 Good afternoon, good evening, or good morning, depending on where you are. My name is Steve Tsang, I am the director of the SOWAS China Institute. We are having this webinar forumed at an unusual time because we are engaging with conversations with colleagues from New York, which makes the timing requirements slightly different. But we will be having an extremely interesting discussion on the future of democracy in Hong Kong. Now this event is recorded and it will be made available on the website. The way how this event is being structured is that the two speakers will be invited to make their opening remarks for about 10 minutes or so. And then I would direct them in a conversation and then open the floor for general discussions. If you would like to raise a question or make a comment, please use the Q&A box. When you do so, it would be very helpful to say who you are, which will give me a better scope to pick the questions. But if you would like to raise a question anonymously, you can't do so. You just need to say that you would like to stay anonymous and your wish will be respected and the information, personal information you provide will not be read out. I think we all know that Hong Kong is changing and it looks like that the direction of travel is quite clear. It's towards making Hong Kong more integrated into the People's Republic of China, in which the party state is anti-democratic. The National Security Law of 2020 in Hong Kong has made it crystal clear, or has it? I think this is the question that we will discuss today. Of course, also the implications for the democracy of Hong Kong moving forward. We have two fantastic speakers. One will walk us through how Hong Kong gets to weigh this today as an academic and a public intellectual, and that is Professor Michael Davis. The other was in the front line advocating and fighting for democracy until he himself felt that he had no option but flee Hong Kong. That is, of course, Nathan Law. Now, Michael Davis is at the moment a global fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC. He has a very distinguished career in Hong Kong, a long established Hong Kong. He was a professor at the Law Faculty at the University of Hong Kong until late 2016, and he's published a lot on Hong Kong, many different aspects of it. And his most recent book is making Hong Kong, China, the rollback of human rights and the rule of law, which came out at the end of last year. If you're interested to get an overview of how Hong Kong gets to where it is, this is, I think, the first book that I would myself go to. Nathan Law, JBC. Ah, you don't know what JBC is. Following the great traditions of the British Empire instead of being a JBB, jailed by the British, is jailed by China, JBC. He is a young Hong Kong activist, currently exiled and based in the United Kingdom. He's one of the original founders of Democito, and he became the youngest legislative councillor in Hong Kong's history before he was forced out of Legico by a kind of de facto constitutional reinterpretation by the Chinese authorities. Nathan was jailed for his participation in the Umbara protests, and in light of the risk imposed by the national security law, Nathan had left Hong Kong to speak up for Hong Kong's people on the international stage. In 2020, he was listed as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by the Tom magazine. Now, let me then hand over, first of all, to Professor Davis to make his 10 minutes opening remarks, and then to Nathan Law, and then we'll have the discussions over to you, Mike. Sorry, as I was saying, I appreciate joining a panel with two very old friends and on a very serious topic. What Steve said, I'm just here to kind of give a timeline of sort of what happened and what as one best can do in 10 minutes. I think for novices on the Hong Kong issue, of course, we all know there was an agreement back in the 80s that gave Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy. It was an international agreement, and Hong Kong people relied on it in going forward with their lives. So it's a very serious matter, these commitments, and the commitment in the joint declaration promised a basic law, and it stipulated the content of the basic law, and it wasn't ambiguous stuff. Sometimes people like to argue, well, the commitments are not that clear, and somebody has to interpret them, and Beijing, of course, assigns itself that power so it can do pretty much what it wants. No, the agreement was very specific that Hong Kong would have a high degree of autonomy. The common law system would be maintain human rights and basic freedoms under the international covenant on civil and political rights would be maintained, and the courts would be independent and final. Now, when the basic law was enacted just after the Tiananmen incident actually in the 1989, in 1990, the basic law was enacted. I think it had in the book that Steve mentioned, I highlight two sort of basic flaws that made these promises difficult. One is that Beijing was given absolute control over interpretation of the basic law, and it exercised, as a footnote here, I didn't say it exercised that power very quickly in 1999, and in doing so, it ran around the court of final appeal in Hong Kong, which said that they're in, based on the basic law language, that there was no need to refer the matter that was before the court at the time to the Standing Committee, and the Standing Committee ran around that. So why this is a flaw is that this has hung over the courts in Hong Kong ever since, the common law system, that if a sensitive case comes up, that there will be interference, and mainland officials have often expressed their objection to the courts, even having the power to review and implement the law under what we call constitutional review. The other flaw was foot dragging over democracy. The basic law promised the ultimate aim of universal suffrage, but Beijing has been reluctant throughout all these many years and used its power to interpret the basic law to in effect deny democracy as well. And so Hong Kong people when they take to the streets, and they did in 2019, we know famously, some people would say, well, no government would tolerate that. So why were Hong Kong people so active in protesting all the time? I think this is important in understanding the Hong Kong issue. People of Hong Kong came to understand that without a government that answers to the people of Hong Kong, their autonomy would be at risk. And if their autonomy was at risk, then the rule of law, the very fundamental promises in the basic law would be at risk. So people would take to the street whenever they perceived that Beijing was interfering in Hong Kong, which proved to be often as the years went on. And so they would try to defend their autonomy. And it was interesting that throughout all the protest in many years in 2003 and 2012 and 2014 and 2019, always the issue of democracy would be put on the table, because the people just wanted to protect the commitments that China made to them. So I think this is very fundamental understanding what went on. Basic law was explicit that mainland departments were not to interfere in Hong Kong, and that mainland laws, except for a very limited number of national laws that would be listed in an annex would not apply. So this idea of autonomy actually had very substantive guarantees. And I think Deng Xiaoping understood that he he understood at the time that Hong Kong people, and he said this, they did not have to believe in socialism. They did not have to be supporters of the Communist Party and so on. So that their autonomy was real and he asked the people of the world to put their hearts at ease. And he sent his officials around the world, both when the agreement was signed and when the basic law was enacted. He sent his officials to ask for governments to support it. So the argument that we often heard that this was foreign interference when governments spoke up, as the UK government might do, because it was a party to the agreement, that this was foreign interference really is not very convincing, since China asked governments to treat Hong Kong distinctly. So this background is really important. If we fast forward in the short time we have to the national security law that Steve mentioned, we see a very dramatic erosion of these guarantees, because now Beijing is setting up its own office in Hong Kong and it's there now. This was done last year. This office for safeguarding national security staffed totally by mainland officials who are to guide Hong Kong and its actions and themselves can investigate violations. And in fact that that office, if it wants to, could even transfer a case to the mainland to be prosecuted under the national security law. So this was enacted on June 30th of 2020 and the Hong Kong government went right to work in arresting people the very next day. Probably people who had no time to even read the national security law let alone understand because we weren't even told what the content was. We were told in fact that the chief executive didn't even know the content until the day it was released. So this national security law did that. It also set up a committee locally. So-called committee for safeguarding national security. And this committee can issue all kinds of regulations and it has done so on police behavior that would allow police to search the homes without a warrant to engage in surveillance and so on. So it even created a special unit in the police on national security and a special unit on prosecution under the national security law. Now all of this would sound like criminal stuff or these a bunch of people that are trying to overthrow the regime. No, there are four crimes under it. One of them involves subversion. One is secession. One is terrorism. The other is colluding with foreign officials. And if we look at the arrest and there have been over 100 of them so far we find that most people are charged with something like speaking. Now the international covenant on civil political rights which was supposed to apply in Hong Kong would generally require some kind of incitement some kind of action that you're going to do something violent immediately. But instead almost all of these are speaking crimes and the most notorious perhaps was the arrest of 47 politicians for only participating in a primary election. So this national security law has a huge impact on democracy because a lot of the opposition in Hong Kong have now been arrested. Four remaining members of the opposition were thrown out of the legislative council and all the rest of the opposition resigned. So politically participation, democracy is implicated by the national security law in a very big way. But China did not stop there. It went on to recently this year enact amendments to the basic law annex which involves that promise of ultimate aim of universal suffrage and identifies how elections would occur in Hong Kong. Well under the old version at least half the legislature was directly elected. The chief executive never was. But under the new version now there's an election committee and this election committee under the old version would choose the chief executive. The committee itself being chosen by a very narrow group of what we call functional politicians and some public officials. So the committee is very much a probaging committee and has so much acted that way. But now it's expanded by 300 members to include mainland representatives, Hong Kong representatives to mainland and so on. And right when we look at the makeup of the committee we can see now that there's very specific guidelines in these amendments to the basic law that allow identify how the various members of this election committee will be chosen. And it essentially identifies in many cases a lot of mainland oriented organizations and so on. In fact the district counselors that used to be the only people directly elected in Hong Kong are now taken out of the election committee. So the election committee is very you know if you have to read these amendments to understand it but it's very specific in how the makeup of that 1500 member committee is set up. And then the committee is directed to vet all candidates before the old committee which was already biased very much towards the establishment. That old committee was only involved in nominating and electing the chief executive. Now all legislative council members have to be elected by this committee. And they all have to be, even to be candidates, they have to be vetted for loyalty, for patriotism. Only patriots can participate in the legislative council. And there's a special vetting committee even to advise the election committee on this. A very a smaller committee that also has to approve it. And this committee is going to be advised by the police who will investigate. So if you're a member of the opposition and you're not in jail yet under the national security law, then do you really want to run for office? Probably that would invite someone to investigate you and find something to prosecute you for. So the reality is that it's very unlikely that a lot of opposition figures will even be able to participate in the election. In fact, I think wise advice may be that they not, that they simply don't join the election. Now, well, the government knows that. So they passed another law locally that will make it a criminal to advocate a boycott of the election or just file blank ballots. So that is designed so that no one can start a movement. But my guess is that a lot of Hong Kong people who are among the most savvy people in the world, I think, will understand that, well, what's the point in voting if they can't really have any genuine choice of candidates, which is the standard under the International Covenant and Civil and Political Rights. So I've given you a kind of smorgish board of what I think the trajectory of China's intervention in Hong Kong, its original promises and its intervention, very recent intervention. And we're going to have time for discussion, and I'll just leave the rest of it there so we can get into the weeds. I'm sure Nathan Law will bring us into the weeds a bit already. So I look forward to your comments, Nathan. Thank you very much. Over to you, Nathan. Thank you, Steven. Thank you, Michael, for a very comprehensive overview on what's happened on Hong Kong and the way that our autonomy are being destroyed, our freedom are being quashed, and there is no meaningful participation into the electoral politics, politics anymore after the election overhaul. And the same thing doesn't only limit it to these political scenes, but for a civil society that has been a huge hammer on it. You could just look at what's happened to our media landscape, which investigative journalists are being prosecuted because they are investigating certain, well, suspected collusion between the police and the gangsters on a very notorious Yunnan incident took place on the 21st of July 2019. And there are media being asked to hand out information, and the Apple Daily, which is the most prominent opposition media company are being raided, and a lot of their top members are being arrested. So that is a clear intimidation on the media landscape to avoid them to be watched out for the government. And if you look at the way the scholars are reacting, there are lots of scholars are self-censoring and they're afraid of getting involved in research or pool that concerned with concepts that may breach the national security law, which actually we all don't know where the boundary is. In essence, well, the way that they call out and criminalize the actions that breach the national security law, in fact, in essence, is breaching the stability of the hegemon of the Chinese Communist Party. A lot of the things that are being prosecuted under the national security law do not bring any harm to the so-called national security if we define it as the way that we all commonly understand it, but to threaten, well, the kind of authority that the Chinese Communist regime wants to portray and the way that we ask for checks and balances. So I think in that definition, it's difficult for scholars to grasp where the boundaries are and really affect the academic freedom that along the schools are actually working on silencing the student organizations who have been vocal on fighting for democracy for the past years. And if we look at the labor movement, there are lots of labor union that were formed in the movement that were committed to labor movement in these two years are forced to close because they don't know that the efficacy for them to fight against those traditionally established workers union who are in favor of Beijing, whether these actions are breaching the national security law and possibly indict them into that case of imprisonment. So we could definitely see the effects of the national security law, it does not limit to politicians, it does not limit to protesters, but it creates a white terror to our civil society, which basically grounds the Beijing government a much more hegemon status that none of these civil society actors have the capacity to challenge their orders and well and also their rulings. So I think that there is an also another perspective to look into the effects of the national security law. And when we back to the future of democracy movement and the way we examine the future is by looking at least starting from looking at how the movement is going in Hong Kong. And we all I think we mostly agree that the movement in right now is at its no tights. It's difficult to organize protest assemblies and the government has not been improving any assemblies for more than a year and a half. And for those prominent activists there either in jail, they're on trial or in exile. So that is the reality of Hong Kong. And for now there are lots of efforts of Hong Kong's politicians or campaigners shifted to backhand work, which is to support those in jail to try to support those on trial and also build a network of self support and also working on fronts that are not as sensitive and as confrontational, such as cultural front and also economic front. So these are the way that we adopt ourselves in this difficult situation and try to preserve certain energy and certain momentum for the protest movement, which people, there are still ways to voice their opposition, but not as obvious and not as likely as they could do in a few years time. So I think this is what we are in Hong Kong. And I think most of the people they're still struggling to get along with the impact of the national security door and the full implementation of the concept of a comprehensive jurisdiction that Beijing has in Hong Kong, which means that Hong Kong, there is no longer autonomy anymore. And they will intervene to every single aspect of our life. And this is new Hong Kong. And this is the way that Beijing transplants the ruling philosophy in mainland China into Hong Kong. So I think a lot of people are still getting to figuring out what they can do and cannot do and how they can live under that circumstance. And for the other parts of people who have considered that this is no longer a livable place, they decided to leave. Some of them, they fled because of political reasons. Some of them are being prosecuted or even wanted and they decided to flee this political persecution. And some of them, they have already got some status in certain countries. And some of them, they have that worries about Hong Kong's future, whether they're future generation, they can still enjoy a rather impartial education or a liberal-minded one. Or when they live in Hong Kong, whether the freedom are being so restricted, they no longer feel comfortable living in this place. They decided to leave Hong Kong and definitely UK is one of the prime places that they are blending because the UK government has offered to be in the scheme and a pathway for citizenship due to the Chinese government breaching the National, breaching the Sander British joint declaration for multiple times. And for now, that that is a role for these overseas or diaspora community to play. And I think there are at least several things that we are going to work on. The first one would definitely be preserving our culture and our identity, especially for protest-related work. There is no longer any space for protest-related artwork to be presented, to be exhibited, to be screened in Hong Kong. And those are important materials to cement our identity and the way that we remember those events. So people from overseas say there is a need for them to preserve those things and to broadcast them so that this tunnel world still has vivid memory of what has happened after or since 2019. And we have to preserve those facts and truths. And on the other hand, for us as a Hong Kong community, a Hong Kongers community in overseas countries, we on the one hand have to unite us to form a community. On the other hand, we have to also engage with local politics, engage with a local community to be integrated so that we can be a beneficial force for the community, but also we can drive international influence back to support democratic movement in Hong Kong. And for those like us, as of us, we are able to speak things that are no longer be able to be spoken in Hong Kong, so that we also show this a certain responsibility as the force of Hong Kong and to fill in the sports of a representation of Hong Kong on the international level, when the Hong Kong government has no credibility and legitimacy of doing so. So I guess the future of Hong Kong's democratic movement we've got our roles to play no matter where in Hong Kong or outside of Hong Kong. And I think Hong Kong people, the most important thing is we have to keep thinking and keep coming out ways that we can cope with the current situation and to preserve their mentality and that tenacity for us to for a very, very long time struggle and extremely uphill battle. Well thank you very much Nathan for that very clear exposition. Can I ask you both perhaps for Nathan to respond first and then for you Michael from the more of an academic perspective. The question really is that and it's given the fact that you both have painted a picture of how difficult things are now in Hong Kong and how much you see people in Hong Kong are not comfortable with or happy with the direction of travel, which is a kind of Beijing practically imposing is rule in Hong Kong through the special administrative region government rather than allowing a genuine autonomy in the special administrative region. So the question is how do you how do you think people in Hong Kong can resist the imposition of practically indirect rule from China? Well thanks Steve for the question. I think first of all I don't think I am the person who like has that capacity to guide those people who are on the ground because they well if you are not on the ground it's difficult for you to grasp the details and context of them. But I guess like from my position I think it is important that as I said that we have to adjust ourselves into the new norm. Of course it is difficult for us to imagine or to assume that everyone has the capacity to be in jail for years because if they have said something that is now banned but was not banned in a couple years ago and we don't have that like moral authority to ask people to commit much more than they can tolerate under this circumstance. So I think for me it is important that we need to know when we are in this stage what else we could do or what other things that we could do not only progressing the movement but also helping people who are in troubles and who are being politically persecuted so that they feel supported and we can create a more intimate and intense community that are bound by the suffering of each other and the love of Hong Kong and Hong Kong people. So I guess for now there are lots of positions to be viewed in terms of supporting those who are in jail, writing letters to them, helping them to collect and to find those resources that could use and send them to jail for these inmates and also bringing more attention to those who are on trial when more people can attend courts and to express a kind of support by attending those hearings and sections and for those who are still capable of like living alive they can donate money to those foundations who helped legal fees of those who are on trial and I think these work very valuable because as a community we indeed have to show our support to those who are on the front line and fight for the rest of us and those people who are facing the utmost suppression and risk and responsibility. So for the rest one if we are unable to demonstrate a solidarity and a way that we can actually support them it's difficult whenever there's a next time of these protests there are people to come out and say that we're fighting for every one of us and we've got everyone's backing us. So I guess like for now we're in that moment and I think these are the things that we should focus on. Mike, you need to unmute. I should just leave it on I'm sorry. Yeah I think you know there of course as you gave me the academic role as in that context we know there are lots of means that people can use to object to things. I mean it's famous that they can say everybody turning on and off a light at the same time might signal popular views so there are ways of doing it and we can't predict when opportunities will arise what things will be done that people want to object to. I think recently they attacks on Jimmy Lai and Apple Daily were met with people buying newspapers you know just to show their support because it's hard for the government to prosecute you for buying a newspaper. So there are those kinds of strategies will be employed. I mentioned earlier I'm suspecting and the government is as well that people may be inclined to not vote in the coming election and so on. So there are again these are strategies where you know blank ballots and not voting are strategies. Now I'm doing it as an academic if I'm advocating it at this moment then I would be attacked by the government for advocating a boycott of an election but as a scholar looking at it this is just one of the strategies that people use. Other kinds of strategies Nathan mentioned one is they immigrate they leave. So that's another form of expressing your objection to developments as they are. It's an unfortunate one because we don't want to see everyone leaving Hong Kong but these are ways that ordinary people express their views and I expect we will be seeing more and more of these strategies as time goes on. Now that means that the rest of the world has also something to do and that is respond to it and so we see the UK's B&O passport scheme for example as a response to what's going on in China and I think overseas activists like and like Nathan himself are drawing attention to these issues around the world as our academics and people like myself writing a book and so on. So it's going to be on the table in the coming months in the US Congress, in the British Parliament and other bodies around the political bodies around the world to pay attention to what's going on in Hong Kong and so if the people's objection is obvious then I think the pressure to do something about it is going to come especially from people overseas who can lobby their government and I didn't mention when national security law actually makes that illegal as well so that it has a global reach but I think a lot of overseas activists have chosen to ignore that and they simply go about their business of trying to get the world's attention to Hong Kong. So it's a kind of multi-tiered multi-level kind of process of responding and it's not very hopeful at the moment but I suppose that that's the situation we have and there's not a lot we can do about that. Okay thank you. Can I ask you both again, the very simple questions that with so many people living in Hong Kong can the democracy movement in Hong Kong succeed at all? Again perhaps Nathan first and then Michael. Yeah I think a lot of Hong Kong people are stuck in a dilemma which they felt like they should be staying in Hong Kong because that's the potential for them to raise dissident force. On the other hand that well themselves or their families they're facing imminent political intimidation from the government and they try to leave a free place so that they can like no matter express freely or do something to support Hong Kong in a like much more obvious way. So I guess like a lot of Hong Kong people are stuck in that dilemma and I think once again I'm in no position of asking people to leave or to stay but I think at the end of the day this is not I think this is not if we're thinking about the democracy movement this is not something we should ask first. I think the things that we should ask really is whether you yourself have seen being involved in activism as part of your life and are you committed to it no matter you're in Hong Kong or your overseas. If you do not see it as your responsibility if you do not see part of your life committed to the course of Hong Kong's democracy then no matter you're staying in Hong Kong or you are in overseas you're just thinking about yourself then it doesn't mean anything for the democratic movement. So I think first of all you have to be clear about that questions and after you have found answer for that stay in Hong Kong you've got a lot of things that you could do and same as well on overseas even though while the things you you're committing in overseas to be honest will be more indirect and it is not where the political struggle truly lies but at least you've got something definitely in the pocket that you know you can do and and you can contribute back to the movement. So I think it doesn't well whether you make those decisions it doesn't really correlates whether Hong Kong's democratic movement would succeed or not because it really relates on some other more like affecting elements but I think the essence is whether you have seen it as part of your life and if you do then even though you say you're determined to leave Hong Kong you can still be proud and you can still fight for Hong Kong's movement from overseas. Mike. Yes thank you. Yeah I I think people you know they if they're activists they're probably going to be disappointed because I think in a way the most democratic thing might be under the new election laws is to not participate to simply indicate that you you don't find it objective acceptable that all these loyalty and patriotism evaluations are being applied to you in effect taking away your freedom of expression as a condition for running for office so that may be one form that this takes it's the form I suspect it may may take in the future otherwise some of the things we've already mentioned that people you know will find ways of expressing their views again a form of democratic response in if we recall back in the old days there were some regimes around the world that required everyone to vote so they haven't done that yet in Hong Kong so if you don't vote that might also be a way that you express your objection so it is this part of a democracy movement it's hard to say whether it constitutes it but under adverse conditions the alternative of course is extreme response which we've seen unfold in Myanmar and and I don't think people want you know to to see the consequence of that so I so far we haven't seen that kind of response to what's happening in Hong Kong but the parallel has been drawn by many people in these two systems and I suppose most people especially I myself have always advocated non-violence so a situation where you have a kind of violent confrontation with the regime seems like something that would be very unattractive in Hong Kong so I think that that's the problem in the universities now the universities have issued guidelines that secondary schools have guidelines universities have not formalized their guidelines yet but they're essentially monitoring the student actions and they're told by the government to do so so we're operating a democracy movement from within the campus is also something that's extremely difficult at the moment so again like I say sometimes it may be a kind of negative response that may be the most that people can do on the ground thank you I'll ask one more question and then I will take on the questions from the Q&A box we already have 20 of them the last question I want to put to you is that the reality is that exiles generally get marginalized with time and you are now both exiles from Hong Kong what did you think that you or other Hong Kong exiles will be able to make a difference in the case of Hong Kong that exiles from other countries territories historically had not been able to make any impact uh this time past Michael first and then nation oh I was hoping to hear Nathan's response first rather than getting in you know for for an academic there are paths that that we have to to to still engage and and share our views I mean I'm interviewed by the media all the time as I'm sure Nathan is so you have an impact through that but I also wrote a book uh I I still teach in Hong Kong I I've been teaching full time in the fall remotely so I'm able to talk to students I'm not advocating violence or even uh protest but I'm teaching international human rights there so I I have that a chance to to expose students to the ideas of human rights and democracy and so on so there are paths that that that in the academic environment one can take uh if one is not in that environment that some people are involved in supporting research and scholarship and so on that these are paths that people perhaps in the business community or foundations and so on can also engage so I think there are paths to do that I myself worked on the Tibet issue among many others over the years and I know they've sustained an overseas movement now for more than 70 years if it's something like that and so sustaining the movement is one thing that you have to do and then you can occasionally have chances to create pressure and impact on the ground so I don't think we should if you're in exile despair that well it's pointless and go on and ignore the issue I think there are a lot of channels to participate Nathan yeah well thanks for the question Steve I guess I'm not that kind of person who are afraid of a diminishing influence or like being seen as not as important as before when the time goes on because I think like as an activist particularly in exile what people should really like examine what we've been doing and to cast their trust to us in terms of assessing how we have accomplished if we're in Hong Kong as a politician and we have occasional like elections to examine whether we get the trust of people and the same actually applies to as for say exile so the core problem is if we do not have enough impacts or influence to be brought on the table then it's normal for people to say that you're no longer prominent you're no longer important and I'm completely comfortable with the fact that if there are a lot more like exiled activists who have been carrying the legitimacy and profile and credibility from Hong Kong and replace certain position as long as there are active Hong Kong voice on the international level so I think that is my starting point of how I feel my position and I think there's one thing that I'm really conscious about is there are lots of discussion about why the other exiled activists are well the influence that they managed throughout the time and one argument is that they're being trapped in the plaza they're being trapped in the movement they haven't been accommodating to the new situation and to the new needs when they're in exile and to be able to play their role as an exiled activist and I agree that I agree part of them and I think is important for me to learn from the beginning when I was out of Hong Kong and started into a new phase of international advocacy work so for me the most important thing is I have to keep learning from my environment to understand how I could reciprocate back to the movement and to connect with the local community and also working with the political scene in the UK where I'm residing and try to maintain my influence or maintain the influence of Hong Kong people as a group as a voice as much as possible and I'm the lucky one who left Hong Kong with a certain credibility, profile and legitimacy that gets the attention from the world and the political scenes from around the world are willing to interact with me so that I'm left with huge platform and resources to speak up my mind and I think in future what my focus would be try to accommodate the things that I have to learn in my position and to carry on whether I will be a household name in 10 years that there's actually not in any of my consideration. Okay well the first question I pick from the participants comes from somebody who would like to stay anonymous. This person described himself or herself as a Hong Kong-born UK raised patriotic Chinese. He said for the 50 years one country two systems model was supposed to allow China to catch up with Hong Kong's freedom thought the other way. So what can we do today except encourage liberal Hong Kongers to leave Hong Kong? So what are you advising people in Hong Kong liberal Hong Kongers to do apart from leaving Hong Kong? Nathan? Well yeah I guess I can answer first. I really like the idea brought by the first president of the Republic of Czech Havel. He says that living in truth which means that we do not actively be accomplished to the government, to the authority and we focus on what we are doing what we good at and the professionals that we are achieving and we are pursuing and we also try to live our life fully that we try to create an autonomous space that are not intervened by the regime and I think that is important because I think what we are seeing now in Hong Kong is we are seeing a semi-democratic regime turning into an authoritarian regime and walking into a pathway to a totalitarian regime and for the totalitarian regime they are here to destroy all the social fabrics, to destroy all the external shores of legitimacy other than the government itself so that when they speak there are no challenges or opposing voice from the civil society and it needs the compass of all people and also a complete destruction of the civil space, non-government, non-populating and non-private space so I guess like the way that we focus on our work we do not try to accommodate the government's needs and we do not walk back or self-censor ourselves before we are forced or asked or intimidated to do so. I think this is a strong mentality while we are living in the current world in Hong Kong so I guess like it's difficult for me to provide concrete advice for each and every people because they have different social status they are facing different political intimidation but what I can advise is do not scare off yourself first and even though the future is grim but I think we have to keep thinking and presuming that we can always achieve something under that circumstance. Michael? Yeah I think we don't want to encourage people to leave Hong Kong that's not that goal that's worthwhile I mean if people are threatened they should leave for their safety or if they feel that their quality of life is destroyed and they're not comfortable there then of course they can leave but I don't think that's part of how to address the problem that's just once that's done we can say in your previous question what can they do from exile we can ask that question but I think generally Hong Kong presents a kind of mixed environment that is conducive to people still learning about democracy and freedom I've been teaching mainland students for years and they also learn about these things we don't know whether in that society there will emerge eventually a new generation that insist on political reform and political change in China that's something we don't know at the moment but I do know that there are students who don't agree with the government there as well and I think in Hong Kong probably the majority of the people don't agree with the government so if they stay in Hong Kong I would suggest they just learn and try to study the same issues in Hong Kong's environment even is a little bit better than the mainland in that regard because they can still gain you know they haven't set up a great firewall yet they're still access to information global information a lot of Hong Kong or study abroad so there's opportunities to learn about good governance and what what they would like to see in the in there in Hong Kong or in China or where they may live so I think that's the path that we need to encourage is continued learning some things we're going to be more important to us the academic freedom for example and because again Hong Kong is this mixed environment where the government pretends even the national security law in article four says they continue to uphold the commitment to the basic law and the ICCPR so in that environment I think there is you know while there may be little room for protest and overt political action there is a lot of room for learning and understanding and I think that's an important avenue next question comes from a SOAS PhD student media how and she is basically saying that lots of people now often say that every time the Chinese government bridges the son of British John decorations they talk about the end of the rule of law in Hong Kong or the death of democracy in Hong Kong so is it a bit of a crying wolf on their part because if you keep saying that it is the death of Hong Kong or the end of rule of law you cannot die multiple times so what would be the right way of describing where Hong Kong is today which is democracy movement or is status of the independent judiciary perhaps my start first and then Nathan yeah this is in my lane I guess you know I personally never did say those things in the past that what I did in fact in the book I do again is describe an evolutionary process where certain as I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation certain guarantees were not very secure one of them was to have a government that represented the people to secure autonomy and another was as a consequence Beijing's interpretation power and the lack of autonomy posed a danger to the rule of law over the years and this showed its ugly head from time to time in the way you know we know for example in the right of a boat case and involving the freedom to live in in Hong Kong gave rise to that the notion of patriotic education which was presented in 2012 gave rise to these problems the attempt to pass a article 23 legislation gave rise to problems so I think the more astute commentators would comment on these things as posing a risk and we can make the same comments in the UK about how they handle COVID or something whether it poses a risk to basic needs of people in society so I don't think we should confuse a kind of criticism that people may fear erodes basic notions of rights such as equality and justice and so on as you know the sky is falling and we're all dead I think a lot of those comments sometimes on the street get get exaggerated but over time I think most Hong Kong people have taken a prudent approach if they thought everything had ended in you know 10 years ago they probably would have fled then and they didn't so I think it's not actually true other than a few you know statements that you know heat of the moment that people assessed Hong Kong that way but I think now it is an applicable principle because we see this national security law being used against people for merely speaking so this really does pose a risk you know is it the death of Hong Kong I suppose not Hong Kong will take will exist in whatever form going forward but it is a threat to basic freedoms okay and and the idea that people merely for speaking without posing any threat to government or society can't would be arrested and potentially face life in prison that is a very severe risk when the courts are attacked that is a very severe risk to the rule of law when public officials are attacking judges by name and and suggesting they be dismissed or not allowed to hear certain cases and so on there's intimidation when the court of final appeal get reads of people's daily article telling them that if they grant bail to Jimmy Lai that the central government would probably transfer into the mainland that's a very severe risk to a very fundamental rule of law principles so I think that's how we have to see it we have to look at the specifics and what they do will Hong Kong sort of bounce back and or will the government the central government realize the error of its ways and and maybe change and for what reason that's a question for the future but but I think right now we are at a point a very important inflection point where we we do see serious threats to the rule of law in Hong Kong thank you even well I think if we are referring real floor so the legal system that has the ability to hold the government accountable and is there to protect people's rights I believe that the court system in Hong Kong has failed that the examining bar but it doesn't mean that after that that that comes to it the death of Hong Kong's independent courts or that we have nothing left in our legal system at least I don't think it has like eroded into a level that could stand shoulder to shoulder to the Chinese courts and to somewhat inferior court system that are in complete control of the government and only serve for the interests of the government so I guess like that there are lots of rooms to explore when we say that there's longer rule of law in Hong Kong while we can be more precise in in pointing out what state is that where we are in now so I guess like for for for these discussions sometimes yes as Michael just said the chanting zone the streets are somehow like exaggerated in certain sense they'd also reflect that emotional rush and that imminent feeling of Hong Kong people that the Hong Kong they used to know have already gone and in Hong Kong now they feel strange about it and is the direct reflection of how they see the news and what's happening in Hong Kong on a daily basis so I guess like that that there's an also an emotional element in play that we just cannot all meet next questions comes from Nigel Shipman I have lived and worked in Hong Kong for 26 years 26 years and was there throughout the last winter with hindsight would you Nathan feel that the pro-democracy movement would be in a better place today if you and your fellow Democrats had performed a more constructive road assuring and condemning violence and condemning any talk of Hong Kong independence I'll come to you as well Mike but Nathan first well I think first of all I think this is a question that is really a question that for us asked after all these events has happened and I think it's not fair to say that we had the ability to guide the movement or direct the movement or in some sense to lead the movement in certain ways that we wanted to do we have had that in 2014 where we had see for this obedience movement with clear leadership structure and with complete peaceful ways of committing to a movement which resulted in governments ruthless response and a denial to all of our demands and I think a lot of the leaderless nature of the 2019 movement arise from the government's response in 2014 and became for the people and they were aware that if peaceful protest doesn't didn't work then they've come up with other measures and they've gone to some more aggressive way of protesting and I think at the end of the day this is this should not be a game of victim blaming for these people for the Hong Kong people's democratic movement we've been blasted for three decades and Beijing's farmers are written black and white and for them they've been commuting in excessive use of force for the first weeks and first months of the protest so that the protest escalated to a point that protesters started to pick up weapons started to pick up force for mostly self-protecting purpose so I think it's important that we look the things in perspective which the government has broken its promise has initiated a very unbalanced and excessive use of force and then we go to examine what the protesters have been doing me personally have and I've advocated violence but I think the best way that we can stop those violent conflicts is not by condemning them because that's no use because they have walked through other avenues that they could have imagined and thought that they could bring an impact but eventually they didn't they commit into those conflicts because of desperation the best way that we could curb those conflicts is to tell the governments that they have to hold those people from their police and from from from their side when they are committed into excessive use of force and when they've broke their promise the best way is to hold these people accountable so that people understand that they no longer have to commit into those aggressive behaviors to fight for whatever they want okay might you want to come briefly yeah I discussed this in the book this is actually a very important question I interviewed people in Hong Kong across the social movement in late 2019 in December and asked them this question about the question should they be condemning violence that some hotheads in the protest are exercising and and I think there was a general feeling like we we cannot we can advocate non-violence but we shouldn't be condemning others for what they're doing because there was some concern about dividing the movement that if you start attacking other people on the movement which is to the government's advantage then you wind up fracturing the movement that you're trying to maintain unity around so so I think there was a reluctance I'm Benny Tai famously sort of told me you know that I advocate non-violence I've always advocated non-violence and and but I don't know if I'm obliged to to criticize other people for choosing otherwise that is their kind of up to them to make these choices and so this is the problem of speaking truth to power that it's hard that you're struggling to maintain coherence in a social movement a political movement and at the same time advocate and promote values that you care about when I interviewed lawyers representing the defendants who were arrested what I found described to me something like 80 percent of all of their clients showed signs of being injured in some way or another either during their arrest or while they were in jail so they're all getting their clients in very bruised up condition so violence wasn't just you know a few rock throwers or Molotov cocktails but the police behavior itself was also in question regarding violence so I think in that very difficult situation when I was conducting the interviews it literally in the middle of all of this you can see why there was some reluctance by many people who advocated non-violence not to specifically and personally attack a few youngsters that may have gotten out of hand let me add a very small note here if we look at this not from a Hong Kong perspective but from a Chinese policy perspective we may have to recognize that the change of paradigm happened in 2017 not 2019 it happened in 2017 when Xi Jinping instructed that Hong Kong should become part of the British Bay Area rather than simply be treated as the Hong Kong special administrative region in its own right for the rest of the 15 years this was not pick up much in Hong Kong at all but that change was already in place the next question is a set of questions the first part of the question the first set of the question comes from Jonathan Fembe the second bit from Graham Hutchings Jonathan Fembe would like to ask did a high degree of autonomy ever have a chance of surviving without Hong Kong government prepared to stand up to Beijing and coming in there Graham Hutchings would like to ask the questions about what do you think people like Carrie Lam the Hong Kong civil service and the police in Hong Kong so blatantly fail to do what was needed for them to engage with the Chinese governments to shape their approach towards Hong Kong policy in a way that's more constructive perhaps my first indentation well this is something I go at length in the book and I first appreciate Jonathan's question that you know at the end of the day it's the government of Hong Kong never really represented Hong Kong this is I think have been a real problem even on the streets I lived in Hong Kong for 30 years even on the streets in the community there's always a sense the government was representing Beijing and we know that as I outlined the electoral process that the government itself was chosen by Beijing in effect through this election committee and it's always been so surprising to me and so much respect I have for Hong Kong people that they understood at the heart of the one country two systems model was a capacity of the Hong Kong government not to do war with Beijing but to represent to find its voice and represent Hong Kong people as well as I appreciate the second part of the question because I think that's where the failure has lied in this one country two systems model over these many years with this reward system where you know you get appointed to high office or important committees and and so on in society by Beijing with this reward system people were these people in the pro establishment camp instead of finding maybe a gentle voice an intermediate voice between the protesters and the government in Beijing largely remain silent they basically are trying to say things and do things that will earn them they kind of high regard of Beijing that Beijing will think yeah this guy is he's with us you know he represents our view very effectively and he stands with us and he's loyal as we see now they're even requiring this to be in the Hong Kong government this patriotism testing so I think at the very heart and I've said this for many years in my regular comments and stuff in the media that the very heart almost all the problems over the years could have been avoided or diminished if the Hong Kong pro establishment people that were anointed would have represented Hong Kong more effectively because they had the ear of Beijing they don't have to shout from the street it's the absence of that that results in the need to shout from the street about the problems Hong Kong people face and it's become the education of Hong Kong people that they needed a government that would represent them effectively thank you Nathan well yeah I think Michael has answered mostly for the questions what I can supplement is if we look at the term one country to system if we just want to accommodate the needs of the one country which is shaped and it gets much more demanding and more authoritarian to a degree of moving towards a totalitarian governing ideas will definitely lose to system and as simple as that's when the chief executive should be the one who stand in the middle of two terms one country and two system and to mitigate all the conflicts and they fail to do so and that's why seemingly the one country now swallows the two system I think that is the reality and the pathway that we're moving towards okay next question I pick comes from Tim Pringle is much more specific Tim says Nathan you mentioned the labour movement in Hong Kong given the fear around political activities as a result of the Hong Kong national security law what do you think the new unions in particular should be doing now is it worth them focusing on workplace issues to improve working conditions and pay in order to try and build up what Hong Kong has lack which is a workplace base and Hong Kong labour movement or something else well first of all I think the question should be whether that is a possibility for labour movement in Hong Kong anymore if we're referring labour movement to be a movement that fights for labour's rights instead of just some minor policy change and to demand rights from authoritarian governments and I think the answer is definitely grim as I said the government wants to crack down the civil society and wants to take back all the rights from people to its hands and to see them as mercy from them so that they have complete control to people and labour movement is definitely one of the parties that they wanted to crush given that the labour movement in Hong Kong has not been very vibrant not being very active but at the end of the day it's definitely something that the now that Beijing government wants to eliminate so that you could see there are many unions who were found in the movement who were actively engaged in shaping policies in their profession but also participating in political activities they were now disband and in the worries of them breaching the national security law so for me labour movement as the rights movement is difficult to have its political edge now whether they are there to support like for example some claims from workers or some minor policy change maybe that's room for it but whether we can call it a labour movement anymore there's a doubt on it so for me the labour's rights and the democracy movement there are actually a lot of things that they are well connected and the the leader of labour movement in Hong Kong for that case Li Xiaoyan who's already now being politically persecuted these are also symbols of them that the government is targeting on that front and for us we have to be standing in solidarity so that at least we can support even though how slight it is some room for our labour's right efficacy. Okay might we have a lot of questions that I want you to go through so if you don't mind I perhaps would skip the next set of questions comes from Elizabeth Wright and Philip Mead. Elizabeth Wright simply asked the question is there anything that foreign countries can do to influence the Chinese government's behaviour in Hong Kong or has China now become so powerful that no pressure will work so complementing that is the questions from Philip Mead which is to ask what you both would like to see the British governments do in support of people in Hong Kong in the struggle to retain democracy and how do you see you being able to do to support the democracy movement with young people in Hong Kong if over the long term the Hong Kong government education system will simply replicate that existing on the mainland of China so perhaps Michael first and then Nathan what can you do British education. Thanks Steve of course there are lots of things foreign governments are trying to do and they've been targeting individual officials with sanctions I doubt the serious effectiveness of that because the officials they target are typically ones who may have less interest in in the country that you know that that's doing the targeting but I think the one area that I think has been underdeveloped is how to respond to companies and corporate and financial institutions that may be co-opted into China's behaviour towards Hong Kong and I think that just has to be explored more that China literally asked companies and various corporate interests to support the national security law for example and so if they do support it then should there be a price for doing that and and my feeling is is if there is a price for doing that then China may be reluctant to ask them to do it so so you can have a very practical effect that a company can say to Chinese officials that are you know approaching them that you know well we can't really do this because we're doing Cathay Pacific was one of those companies we're doing flights to countries abroad and we don't want to be blocked because we we are actively involved in and helping you with this crackdown and so on in Hong Kong so I think those are those are the kinds of strategies that could be more explored when it comes to promoting human rights by countries that are famously willing to always just ignore sanctions and pressure that the pressure might be better directed towards protecting people in that corporate environment and so on and so that it's not that easy for China just to say no because you're you're criticizing us we're going to ignore you so I think it is it's a difficult thing because it's always been that case that China is famously said not to give into pressures so how can the cost of of being so offensive to human rights be imposed on governments like that that's that's my thought on that yeah okay Nathan and you figure out on the education side yeah well I think to a broader sense that the reason why I think Hong Kong has been swallowed into that situation is because like Beijing's confidence on its authoritarian model has grown since Xi Jinping got it got the term so I think at the essence the problem of Hong Kong is also the problem of the way China sees the world and in in terms of the education sector definitely there are a lot of things that civil society can still do um there are something that are not criminalized and we just need to find space and the cracks of doing so especially for now um the younger generation is very tech savvy and with a lot of work that can connect them through measures out of the classroom so I still have faith in that sense not all the all the all the youngsters are facing those like brainwashing education that they are perceived to receive by the authority okay next question is anonymous from a Hong Kong student who is in London speaking of emotional responses statistics show that a high number of Hong Kongers suffer from PTSD due to the recent events and I personally went through periods when I deliberately stopped watching the news to protect my mental health what are your advice on how to stay optimistic and well informed while continuing to uphold your beliefs and and and she continues to talk about how one has to constantly deal with fear or passion ignorance and even microaggression from people who disagree with yeah um so maybe I should share my experience um I've encountered a lot of like flat hand feet who have suffered from PTSD and all those traumas that they have received when they were on front lines or physical abuse that they have received some are very appalling and I guess for now that that that's the reason why I think we we need to have a community to support each other we have to create a community that provides counseling service provides a circle that for them they feel comfortable to talk about their experience and they expect people to understand them from time to time when I walk actually on the street in London I got recognized by Hong Kong and there was one time a Hong Kong student approached me and when he recognized me his tears just dropped down because he went back to Hong Kong participating in protest and went back to the UK and studied for several months and in his position he felt like no one understand why he was so worried and why he was crying when he watched the live feed and suddenly when he was walking on the street he felt someone that he was believed that I am most certain to understand how he feels and for him it was the emotional rush and he just felt like he was he finally finds found someone who truly understands him so I guess like for these occasions we indeed need a support network and I think a lot of Hong Kong NGOs are doing so and we have to pick up the speed because we understand well for me I truly understand how these emotional traumas could affect an individual and in every single level in his life or her life and I think it is one of the responsibilities that we have to carry. Mike? Yeah well I think you and I Steve are teachers and I think we a lot of the protesters were kind of of the age of our students and they may show up in our classes and I think one thing that I have found is is helpful for them is when they're writing a paper on what they're doing when they're focused and engaged in what they're doing maybe so as not to be just totally in despair about what happened to them back in on the street of Hong Kong but to focus in a future looking way a forward looking way and even that paper we get in our class I think has that kind of therapeutic effect. I agree with what Nathan says otherwise that the community supported all of that is obvious there's things that have to be done but as an individual I think at least I find focusing on I deal with human rights problems all the time could be greatly stressed by them but focusing on what I'm doing and in that sense that I'm writing something or doing something that can be useful I think is also a valuable tool. Okay next question come from a postgraduate student that saw us how exactly do you ambitious democratization of Hong Kong are you looking at a Indigenous Hong Kong democratic movement being able to succeed or are you seeing it as part of a wider democratization of China as a pre-condition perhaps Nathan says and then Mike. Well I think the Hong Kong democratization there's a need for the trans government to encounter a crisis and they have to resort to a way of legitimizing themselves by answering popular's voice to tackle that crisis so that we've got some more opportunities to change it's difficult for me to envision how it looks like because there are lots of different path introductory of how histories could evolve and how authoritarian regimes or totalitarian regimes crack down and to become a transitory or even democratic regime but I think most definitely there would definitely be a legitimacy crisis for Beijing and it incur a lot of of uprisings and all those problems of them and they have to answer those problems by changing the way it governs so that there's a possibility for Hong Kong otherwise if that periphery follows suit from what we are observing now it's difficult or the future for Hong Kong it's it's it's green Mike. Yeah I think turning this to China I mean a lot of people in the past thought that as China economically developed they would reach a tipping point and then there would be a turn towards democracy we saw that in South Korea we saw that in Taiwan so it's a common characteristic that the even economists the political economists would tell us a certain per capita income would reach is what a country will will shift and and then a few years ago we saw articles with titles like will China divide gravity a kind of argument that somehow the regime has very much aware of this tipping point it's very much aware that economic development may produce a society that wants a liberal you know participatory kind of government and so we see Xi Jinping coming to a point where he's cracking down a lot in China and arresting human rights defenders suppressing minority groups and so on and so there is a sense I think that that some of this will whether Hong Kong's future is bright will depend on what happens politically in China and one can again I think this for me this gets back to the part of people trying to understand what change would look like in China and many of us have Chinese students and and and Hong Kong students as well thinking about what change would look like and and working on it and and maybe we can be hopeful that a new generation will see the need for for the kinds of reforms we're talking about okay thank you next questions will also be anonymous it comes from a mainland Chinese student who is now at a London institution what do you think mainland Chinese students who are sympathetic or even supportive of Hong Kong's democracy movement can do to help it's a question from from a mainland Chinese student how can we help uh Nathan Thurs and then mine yeah the question reminds me of a lot of a genuine conversation that I had with Chinese students when I was um in the talk when I after the talk or in um well an office in the office hour of the university where I am teaching seminars currently and I think it's important for the world to recognize your voice because I think a lot of you your voice have been represented by little pink online are represented by extreme national nationalistic or patriotic voice that are manipulated and monopolized by the governments so that basically we a lot of external external world people see you as one and there's no diversity for that I think that is a tragedy because it is it's important for us to to recognize um the diversity and and different opinion from the group so that we can have more interaction and conversation with the people who still have a liberal mind and who still want to have an account of government in mainland China so that we can facilitate and cooperate more on different fronts including voicing for the human rights violations in mainland China and in Xinjiang and other parts of the country so I guess um it's difficult for me to give guidance because we're definitely situated in completely different position but I guess that's the way to go um Michael yeah I think again it gets me back to what Steve and I do we train students and and we've both had students coming from the mainland for many years and I've noticed a change in them uh it's interesting while post-Henan Munn uh re-education of the youth was aiming at I'm all internationalists I find I meet a lot who are not who ask the same question this student's asked asked here today uh and so I take some hope in that and and I suppose if you're that student or many others like him or her then it would be to study the institutions of government to understand what democracy and human rights is that you're advocating and and to start thinking about what a a future for your own country would look like I think you know it sounds like doing nothing but it is very important uh as as Nathan just pointed out if if all he hears is nationalism from mainland students then there's no cause for hope so I think especially those asking the question who are actually in in London uh then there is opportunity to understand what these things are and then then there will be a need to cheat to make choices in their own lives about where they go and what they do but I think uh while in London uh take advantage of the opportunity uh of academic freedom to to understand the issues with less than two minutes left I will put the last question from a source undergraduate uh very short answer please social media and this is from uh Charles Bellow social media is being increasingly used during modern day protests what role could it played in the future of Hong Kong's democracy movement Nathan and then you have final words Michael well it it facilitates a communication in between people who are in Hong Kong and outside of Hong Kong and in the protest it was massively used as a direct as a form of direct democracy people vote for ideas that they like and they formulate actions and I believe that the same format would continue in in in the future nonetheless we we don't know whether the government would turn off all those social media once the situation deteriorates but if as long as it's still alive it will play important role in our democratic movement thank you Professor Damage last word I agree I I've done participating in some studies where you do comparative work on social media so maybe better than repeating what Nathan said just repeat what I said a minute ago is that the student who asked the question should should be studying these issues and try to understand how social media if you want to promote human rights and democracy and secure them how you can use it and to study that while while you have a chance to do so in in your education right well thank you very much both of you for your very stimulating thoughts we have literally hit 430 which is when regrettably I will have the duty to draw these webinar discussion panel to a closed it's extremely interesting conversations we have and I apologize to many of you who have raised very very good questions that I have not been able to put to the two panelists please be reassured that your questions will be forward to them so that they will know what have been raised with them thank you very much and I hope to see many of you next week at our regular webinar thank you and goodbye thank you Steve thank you