Pro-Beijing protesters gathered again this morning as a museum commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre officially reopened in a new location after a long hiatus.
In the weeks leading up to the reopening, the June 4 Museum was ransacked by vandals and visited by groups of pro-Beijing demonstrators, who claimed to represent the interests of the building’s owners and maintained the museum posed a fire hazard.
Today’s protest began when a group of about 20 people — some claiming to be residents of the area — turned up outside the entrance of Ngai Wong Commercial Building on Mong Kok Road, RTHK reports.
One of the protesters, who only gave his last name as Ng, told reporters that he was concerned the museum posed a health and safety hazard because of faulty wiring. He showed reporters what he maintained was a photo of a notice posted in the building by the person in charge of renovating the museum saying that its operators had refused to replace a faulty wire, and that he was concerned about the potential dangers caused by the electrical installations.
The man acknowledged to reporters that he had no stake in the building himself, but claimed several of his mother’s friends owned units in the building.
With the pro-Beijing demonstrators outside the building, members of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China — the organization the operates the museum — went ahead with a press conference inside to reopen the museum as planned.
"'The people will not forget! Reverse 64!" pic.twitter.com/qcQeDskz0r
— Vicky Wong 黃瑋殷 (@vickywong710) April 26, 2019
Speaking to reporters, the Alliance’s chairman, Albert Ho, said the opening of the museum is “a clear demonstration of our commitment to uphold memory, to pursue justice, and hope for the future of our country.”
Ho said that the date of the reopening, April 26, was symbolic, as 30 years ago today, the state-run newspaper People’s Daily published a front page editorial condemning the student movement that gave rise to the Tiananmen protests, by “characterizing it as causing social turmoil.”
You can hear pro Beijing supporters from up here and we're on the 10th floor pic.twitter.com/76TvQYwkY8
— Vicky Wong 黃瑋殷 (@vickywong710) April 26, 2019
The editorial came the day after a meeting between then-Premier Deng Xiaoping and the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) that determined the students wanted to overthrow the Communist Party, and signaled that party leadership would not tolerate the student protests.
“The whole concept of the museum embodies three very distinguished themes, mainly memory, justice, and hope,” Ho said. “Memory means that we will continue and commit to upholding and preserving memory. We cannot lose sight of the past and close our eyes to the injustice in the past. Because if we do not remember the past, we will lose sight of the future.”
On the theme of justice, Ho said the Alliance would continue their movement to call for the the vindication of the student activists who lost their lives in the massacre, and to bring those responsible to justice. Though a definitive death toll was never established, hundreds of demonstrators were killed when the People’s Army rolled into the square to break up the protests.
As for hope, Ho said: “We hope to look for a transition and transformation of the country towards a full constitutional democracy and a free society.”
Responding to a question about the purported safety hazards raised by the pro-Beijing group, Ho said “the renovation works were done by professional people, they certified that everything is in the proper order and that the necessary certification will be issued.”
Ho also noted that the police investigation into the vandalism earlier this month is still ongoing and that no arrests have been made, but in the meantime they have stepped up security measures for the museum.
Speaking to Coconuts HK, the vice chair of the Alliance, Richard Tsoi, elaborated that some of these measures included installing CCTV cameras and increasing manpower during the museum’s operating hours.
He also said he noticed there were more police officers patrolling the area around the museum, which made him feel safer.
“Even in the old museum, there were always some pro-Beijing protesters protesting the opening of the June 4 Museum five years ago, but this year there seems to be more of these kinds of groups,” he said.
“We’ll probably have more of these kinds of ongoing disruptions, intervention, and suppression to our work, but certainly we’ll continue to uphold our beliefs and continue our work.”
Tsoi said he wouldn’t be surprised if there were another incident similar to the break-in earlier this month.
“Of course we don’t want to see these kinds of situations, but we have group preparation, and we’re certainly afraid if this kind of pro-Beijing people try to disrupt the operation of the June 4 Museum, especially by using illegal means, it would certainly make Hong Kong people angry.”
As the press conference was under way, another pro-Beijing group called The Voice of Loving Hong Kong, which has a reputation for using disruptive tactics, arrived at the scene bearing a banner with the words: “The June 4 Museum is spreading inaccurate facts, falsely accusing the country, and tormenting the citizens.”
One of the pro-Beijing protesters outside the museum was Harry Wu, who accused the organization of being unpatriotic, and told Coconuts HK that the Alliance was “using the words 6/4 to deceive Hongkongers, and our patriotic hearts,” without elaborating on the nature of the alleged deception. Wu also implied that the Alliance had been stealing Hongkongers’ donations for 30 years.
At one point, at least three fire trucks arrived at the scene responding to an apparently fraudulent report of a gas leak in the building, on.cc reports. Tsoi told the outlet that firefighters asked if there were any gas equipment or appliances inside the museum, and when he told them the gas pipe had been removed from the museum, they left.
Police confirmed to Coconuts HK that they received a report about an alleged gas leak in the building, but have since classified the call as a “hoax report.”
Reader Interactions