky move for the Hong Kong government to enact the Emergency Regulations Ordinance. Ip also encouraged Carrie Lam to talk directly with the masses. Previously in July, Ip’s New People’s Party hung banners in the city calling on Lam to respond to the demands of the Hong Kong people.
At 7:30 p.m. Hong Kong time on Aug. 28, the Hong Kong Chief Executive Office published a “Response to media enquiries by CE’s Office.” The statement noted that the city’s Independent Police Complaints Council is already handling complaints against the police and that it is “inappropriate to set up another independent commission of inquiry for investigation.” Also, “the Chief Executive’s remarks at the closed-door event on August 26 on views of the police officers mentioned in media reports are statements of fact and are not related to the stance of the HKSAR Government.”
OUR TAKE
1. We believe that the information about a closed-door meeting of the Carrie Lam government that was carried by Hong Kong media is likely credible and aimed at negatively impacting Lam.
In considering that Beijing is “advancing to retreat” on Hong Kong, it makes sense that the city’s pro-establishment camp would leak damaging information about Carrie Lam to force her to step down. Lam’s resignation would serve to somewhat appease public anger and help the pro-establishment camp avoid major defeats in the coming local elections for district representatives and Legislative Council lawmakers.
2. We believe that the Hong Kong Chief Executive Office’s statement clarifying that Carrie Lam’s remarks made during a closed-door meeting “are not related to the stance of the HKSAR Government” is an important signal that the pro-establishment camp does not see eye-to-eye with her government on the issue of police brutality towards protesters. Hence, Lam’s words are made out to be only “statements of fact,” and not representative of her government’s stance.
We believe that Carrie Lam could be reluctant to give up power and hence has decided that the best course of action is to continue using strong-armed tactics to suppress the protests, including tacitly condoning police brutality and making mass arrests. However, the pro-establishment camp could believe that Lam’s play is too risky and do not wish to be implicated by it. If there is no consensus in Hong Kong’s pro-establishment camp on how to handle the protests, then Carrie Lam faces very high levels of political and personal risk.
