Lots of point to cover, hopefully I can get them over in a coherent way. ---- Firstly, if youre trying to make sense of the broken window at Legco last night its important to understand that there is a significant player in this impasse that is gaining more and more ground as the protests continue. They are HKGolden. In its essence HKGolden is a chaotic forum (In Chinese) where people sound-out different ways to put pressure on the HK government. Like, almost everything in this Movement it is not centralised, but instead consists of clusters of groups/friends etc, who come together to organise escalating tactics. I witnessed the backend of their first flash-protests across Central a month back and predicted then that they would get stronger. I also went to check out their little Zoo trip, which resulted in a massive mobilisation of the police one Saturday afternoon. HKGolden does not only spend its energy dreaming up ways to increase the intensity of the protests against the Gov. They also spend a lot of time criticising HKFS, ProDem politicians and Scholarism, which they see as too passive. Any attempt at discussing retreating tactics by these more main stream groups quickly receives pushback from HKGolden. HKGolden now have a small stage at the Admiralty site. Is HKGolden infiltrated by the CCP United Front, I would say almost definitely. The forum is essentially a melting pot of ideas, from young radicals who truly believe in democracy and see the HK Gov as an illegitimate entity that needs to be confronted more violently, to dark shady characters who want to increase the level of violence in order to justify a harsher police crackdown. What keeps the level of intensity in check is that its fundamentally democratic in its decision making. In that if enough people agree with the action and can be bothered to turn up, then it will go ahead. If the idea doesnt garner any support then it falls by the wayside. In relation to main stream organisations, HKGolden is small, but as we can see from last night, they can be very effective at grabbing centre stage. It is important to understand that HKGolden is not a symptom of the lack of strong leadership on the ProDems, instead it is caused by the total apathy of the Gov to do anything constructive to get out of this mess. Its the Govs aloofness that is hardening their resolve to fight. I certainly dont advocate some of their tactics, I follow them, so I can see whats happening, but I dont support many of their ideas. The tightrope they walk is that; they are very vulnerable to being hijacked by CCP United Front Tactics who are working tirelessly to discredit the entire Pro-democracy Movement in HK. Having said that, I also admire many of them, because they are quickly becoming the new movers and shakers in this Movement. It doesnt matter whether your own personal sensibilities are offended by their tactics. Like social-movers in any sector of society, those at the forefront of change dont really care what the late-majority and laggards think. Which brings me to my second point, everyday we are bombarded with business-speak, that seeks to glorify business acumen and best practice. We have awards, reviews, magazines, TV shows all praising the leadership and entrepreneurial styles of people we barely know who have sold products we barely understand. Everyone wants to tell their story and be recognised for overcoming a problem, rising to a challenge, having single point focus, not being overwhelmed by unsurmountable obstacles, blah blah blah..... We go out of our way to applaud people who have truly captured the entrepreneurial spirit and somehow made a small part of our lives better. An old, but fantastic TED talk on this is given by Simon Sinek. Link below. I revisited this talk for separate reasons recently, but it occurred to me while listening to it that every part of it captures the essence of the Movement were experiencing today in HK. In the last half of Simon Sineks talk, he introduces The Law of Diffusion of Innovation, where he divides society into sections concerning how quick they are to adopt new ideas. This is already a tough bit of TED to watch when you have to silently admit where you stand on the graph. Are you in the 2.5% of innovators? 13.5% of early adopters, 34% of early majority. Or, and this is where it gets difficult to hear, are you resting easy in the 34% of the late majority, or miles behind in the 16% of laggards? Where ever you think you place on the graph, we can apply these numbers to this Movement. Whereas groups like Scholarism were once the 2.5% of innovators, they are now in the 13.5% of Early adopters. They are looking at HKGolden, who is at the forefront of innovating new ways to put more pressure on the Government. The HKFS are the early adopters, quickly adapting to their changing environment, but not overly leading it. They are also looking towards the 2.5% of innovators for cues. Whether its about creating a new piece of software, a smart phone or real democracy the first two groups are driven by what they want, not what the early majority wants. On top of this, they dont really care what the late majority or the laggards think. Thats why the students have decided to stay and Occupy, even though there may be a turn against them in the opinion polls. If you truly live in the first 16% of this graph, you really dont care what the backend thinks. If that hurts your feelings, then you should consider moving further up the graph. What drives these groups is a feeling that, if I do this, it will make the world a better place. This goes whether youre creating democracy or a new phone. The magic that Samsung keeps trying to steal from Apple lies here. Samsungs ultimate approach has always been the majority. How do we make a product that the majority will accept? Conversely, the design of the iPhone was created by innovators for innovators, and the early adopters snapped it up because it was so good, with the rest sluggishly following behind as time went on. Just like in the tech market, the pro-democracy innovators are not driven by what the majority wants. Which brings me to my final point; the students have always been critical for not having clear aims and goals. A popular criticism, especially pushed by Michael Chugani in SCMP has always been, well what do you hope to achieve? What results are you looking for? The NPCC will not change its decision, so why are you carrying on? They know what you want, and youre not going to get it. Chugani makes a good case for people in the back 84% of the Law of Diffusion of Innovation. Chugani would decry - What youre aiming to do is impossible, so why should we follow you? What he misses is that, as Ive hopefully made clear, the people in the front 16% arent really motivated by what the back 84% want. They are Democracy Entrepreneurs, with all the same characteristics of a tech entrepreneur. Their focus is on creating disruptive systems that force society to move, whether it asked of it per not. If its good, people will follow. Its a massive risk, that theyre prepared to take on their heads. Why, because they truly believe in it. Their thinking is not, if I do this action, I can win over the support of the majority. Their thinking is, this is the world I want to live in and Im going to make it like so. They know that most people are adverse to risk, so they are not waiting for them - If man waited for the early majority to define our futures then we would still be stuck in caves. So, based on this, the students have vowed to stay to the very end. No retreat unless the Government starts to negotiate. Again the back 84% begin to scratch their heads and try and compartmentalise their actions into their mostly risk free worlds. For majority, this is not a plan, because most people are used to carrying out actions that have clear results or at least objectives that might be achieved. For them, doing an action thats only known outcome is to be disruptive is completely alien and pointless. The majority want to have a semblance of control... I do this, get this, or if I dont get what i want, theres some sort of compensation for my loss. Risk adverse! But if youre in the front 16% you will totally get this. The students arent scared of the disruptive behaviour theyre doing, because they believe it ultimately hurts the government more than them or society. In fact they believe it will help society in the long run. The government fears this behaviour and like in any true civil disobedience movement the protesters are goading the malign government to show its true colours upon them. The students do not feat the unknown consequences of their actions. If it were a game of poker, the students have looked the government in the eye and said, Were not folding. You have to deal with us, we are not retreating. You either negotiate sincerely or you clear us off the streets and deal with the unknown consequences that it will bring. The students are creating the conditions for disruptive behaviour that we so glorify in business yet feel uncomfortable about when it concerns our own political rights. They are true social innovators - any knee-jerk reactions you may have to their tactics is probably indicative as to where you lie of the Law of Diffusion of Innovation. Anyway.. to have more of an idea of what the hell Im jabbering on about watch the video The entire talk is relevant to what were experiencing now in HK, but if you want to go straight to the Law of Diffusion of Innovation start before 11mins. https://youtube/watch?v=mqZyg2XAmDk
Posted on: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 03:11:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015