Hong-Kong Protests

Mr T

Senior Member
If you think that the actions and opinions expressed by various HK politicians over the years...

In a democratic society it's not possible to muzzle the views of radical politicians if they're operating within the law. The CCP had several decades (even longer if you consider the time before the end of the civil war) to see how democracies around the world have diversity of opinion and that even within political parties there is disagreement. The CCP itself has historically had many bitter internal arguments over China's future.

Hong Kong itself is right next to mainland China, and it was no secret what politicians had to say about the prospect of unification with the PRC. There's no way the CCP could have been shocked by the opinions expressed in HK after 1997, unless it was completely deluded.

Rather, it seems that the CCP hardliners who eventually took over control of the PRC awkwardly found themselves bound by an agreement signed by a more liberal and open-minded faction of the party decades previously. That's not the fault of Hong Kong. That's the fault of the the CCP hardliners who decided that absolute control was more important than living up to the promises made previously.

And no, China most certainly does not control HK's education system. If they did, then perhaps the phenomena seen over the years would not have occurred.

The CCP and its HK allies control the curriculum, approval of textbooks and all other state-involvement in the system. The HK government was even behind the liberal studies course that CCP-allies themselves have now blamed for fuelling the protests - because those same people had been worried a decade ago that HK was spitting out robots that couldn't think for themselves.
 

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
In a democratic society it's not possible to muzzle the views of radical politicians if they're operating within the law. The CCP had several decades (even longer if you consider the time before the end of the civil war) to see how democracies around the world have diversity of opinion and that even within political parties there is disagreement. The CCP itself has historically had many bitter internal arguments over China's future.

Hong Kong itself is right next to mainland China, and it was no secret what politicians had to say about the prospect of unification with the PRC. There's no way the CCP could have been shocked by the opinions expressed in HK after 1997, unless it was completely deluded.

Rather, it seems that the CCP hardliners who eventually took over control of the PRC awkwardly found themselves bound by an agreement signed by a more liberal and open-minded faction of the party decades previously. That's not the fault of Hong Kong. That's the fault of the the CCP hardliners who decided that absolute control was more important than living up to the promises made previously.



The CCP and its HK allies control the curriculum, approval of textbooks and all other state-involvement in the system. The HK government was even behind the liberal studies course that CCP-allies themselves have now blamed for fuelling the protests - because those same people had been worried a decade ago that HK was spitting out robots that couldn't think for themselves.

Your point being ?
Old CCP did things the way it did maybe...just maybe...China was biding time and trying to develop ? I think we have had many posts in this thread discussing why the CCP didn't take swifter action and it was discussed through an "n" number of posts that Economics, Politics, Trade, Diplomacy etc tied the hands of CCP.

Also, why didn't the HK people continue to protest all these years? They could have kept the momentum going after the TiAnEnMEn MasSaCRe .
( Maybe after a hiatus of 5 to 10 years. But certainly new protests could have been initiated by 2000 -2001 ( when China joined the WTO)

Why now?
They could have protested as vigorously by torching shops, attacking mainlanders and taking down flags and symbols when HK still held on to "the most financially powerful city of China " status. In fact, if the HK people really wanted "freedom" and "democracy", they could have did it when they were the most empowered ( 10 years ago). The period from 1990 to 2010 to be exact.

China was very vulnerable back then. US was solidly the most powerful country then. Russia was in shambles. Western countries and Eastern Vassals of US were still the most powerful and developed countries. The world was not as dependent on China as it is now.
 

10thman

Junior Member
Registered Member
There's no couch cure for such delusion. Whoever came up with that idea should be shipped out to a new permanent consular post in Siberia asap.

With so much Covid damage at hand, they are still cooking up ideas to get 100 more Lehman moments. All at the same time.
Bad ideas being implemented are no longer far fetched
The world is more dangerous now than ever

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The threat of U.S. action to undermine Hong Kong’s longstanding U.S. dollar peg is highly unlikely to become reality given the practical difficulties of pursing such a path and the damage it would do to U.S. interests, economists say.

Economists reacted after a report that some advisers to President Donald Trump want the U.S. to undermine the Hong Kong dollar peg as the administration considers options to punish China for limiting Hong Kong’s autonomy, according to people familiar with the matter. Hong Kong has pegged its currency to the U.S. dollar since 1983, allowing it to fluctuate within a fairly strict band that has centered around 7.8 per U.S. dollar.

The most straightforward way to implement such a strategy would be for the U.S. to impose limits on the ability of American and potentially other foreign banks to sell U.S. dollars to Chinese lenders, possibly via sanctions on Chinese banks, said Ding Shuang, chief economist for Greater China and North Asia at Standard Chartered Plc in Hong Kong. But that proposal opens the U.S. to potentially damaging consequences, he said.

That approach “sounds quite radical and will have profound and unpredictable implications not only for China’s banks, but also the U.S. banks and the global financial market,” Ding said. “I see a low likelihood for the U.S. to resort to such a potentially self-defeating approach, before options that cause more problems for China than for the U.S. are exhausted.”

China’s strong external position -- including a current account surplus, high foreign exchange reserves and anticipated speedier recovery from the pandemic -- are factors that will help to mitigate the fallout from such a step, Ding said.

The proposal is said to face strong opposition from some in the U.S. administration and the idea of attacking the dollar peg is lower on the list of options under discussion -- because it would hurt Hong Kong banks and the U.S. more than China.

Yet if the U.S. were to impose such restrictions, one way would be for the U.S. Treasury to limit U.S. banks from providing dollar funding to Hong Kong and Chinese banks, which would drive up costs, said Stephen Innes, chief global market strategist with AxiCorp.

“Drying up the swap market would be the easiest vehicle,” he said. “To the degree they can exert that pressure is yet to be seen, as U.S. banks don’t want to give up access to China markets.”

Other financial measures are on the table, especially given the U.S. took the step even before imposition of the security law to declare that Hong Kong was no longer significantly autonomous from China. Kevin Lai, chief economist for Asia ex-Japan at Daiwa Securities Group Inc. in Hong Kong, said an “extreme” alternative would be to cut off Hong Kong from SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication, a network used to clear global currency transactions.

“That’s a nuclear option -- it’s unlikely but not impossible,” he said. “Without access to the global U.S. dollar pool, the Hong Kong dollar will not be functional.”

A less dramatic option would be to set limits on exposure to the Hong Kong dollar for U.S. banks and firms, said Becky Liu, head of China macro strategy at Standard Chartered.

“In recent days the U.S. has taken some totally unexpected actions like withdrawing from the WHO,” she said, referring to the World Health Organization. “So the likelihood of the U.S. doing something is still very likely, it’s just likely to be less drastic in terms of impacting the convertibility between the HKD and USD.”
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
In a democratic society it's not possible to muzzle the views of radical politicians if they're operating within the law. The CCP had several decades (even longer if you consider the time before the end of the civil war) to see how democracies around the world have diversity of opinion and that even within political parties there is disagreement. The CCP itself has historically had many bitter internal arguments over China's future.

Hong Kong itself is right next to mainland China, and it was no secret what politicians had to say about the prospect of unification with the PRC. There's no way the CCP could have been shocked by the opinions expressed in HK after 1997, unless it was completely deluded.

Rather, it seems that the CCP hardliners who eventually took over control of the PRC awkwardly found themselves bound by an agreement signed by a more liberal and open-minded faction of the party decades previously. That's not the fault of Hong Kong. That's the fault of the the CCP hardliners who decided that absolute control was more important than living up to the promises made previously.

If you're making it sound like the more "liberal" CCP predecessors would have granted greater political autonomy to a HK political elite that consisted of members openly calling for change of the CCP and on the mainland and annually organizing Tiananmen memorials and openly shuttling to the US and other countries for lobbying, I think you're rather deluded.
If the HK politicians wanted to properly play the game to earn the CCP's trust and to earn greater political autonomy, they should have known what words to say and what actions to do -- as well as what words to not say and what actions to not do. It's simple as that.


The CCP and its HK allies control the curriculum, approval of textbooks and all other state-involvement in the system. The HK government was even behind the liberal studies course that CCP-allies themselves have now blamed for fuelling the protests - because those same people had been worried a decade ago that HK was spitting out robots that couldn't think for themselves.

If the CCP were able to change the curriculum at will like you suggest then there wouldn't have been the entire MNE "controversy".
 

SimaQian

Junior Member
Registered Member
I hope the US keeps its promise and take in as many of these trash as they can.

As I live in Hong Kong I personally like this proposition to take as much trash as they can.

1.) This will certainly bring down house rents if they leave by the millions. Will I hope the house rents or prices will go down to 50%.
2.) less MTR crowding
3.) less competition
4.) less trash

Its pretty win-win situation.

But for an average Hong Kong citizen like me, this is a stupid idea.

1.) Why should somebody go to say UK/Canada/US where income tax rate is above 20%?
Whereas in Hong Kong, almost zero tax even if income USD 60,000 per year.

2.) There is no need to own a car here, whereas if you go to Canada/Australia/US, you definitely need a car adding to more expenses.
90% of the rides are public transport.

3.) Why in the first place people are flocking to Hong Kong even if its very expensive to live here in those very tiny homes?
Its simply, its just too convenient and the positives are just more than the negatives of living here.

Let them settle to those places just for unlimited freedom and let them compare.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
If you're making it sound like the more "liberal" CCP predecessors would have granted greater political autonomy

No, they made the commitment to HK having a level of autonomy that subsequent hardliners resented HK having.

members openly calling for change of the CCP and on the mainland and annually organizing Tiananmen memorials and openly shuttling to the US and other countries for lobbying

Yes, it's so horrible when the CCP's feelings are hurt. It has the mental resilence of a two year old that's told it can't eat sweets all day long.

If the HK politicians wanted to properly play the game to earn the CCP's trust and to earn greater political autonomy, they should have known what words to say and what actions to do -- as well as what words to not say and what actions to not do. It's simple as that.

I'm not sure that's in the Sino-British Declaration or the Basic Law. Oh wait, the CCP doesn't see laws or treaties as things that bind it, they're devices to make people do what it wants.

Like how the CCP declared the S-B Declaration was a historic document of no value when the UK said the CCP's actions were in reach of it, but has recently whined that if the UK gives greater immigration rights to HK residents that will be in breach of that same Declaration.

One rule for the CCP, another rule for everyone else.

If the CCP were able to change the curriculum at will like you suggest then there wouldn't have been the entire MNE "controversy".

Rather suggests that the CCP is incompetent even when it has power.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
No, they made the commitment to HK having a level of autonomy that subsequent hardliners resented HK having.
Who's "they"? That was so many decades ago; the US tears up treaties in 2018 that it made in 2015; go bark at that instead of trying to apply these rules of commitment only to China.

Yes, it's so horrible when the CCP's feelings are hurt. It has the mental resilence of a two year old that's told it can't eat sweets all day long.
Almost exactly like how the West reacts when it can't explain Chinese success using a different model.

I'm not sure that's in the Sino-British Declaration or the Basic Law. Oh wait, the CCP doesn't see laws or treaties as things that bind it, they're devices to make people do what it wants.

Like how the CCP declared the S-B Declaration was a historic document of no value when the UK said the CCP's actions were in reach of it, but has recently whined that if the UK gives greater immigration rights to HK residents that will be in breach of that same Declaration.

One rule for the CCP, another rule for everyone else.
The difference is that when you try to apply rules differently for Western nations than for China, you fail. Don't blame others for being successful where you cannot be.

Rather suggests that the CCP is incompetent even when it has power.
From post #5007 Hong-Kong Protests

" CCP's so incompetent, that China grew faster than any other country or empire in history and its self-invented system caused the Chinese economy to grow to 5x that of India's from a lower starting point as India followed your very competent democracy LOL. "
 
From post #5007 Hong-Kong Protests

" CCP's so incompetent, that China grew faster than any other country or empire in history and its self-invented system caused the Chinese economy to grow to 5x that of India's from a lower starting point as India followed your very competent democracy LOL. "

LOL. What he meant was CCP is so incompetent since it did not turn out to be like British-modeled India.
Thank CCP for that.
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Lieutenant General
You guys are still wasting your time with Mr Troll?

In all the time before I ignored him, he has never said anything positive about China that I can recall.

According to him, China can never do anything right or positive, and that everything China does is for some sinister and selfish reason (and that China is always stupid and incompetent when going about this to boot).

It’s absolutely pointless and a waste of time to try to reason with such a closed mind, as he literally cannot be reasoned with.

All he is interested in is spewing endless hate at China with the flimsiest, standard-issued western cover of ‘oh I’m only criticising the CCP and not China!’.

But his real issue isn’t with the CCP, but with any Chinese government having the temerity to dare to not worship everything the west does like India; or to not automatically back down when Chinese National interests clash with western interests like Japan; or to not simply ask ‘how high’ when the west barks ‘jump’.

Simply put, he will not be happy with China short of it being under total and utter subjugation by the west, like the ‘good old days’ of the opium war. Under such circumstances, he could care less who is in charge of China, he would proclaim them to be the best thing since baby Jesus and sliced bread combined.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
I have one question - what will happen if people from HG will really start emigrating to Australia/GB taking their businesses, money and know-how to those countries? How big will be impact in case of regional economy if it happens? I know it won't be a big blow to a country like PRC but it won't turn entire city into secondary role if all that will remain ther will be contact offices for companies which HQs will be placed aborad?

What do you think guys?

This already happened once before prior to the handover.
They took their money, know-how, etc. to US/UK/AUS/CAN.
There was a short downturn in the economy (mostly related to the property prices declining)
The growth in China was so strong afterward, it drew many back, sometimes their now-adult children go back too.
The people who found success overseas of course stayed overseas, but all that did was create additional opportunities in HK.

Your question implies a wrong assumption off the bat, that people are really afraid of the NSL.
A lot of people left HK prior to handover because Tienanmen was still pretty fresh (only about 10 years). China was still pretty poor at the time as well, so the society was not well understood, people didn't really travel there. These factors combined bumped up the number of people who left.

Now, there is no Tienanmen incident in recent memory, and Shenzhen is probably even more robust economically than HK now. Topping this off, is that most people made the choice to go back to live knowing the Communist party is in full control. If they have a good life, they are more likely to wait and see.

Some additional background.
Some of the handover kids who went back have already left HK once again. However, and in this case I am only speaking from the Canadian opinion, politics is not an important factor.
The #1 reason is simple - fresh air, wide open spaces. HK is crowded and not much green space.
The other reasons are the money goes further, and the education is relatively better (easy to get into a good university).
 
Top