The Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong - Coursework Example

The Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong The umbrella of revolution is believed to be the biggest protest that has ever existed in history of the republic of China. Such a huge protest was planned by students and executed as from early September, mainly occupied Hong Kong’s government headquarters. Besides, it was facilitated by the National People’s Congress purposely, to spearhead the election of the executives. Therefore, the protest was in opposition to the current ruling system of the government of China. Hong Kong city that has been the autonomously known as the financial hub of China was disrupted and ruined by the Umbrella of revolution. The protest was also meant to challenge democracy characterized by the demand to meet the senior most executive of Hong Kong. The demands were supported by numerous threats of violence and a calling for the communist party to reorganize the government. Moreover, the protest was enhanced by students who mostly believed that it was their democratic right to call for change. There is sufficient evidence that Hong Kong’s economy would be affected. As such, there was a clear indication that the revolution was not achieving much. Besides, the revolution of Hong Kong was characterized by a call for liberation of a free society including the freedom of media. However, the freedom of the media was never achieved instead, both the government of China and honk Kong imposed threats to local and international media leading to self-censure due to pressure from political powers. Most investors were afraid due to the unpredictable uncertainties that were expected to exist after the wave of violence thus some of the investors decided to flee Chinese stock. Introduction The Hong Kong’s umbrella of evolution is one of the biggest protests in china that was held as from the beginning of September 2014. The protest was held for several days occupying Hong Kong’s government headquarters purposely by the National People’s Congress to spearhead for an election of the executives. Besides, it was opposed to current ruling system of government of Hong Kong. In accordance to the standing committee of the national people’s congress, there was a proposition to elect at least two electoral candidates then further supported by votes of the general public. Thereafter they could fully assume the position of leadership. Having been assumed to be a war of attrition at some given point, the Protestors of the Hong Kong umbrella revolution encountered repulsive force from the government associated with harsher tactics such as arrests. Moreover, the government retaliated using pepper spray and lobbing of teargas canisters (Saich & Van, 1995). However, such attacks only called for more Protestors especially from the Hong Kong federation of students and scholars. Such people felt that there was no a need to seek forceful negotiation if the government does not want to heed to the call of the society. However, as directed by this paper, the umbrella revolution is not helpful for Hong Kong Background of the revolution According to Duiker (2014), Hong Kong city was once under the British colony whose effects can still be felt to date. For instance, the presence of Double Decker buses that operates through left-hand drive. The city that has been the autonomously known as the financial hub of China, of which, the revolution only disrupted and ruined its economic stability in the contrary to achieving any help. Events of the revolution started as a simple protest by the students union but escalated and within a period of six days occupied civic square and the government headquarters. Even though, the revolution was against civil disobedience embraced by the call for a call to occupy central with love and peace, nothing much was achieved from the love perspective instead, it further led to propagation of animosity and hatred between the government and the society over standoff of political agreements. Some articles have pointed out that several demands were formulated by the Hong Kong’s citizens that included a call for the resignation of Chief Executive Chun-Ying Leung. Besides, they wanted the disbursement of the China’s national congress committee so as to allow for free and fair election that were yet to be held in 2017. However, these demands have bore no fruit and the government has since set hard line for any other protest within and harshly deals with any slightest protest in anticipation to deter any similar occurrence in the future. According to some of the political associate professors studying political movements of China, students could have considered other alternatives such as students union to address to address their concerns because forceful redirection of the government over the election of the executive was seen to undermine the constitution (Bayātī, 2011). Therefore, it led to the protest storming and destruction of the civic square including Hong Kong government offices to subject the government to give chance for the revolution. However, the revolution did not create any solution towards the election of the executives. Demands were not met The protest was mainly targeted to challenge the democracy characterized by the demand to meet the senior most executive of Hong Kong. The demands were supported by numerous threats of violence and a call for the communist party to reorganize the government. However, the residence of Hong Kong did not achieve a cooperative dignity aimed at reinstating a collective pride. Despite that fact that there was pressure to the Hong Kong’s government to accept the demand of the society, protestors were disappointed by the nomination of the candidate for the post of chief executives when the government announced that they would affect no changes (Bayātī, 2011). Most of all, the protestants were demanding for an open nominations for the upcoming elections. A section for the protest that called for occupying central with love wanted for reinstatement of Leung to resume his administrative role and consultative duties of the political reforms. However, the calling for Leung did not bear much weight hence the Protestants shifted to call for the resignation of the chief executives. With less consideration as to whether the protest would damage the economy, the demonstrators wanted to have autonomy while several people complained about a universal suffrage. However, the Chinese national government already had basic laws with a lot of promise for territorial governance. However, the National People’s Congress felt it was not enough and wanted a complete change in both Hong Kong and Beijing electoral reforms. It was, therefore, perceived that it was within the interest of the autonomous government to effect any democratic change of which, the government did not put to the effect (Bayātī, 2011). The revolution got a repulsive force from the government Credible sources have pointed out that Hong Kong police force responded harshly towards the umbrella revolution by use of teargas. According to the sources from the government of China, security personnel were forced to charge and lob teargas to the riots that were purported to endanger public safety. Repulsive force deterred the revolution from achieving its objectives especially in a call for democracy. Furthermore, police used rubber bullets to shoot so as to manage the crowds. As such, it killed the morale of the protestors who felt they were deprived the opportunity to exercise the right for democracy. In defense, the Protestants used umbrellas to protect themselves from the spray. However, it leads to the drawing of a multitude hence the deriving of the name, the Umbrella of Revolution clarifies (Chan & Ho, 2014). Despite the willingness of the Leung to embrace a consultative approach and concede to the pro-democracy movements, the Chinese government still felt that the decision to protest was misplaced which was a setback to the revolution. Therefore, the government was noncommittal to negotiation for a pro-democratic approach. Moreover, the government requested the protestors to vacate the central business district so as to give room for the delivery of services (Hong, 2014). Despite the fact that the protest seems to be over, threes a considerable impact that has been caused by the demonstration. While protestors vowed to proceed with civil disobedience, there is sufficient evidence that Hong Kong’s economy has been vastly affected. As such, it was very clear indication that the revolution was not achieving much. As such, it is a total negation of what was intended by the revolution. On the contrary to the objectives of the revolution, the Hong Kong government decided to adopt the screening of candidates and then make a choice of candidates based on independent decision. While considering the solution of the government, the universal suffrage did not bring any effective change and was only adopted as a tool to repress opinion of the society (Fish, 2014). Yung & Leung (2014) emphasizes that the revolution was characterized by societal members from various backgrounds and denominations through the aid of different unions. For instance, the trade union of Hong Kong was fighting for the deliberation of hours spent at workplace and a fair pension scheme that could harmonize payments of the retirement of Hong Kong citizens. However, the rights of most workers in Hong Kong are still unrecognized by both the government in existence and the legislative council that was meant to fight for the rights of the workers. Though umbrella of revolution in Hong Kong was characterized by call for liberation of a free society including the freedom of media, the freedom of the media was never achieved both the government of China and Hong Kong for local and international media leading to self-censure due to pressure from political powers. As per the government instructions and pressure accompanied by undemocratic political powers, most media company that was in support of the youth and the younger generations were forced to shut down. Moreover, after the revolution, restrictions have been by the government through the use of the police to forcefully enforce law and order led to a complete violation of freedom of speech and association. It was seen as a total blow to the revolution. This is an implication that the revolution did not achieve the targets (Yung & Leung, 2014). After the revolution, both Hong Kong and the Chinese government gained more powers to uphold the existing institutions through a committee that could only be nominated by a few members of the executives. On the contrary to the demand of the protestors, the Hong Kong government slightly changed the nomination criteria that saw business elites and personalities being elected as part of the nomination committee. The objective to embrace the business committee was never supported by the effect that the business society was never given opportunity to contribute towards the economy of Hong Kong city. As such, there is still a need to protect their rights of the society. Therefore, it is a clear demonstration of capitalist society.. Despite the fact that it was a total blow to the protestors, there was a partial ease of peace when a section of the society their demands have been met through business representative (Bayātī, 2011). On the contrary to solving the grievances raised by the protestors of the umbrella of revolution, Hong Kong federation of restaurants reported numerous losses during the protest period subjecting the city into an economic crunch. For instance, a good number of tourists who had scheduled bookings before the protest occurrence had to cancel their schedule, which was a total blow to the economic stability of Hong Kong. As illustrated by the board chairman of tourism in Hong Kong, it was a setback to the revolution as a bigger population of the visitors did not turn up, but it was believed that maybe they had been threatened by a wave of violence. As a result, it shows that much was not achieved from the revolution (Bayātī, 2011). There is also an evidence that the umbrella revolution is not helpful for Hong Kong, because most investors were afraid due to the unpredictable uncertainty that were expected to exist after the wave of violence, most investors decided to flee Chinese stock. As such most of the Chinese companies engaged in the stock exchange suffered deterioration in terms of sales. From the above illustration, the revolution did not achieve the intended target because at no given point did the revolution set the target to interfere with the investment opportunity around Hong Kong and China as a whole. On the other hand, the situation lead to opening up opportunities for investors to seek alternative for investments in other closes countries such as Thailand or Korea thus threatening the economy of Hong Kong (Yung & Leung, 2014). Contradictions of the revolution According to most political analyst from Hong Kong, pro-government contemplated that the call for protest in the name of political revolution was unjustified. On the contrary to the will of the people, the call for democracy against the tyranny of Beijing was perceived illegitimate and purposely fixed to rally against the economic development of Hong Kong city. Moreover, the umbrella revolution is not helpful for Hong Kong was regarded as a movement as an impediment rule of the square that was simply developed with an ill motive to destabilize the well end economy of Honk Kong and china as a whole. On the other hand, the protest was compared to a cold war phenomenon spearheaded by former Soviet Union and Southeast Arabic countries such as Ukraine. As such, it signaled the whole world concerning weak of the Hong Kong city hence the government could not give it a chance to concede with the demands. It is also noted with a lot of concerns that is characterized by violence is more likely to fail. Therefore, an umbrella of revolution having been associated with destruction of properties injuries and loss of life a situation that could only be compared to protests in countries like Ukraine. Moreover, it had minimal chances of success hence nothing much was achieved from the protest. Conclusion The Hong Kong’s umbrella of revolution was a country wide protest that was initiated by a wing of students nonunion in September in 2014 to seek for a change in the electoral systems. The paper has illustrated that the protest occupied most parts of thee government building and other areas of the city including the historic public square was initially perceived to be a healthy one, but it turned out to betray the society. Besides, the government did not spare the citizens staging the protest and acted in deference to quell the violence through rubber bullets and pepper sprays. However, the crowd shielded themselves using umbrellas hence the name the umbrella of revolution. Ultimately, the revolution did not what it was intended for because the government felt it was planned with ill intention to destabilize the economy. As such the the umbrella revolution is not helpful for Hong Kong. References: Bayātī, H. (2011). From dictatorship to democracy: An insiders account of the Iraqi opposition to Saddam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Chan, R & Ho, K. (2014). Disclosure of Directors Personal Information in Hong Kong. Common Law World Review. Duiker, T. (2014). Contemporary World History. Cengage Learning, 2014 Fish, S. E. (2014). Versions of academic freedom: From professionalism to revolution. Hong, Y.-S. (2014). Welfare, Modernity, and the Weimar State. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Saich, T & Van, V. (1995). New perspectives on the Chinese Communist revolution. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. Yung, B & Leung, L. (2014). Diverse roles of alternative media in Hong Kong civil society: from public discourse initiation to social activism. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 7(1), 83-101. Read More