Overthrowing the Communist Party of China
(An essay posted on Facebook, May 22, 2020)
For those who are pro-Chinese Communist Party (CCP), one of their reasons to defend the National Security Law is that the Law will only be used to target a small violent group advocating Hong Kong independence. That it will not affect the daily lives of the majority of Hong Kongers. The Civil Human Rights Front called for more than 2 million Hong Kongers to stand up against the passing of the evil law by Beijing next week. If 2 million people will jointly state that they are overthrowing the CCP regime, then the claim that the Law will only affect a minority will be quashed. What we have been doing all along is to overthrow the CCP regime. By legislating a law that millions will be breaking, the CCP is creating a constitutional crisis that can lead to self-destruction.
To defend the authority of the National Security Law, they will have to put 2 million people through trial and conviction. This will be no different than large scale ethnic cleansing. The scope of suppression in Xinjiang is affecting 1 million people at most. Is the CCP planning to set up a re-education camp in Hong Kong - a place that serves as an international emergency exit for China?
According to CCP supporters, the CCP will only dare use the National Security Law to target a small group of people. Even as such, the CCP is digging its own grave because there will still be 1.99 million other criminals at large,. It will in effect diminish the authority of the National Security Law, proving that even when the law is passed, millions of Hong Kongers will still have the freedom to overthrow the CCP in the city. This will not only damage the governing authority of Beijing, it will also be challenged by citizens from across the nation. It may even lead to copycat protests that may spread to the whole country and ultimately lead to the demise of the CCP regime.
Two million people admitting to the crime of subversion will put the CCP in an awkward and difficult situation. This fatal logic is beyond the CCP's comprehension.
However, when it comes to Hong Kong, there might be 1 million saying to another million people, “Well I just want to defend the autonomy and freedom of Hong Kong. I am not committing treason.” This is a special characteristic among Hong Kong people - they will not do anything illegal. I saw someone comment on the Civil Human Rights Front statement saying, “How do we get a lot of people to come out and not violate the prohibition on group gathering?” These 22 years of obedience training has stopped a lot of Hong Kongers from thinking properly. They oppose the evil law on the one hand but also obey it on the other!
Those who are determined to overthrow the CCP have just realized that their path is diverting from that of the people they have walked alongside all this time. Showing solidarity with our comrades no matter what happens was a lie. Turns out many of these protesters are willing to recognize the CCP as a legitimate regime in order to avoid breaking the National Security Law. Under this circumstance, the National Security Law has achieved its aim to suppress the minority and unite the majority.
Therefore, you have to ask - are anti-communist activists still the majority?
On 27 June 1968, Czech writer Ludvík Vaculik published the Two Thousand Words Manifesto which gained 30,000 co-signatures from fellow Czechs in one week. This led to the beginning of the Prague spring. It symbolized the unity of Czechs in opposing the Soviet Union. Vaculik’s weakness was that he chose the wrong path. He belonged to the Czech communist party. He supported the internal reforms in the Soviet Union. He denied overthrowing the communist rule. This equivocal stand gave the Soviet Union a false impression that the Czechs continued to recognize its legitimacy.
The Two Thousand Words Manifesto became a blacklist for the communist party to arrest its enemies. Intellectuals like Václav Havel were arrested and many escaped to France. Secret police arrested and interrogated one ordinary citizen after another, asking “Did you sign the Two Thousand Words Manifesto?” Faced with a life or death situation, many Czechs showed their weak selves and said, “No”.
Therefore, just as Milan Kundera said, Czechs had to wait for the third twenty-years to be liberated in 1989. But I have to mention that Kundera defended the right not to sign the manifesto. His reasoning was reflected in The Unbearable Lightness of Being (a 1984 novel by Milan Kundera): “All his decisions followed only one rule - that was not to harm her (Tereza). Tomáš could not save political criminals but he could give Tereza happiness. He didn’t achieve that. But if he signed the petition, he was sure the secret police would have visited her a lot and her shaky hands would shake even more.”
Hong Kongers are about to experience the kind of dilemma described in this novel. Do I live in truth or get by with lies? Do I defend the common political life or a private life not worthy of mention? Such difficult choices cannot be easily decided with the usual political cost-benefit analysis. At this juncture however, having this perspective from the novel is so precious. With this perspective, we will know what kind of freedom we are defending. We will stand up and admit to our subversion in the hopes that the aforementioned history will not repeat itself.
Source:
https://www.facebook.com/972393926144079/posts/3207331115983671/?d=n (https://www.facebook.com/972393926144079/posts/3207331115983671/?d=n)