Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Why the people are protesting in Hong Kong

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Syed Ahmed Uzair

Article Title

Why the people are protesting in Hong Kong

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 18, 2020

URL

Signs condemning police brutality - Tensions rise in Hong Kong after the government banned protest

Signs condemning police brutality - Tensions rise in Hong Kong after the government banned protest | Source: Joseph Chan via Unsplash

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China located on the Eastern Pearl River Delta of the South China Sea. From 1842 to 1997, the region was under the control of the Britishers.

In 1997 the  sovereignty of Hong Kong was transferred to China with the principle of “one country, two systems” which provided some degree of autonomy for Hong Kong. This system was supposed to be in force for a period of minimum fifty years from 1997 to 2047. However, under President Xi Jinping, China has been aggressively making such rules and regulations which increase the influence of mainland China on administration of Hong Kong.

In June 2020, China started implementing a new national security law for which potentially severely limits the independence of the judiciary of Hong Kong. Under the proposed law, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, who is answerable to Beijing, gets the power to appoint judges for specific security cases. It also calls for setting up a security agency in Hong Kong to resolve existing conflicts and challenges faced by Beijing with respect to Hong Kong.

China defended the law by citing that it would prevent and punish secession, subversion as well as foreign infiltration. Beijing has argued that these three factors are responsible for fuelling unrest in the city since last year. Critics however have very different opinions regarding the law. For them this law directly attacks the relative autonomy granted to Hong Kong after Britain handed it back to China in 1997.

The law can potentially be employed to target anti-government protests and other forms of dissent in the region of Hong Kong. It has instilled fear in the minds of the Hong Kong residents that the Chinese Communist Party is trying to curb the freedom of speech and protest in the region in an effort to bring Hong Kong under its authoritarian rule.

Many protesters are of the belief that the local governments of Hong Kong are no longer autonomous and act on the whims of Beijing. They accuse the city's top leader, Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who is appointed by Beijing, of acting only in the interest of mainland China while ignoring to safeguard the autonomy of Hong Kong.

The protests Hong Kong witnessed in May 2020, were quite similar to the ones the city witnessed almost a year ago when China proposed an extradition law for Hong Kong. The law was eventually scrapped after a flurry of protests. However the protest against the territory’s existing leadership turned into a protest against Chinese ruling party’s efforts to merge Hong Kong with mainland China.

At its core, the protest movement is aimed at protecting Hong Kong’s autonomy and resisting encroachment from the mainland. However, China’s adamant approach in bringing Hong Kong under the mainland amidst a falling economy and rising agitation and police brutality has had a negative impact on the residents.

Many Hong Kong protesters have started moving to countries who are willing to adopt them over fears of being under scrutiny from the Chinese government. Many of the skilled workers are now looking at ways to exit the city and move to better alternatives. More than half of the people from the age group of 18 to 24 are considering options outside of Hong Kong owing to the uncertainty surrounding the region’s fate.

Despite the protest by citizens and condemnation and actions by the US, Britain and other Western countries, it seems unlikely that China is going to halt its efforts to dismantle the autonomy of Hong Kong and effectively merge it with the mainland China.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:52 PM

Randomised Control Trials and the Alleviation of Poverty in India

Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics for their “experimental approach in alleviating global poverty”. Their experimental approach encompassed a variety of novel methods to understand and analyse interventions and Randomised Control Trials (RCTs). Their research has been used by policy makers to make informed policy decisions to best help the marginalised.

What are RCTs?

To understand the effect of a policy, intervention, or medicine, decision makers try to measure the efficacy of the treatment. Do deworming pills given to children improve test scores? Does providing chlorinated water improve the health and economic outcomes of villages? These are some causal (read causal, i.e. caused by, not casual) questions researchers are interested in. The best way to analyse causal effects is to randomise the selection of people in the treatment and the control group (for example: children who are given deworming pills versus children who are not given the pills). This random selection of the two groups removes many statistical biases that might affect the results.

RCTs in India:

Many of the RCTs performed by Banerjee and Duflo were in India. They involved short- and long-term impact assessments of various interventions, policies, models, and treatments. We look at a few RCTs implemented in India:

Teacher absenteeism rates:

Troubled by the low attendance rates (or high absence rates) of public-school teachers in India, Duflo assessed the impact of financial incentives on the absence rates of teachers in Rajasthan. The study monitored teacher attendance by cameras, which was tied to a financial incentive if the attendance was high. From a baseline absence rate of 44%, teacher absenteeism in the treatment group fell by 21%, relative to the control group. High teacher attendance caused child test scores to improve too.

COVID-19 and health-seeking behaviour:

In the context of COVID-19, Banerjee tested the effect of sending messages via SMS that promoted health preserving behaviour. The results were very positive. By sending a short, 2.5-minute clip to 25 million randomly selected individuals in West Bengal, the intervention i) found a two-fold increase in symptom reporting to village health workers, ii) increased hand washing rates by 7%, and iii) increased mask-wearing by 2%. While mask-wearing rates increased only marginally, the spillover effects (wearing a mask stops the virus from infecting more people) were moderately high and positive.

Asset Transfers and the Notion of Poverty:

An RCT by Banerjee in West Bengal involving a productive asset transfer accompanied with training found large and persistent effects on monthly consumption and other variables. The treatment group reported 25% higher consumption levels relative to the control group, who did not receive the asset transfer and training. Implications of such RCTs are huge. The notion that the poor are lazy and unwilling to perform strenuous labour is falsified by this RCT. Often, what the poor lack are opportunities that are hard to come by, given their financial status. A small nudge, like the asset transfer, can cause large and positive effects on their well-being.  

Salt fortification to reduce anaemia:

RCTs also help rule out less cost-effective interventions. Duflo and Banerjee evaluated an RCT which distributed fortified salt in 400 villages of Bihar, to reduce the prevalence of anaemia. However, this intervention found no statistically significant impact on health outcomes like anaemia, hemoglobin, etc.  Thus, while RCTs help introduce novel methods of impacting the lives of the poor, they also help in ruling out in-effective measures. A policy maker might try other alternatives to reduce the prevalence of anaemia.

Are RCTs the gold standard?

Maybe. Extrapolating results from a regional RCT to national policies could present problems. Contextuality matters. A study that indicates positive gains for one region might present different, and rather adverse effects for another region. Nation wide effects might not be as prominent as regional results of a single RCT. The good part is that Banerjee and Duflo have a solution. Just perform more RCTs!

Read More