Hong Kong politician condemns protest violence as 'terrorism,' echoing Beijing

Read Story Transcript

An adviser to Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam is backing the Chinese government's condemnation of what they call "near-terrorist acts" at the city's airport on Tuesday, as clashes between police and protesters turned violent. 

In one instance, the protesters held a man that they said was an undercover police officer, but who Chinese media have said was a reporter from China's Global Times newspaper. Police responded with tear gas as protests continued on the streets. 

The protesters offered an apology to travelers on Wednesday, writing in an emailed statement that some of them had become "easily agitated and overreacted." 

Ronny Tong, a member of Hong Kong's Executive Council, spoke with As It Happens Nil Köksal about why he doesn't think an apology from the protesters is enough. Here is part of their conversation. 

I want to start with one of the videos that's been circulating. It shows protesters detaining a man with cable ties. Why do you think protesters did this?

I think most people in Hong Kong are at a loss as to how such violent acts could occur in Hong Kong. 

They assumed that ... the person detained may be working with mainland police. But there was no evidence about that. He was, in fact, a reporter. But I think nothing justifies violence. 

It's interesting that you put it that way because I've been speaking to people who have been in the protests over the last little while, specifically at the airport. And they used, kind of, the same phrasing. They said, "Why did the police have to go so far this past weekend?" 

So can you appreciate that the protesters, many of them, are perhaps at a boiling point? 

If nobody breaks the law, I don't think the police would do anything at all. So far there has been a lot of accusations about police overstepping the line. But we haven't actually see any concrete evidence of the police acting in brutality against the protesters.

A woman lost her eye over the weekend, as we've been told. There was pepper spray yesterday. 

There are conflicting evidence as to how the girl got injured. Whether she was, in fact, hit by steel projectiles fired from slingshots of comrades or from the police. 

In fact, she made no report to the police and the police have been trying very hard to try to investigate and get her to co-operate with the police so that the truth can come out. 

I think it is very dangerous to assume … one thing or another without looking at the hard facts. 

There was tear gas in a metro station over the weekend. [On Tuesday], specifically, pepper spray. And there is also footage ... of an officer pulling out his gun.

Oh, of course there was.

Do you expect anything less if a similar situation were to occur in Toronto or anywhere in Canada or in the United States or in the United Kingdom, where police are confronted with, you know, people arming to the teeth with steel rods, with slingshots and steel projectiles and corrosive liquid and petrol bombs? What do you expect the police to do? 

There are also many, many peaceful protesters. In fact, that's what we've seen a lot of at the airport. And many of those protesters, they apologized to travelers and the general public. There were scenes, in fact, of some of them bowing at the airport. What do you make of that apology? 

I don't think anybody has made any suggestion that the police had tried to do anything to those who are behaving themselves and protesting peacefully. 

Yes, they did apologize. In fact, they did that every time over the last two months. 

There's been a loss of trust though, clearly, so how do you get it back? 

I think trust needed to be built.

The chief executive has openly apologized more than once and … the proposed amendment, which sparked all this, you know, has been suspended. 

So the main purpose of the protesters had already been achieved. If so, why are they still going onto the streets and committing violent crimes? 

On top of the list of demands, as you know, is a full withdrawal of that controversial extradition bill. Not just a shelving of it. Why hasn't that happened? 

That is an argument in semantics. The fact is that the chief executive has said openly that she would not bring it back. It is as good as dead. Isn't that enough?

Why are we arguing over what language is being used and use that as justification to resort to violence? Nothing justifies violence.

But [the protesters] look at the images of armoured personnel carriers at the southern border near Hong Kong. People are worried about a severe crackdown.

I worry about, you know, the [People's Liberation Army] as well as anybody else. And I just do not wish to see that happen. 

However, one must understand that under the Basic Law, which is the mini-constitution that we have in Hong Kong, there are clear provisions for the PLA to intervene in the event that the [Special Administrative Region] government is unable to control the situation in Hong Kong. 

And that is why we are doing our utmost to try to control the situation. And please don't tell me that, you know, you can't control the situation because you've got to let these young people do what they want.

That would be precisely the recipe to invite the PLA to come to Hong Kong, which nobody wants to see. This is a vicious circle. Don't you understand? 

The Chinese government has called the events at the airport last night "terrorist-like [acts]." Would you use that language? 

Yes.

Doesn't it fit in the definition of terrorism, you know, as defined by the United Nations?

Go and check on Oxford Dictionary.

When people are abusing their rights and frightening civilians, you are acting in a terrorist manner. That's the definition you will find in Oxford Dictionary.

So many of the protesters are young men and young women. How worried are you that the younger generation is just not satisfied with the status quo? 

Hong Kong cannot go on independence. Hong Kong is part of China. We run a system called "one country, two systems." That means one country, sorry, not two countries. So any such demand is not only ... constitutionally wrong, but politically wrong, and there's no conceivable chance that that would happen.

How far do you think the leadership and the police in Hong Kong are willing to go to fight the protesters if this continues? 

I don't know. 

I hope that, you know, protesters are out there listening to this interview and realize that everybody is trying their very best to try to bring everybody around to the conference table. 

Let's hope that, you know, tomorrow we see a calmer, more orderly Hong Kong.

Written by Sarah Jackson with files from Reuters. Produced by Jeanne Armstrong. Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.