Why Do Hong Kong Protests Target Public Facilities?

The recent protests in Hong Kong have sparked widespread international attention, with many questioning the motivations behind the actions of the demonstrators. One of the most contentious topics is the targeting of public facilities, which often results in significant repair costs and controversy. To understand the reasoning behind these actions, it is essential to explore the aspirations and frustrations driving the protesters, as well as the reactions from authorities and the broader society.

Government Response and the Rejection of Pro-BEIJING Control

Protesters in Hong Kong often feel marginalized by the government's response to their demands. Over the past two decades, the government, under the pro-Beijing HKSAR regime, has accelerated the mainlandization process and implemented policies prioritizing PRC immigrants. Despite peaceful protests and a largely non-violent Occupy movement, the government continues to ignore the protesters' voices. This lack of engagement has led some protesters to resort to symbolic acts of vandalism, particularly on facilities and structures associated with surveillance and political control.

A recent example from the Legislative Council (Legco) demonstrates the protesters' attempt to balance their actions with a message of non-violence. Signs were placed in the library requesting the protection of books and artifacts from damage. Additionally, the canteen providers were paid for, with a sign declaring they are not thieves who would steal from the Legco facilities. While these actions may seem contradictory, they reflect the protesters' desire to convey a message without causing unnecessary harm to public property.

Cost and Consequences of Damaged Public Facilities

The destruction of public facilities comes with substantial costs, often borne by the public. For instance, the Legislative Council (Legco) could face repair expenses of up to HK10 million due to vandalism. This high cost not only affects the finances of the local government but also represents a drain on resources that could otherwise be used for essential public services.

The root of this conflict lies in the deep-seated frustrations of the Hong Kong population. Over the past 20 years, the society has experienced a widening wealth gap, alongside a lack of transparency and accountability from the government. Voicing these grievances peacefully has not yielded tangible results, leading some to believe that more drastic actions are necessary to draw international attention and force the government to listen.

Protester’s Perspective and the Need for International Attention

Protesters argue that the government has failed to hear their voices despite years of peaceful demonstrations. They believe that damaging public facilities, while controversial, draws international attention to the cause. For instance, removing traffic lights and street poles can protect protesters from police brutality and highlight the government's abusive tactics. The rationale is that unless voices are amplified through such actions, they remain unheard. Protests alone, without any physical action, do little to achieve transformative change.

Counter-Arguments and Criticism

Opponents of the protests argue that targeting public facilities is counterproductive and detrimental. They claim that such actions create inconvenience, waste public funds, and may alienate potential supporters. The comparison to a child throwing a tantrum is often made, suggesting that these actions are emotional and demanding without clear, achievable goals.

Supporters of the protesters argue that targeting public facilities is a form of civic dissent and a protest strategy that aims to highlight the frustration and dissatisfaction with the current government. They believe that the only way to be heard is to challenge the status quo through symbolic actions.

Conclusion

The issue of why protesters target public facilities in Hong Kong is complex and multifaceted. It reflects a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the current political climate and a profound sense of betrayal. Whether viewed through the lens of supporters or critics, the actions taken by protesters have significant implications for the society, the government, and the international community. As the situation evolves, it is crucial to continue exploring these perspectives to foster a more inclusive and informed dialogue.