Foreign Media Reports on ‘Occupy Central’ Just the Same Old Story

If one should take Western media reports on Hong Kong’s “Occupy Central” movement to be a test of their understanding of China, would they make the grade?

Indeed, there have been several bumps along the path of Hong Kong’s development, including the demands of demonstrators seeking changes to electoral procedures for selecting the chief executive, as well as a widening wealth gap. However, these problems cannot be resolved through street politicking, a course that will only deepen divisions and heighten antagonism. The proof of this has already been seen in various street political movements all over the world, and is acknowledged even by the Western media.

In 2011, the “Occupy Wall Street” movement sprang up in New York and quickly spread across the rest of the country. Much larger in scale than “Occupy Central,” its supporters similarly drew up a none-too-inconsiderable list of political demands. But the U.S. media was slow to report on the movement, and such coverage, when it came, was largely downplayed. Now that the scene has shifted to Hong Kong, such street politics are being regarded in a different light, styled as “the advancement of the democratic revolution.”

At a time when the eyes and ears of the Western media reach into almost every corner of China, the issuance of such a bipolar assessment, simplistic and slapdash, is a product of the Western media’s failure to change the logic and methods through which it seeks to understand China.

When one uses antiquated methods for interpreting Chinese affairs from decades or even a century ago, views issues as complex as “Occupy Central” through the conceptual lens of Western democratic systems, and subconsciously pigeonholes China into a position opposite the West, how can they expect to get an accurate grasp of the pulse of modern China?

The Beijing of today is far wiser, more capable and more patient in its administration of the country than its former self, and against the backdrop of China’s continued development, problems such as this will not come to shake the foundations of societal stability. This is the fundamental conclusion that should be reached on realities in China.

Most importantly, the central government has grown more confident in managing and controlling such matters. One need only look at China’s development and its changing position on the international stage over the past decade. With interior cities, such as Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen steadily closing the gap with Hong Kong, it is quite easy to see from where that confidence has come.

Democracy is not just an empty doctrine; the weight of its substance lies in whether it can create a foundation for stable development. This is the basic premise from which an understanding of China and the administrative ability of the Chinese government should proceed. A departure from this premise will necessarily result in a flawed evaluation of China.

In 1995, Fortune magazine published a report entitled “The Death of Hong Kong.” On the 10th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to China, Fortune’s sister publication, Time magazine, told another story with a 25-page cover story: “Hong Kong Is More Alive than Ever.” We can leave to history the task of weighing Western media reports on “Occupy Central,” but one point is already certain beyond doubt: The overwhelming majority of students taking to the streets of Hong Kong today will still see their future lives and jobs tied in some way to China. It is they who are the beneficiaries of Chinese stability.

The author is a senior correspondent for the People’s Daily.