Hong-Kong Protests

Like I said before. It isn't about the truth. It is more about which side you choose to be with. This article pretty much sums up what I see things.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The dust of the district council election is settled, and some pro-establishment voters have asked whether 1.6 million votes are missing. This is only a false consolation. In fact, if you lose, you lose.

An analysis of the election results should adopt a pragmatic spirit and find out the truth from the results. In the current district board election, the establishment voter obtained 42.3% of the total votes, while the opposition got 56.9%, which basically reflected the public opinion's four-six ratio. On the other hand, in the 2015 regional elections, the opposition obtained only 38.5% of the votes, while the pro-establishment votes were as high as 55.8%. The main reason was that the election at that time was not so political, and it did not reflect the large public opinion of the ratio of four to six.

The percentage voters voted for the pro-establishment was 42.3%, showing that the vast majority of people who support the pro-establishment have already voted. It can be said that even if they are not satisfied with the performance of the chief executive, they still vote in tears. Therefore, the key to the result of this ballot is not that the pro-establishment supporters did not vote, but that the opposition have more people came out to vote.

From another point of view, even after more than five months of violent demonstrations took place, causing great damage to the society, but did not cause the 60% of the opposition supporters to change their mind, or the so-called "Peace, Rational, Non-violence, non-profanity" votes to be changed. The government or the pro-establishment thought that the repeated smashing and burning would cause the "Peace, Rational, Non-violence, non-profanity voters" vote to turn, or at least not to vote, but this situation did not occur, and it is the most unpredictable in this election.

Your highlighted phrase is misleading. The breakdown shows there is at least a roughly 20% swing vote whose minds change between elections. Both government supporters and the opposition only have a reliable 40% of the vote.

I've talked to many young people and understand their views. The biggest blind spot of the pro-establishemnt was that they did not understand the problem of "police violence" (police violence) in the mind of the other party. If you ask some young people, will they accept that the 57-year-old construction worker in Ma'anshan was pull gasoline and set ablaze by people in black, the response of the young people will be one. The whole thing is just a show, and it is false. ; 2. Those in black are disguised as "black police officers"; 3. More rational would say, "I also oppose these things, but

The pro-establishment felt that young people were both deviated from reality and thoughts were naive. However, after you have discussed with the young people in depth, you will find that they believe that the police ’s abuse of violence is “founded” and killed at least six demonstrators at Prince Edward Station. In addition, the 15-year-old female student Chen Yanlin of IVE was also killed by police and dumped to the sea. Of course, the university student Zhou Zile was also pushed down by the police. Since the police are so brutal, this regime is a tyranny. In the face of tyranny, the rebellious violence, even if it is not acceptable, is understandable. Some young people even feel that violence is a necessary means of resistance.

These perceptions are supported by poll data. A survey this month asked citizens whether they accepted the violent and destruction by the protesters, and the results showed that only 39.8% of the respondents did not accept it; 27.7% understood but did not accept it; 24% understood and accepted it; There are 7.1% totally support it. The proportion of people who of understanding to acceptance is 58.7%. More importantly, these figures have not changed much compared to the polls in July. And the proportion of people who understand or accept violence (58.7%) is quite close to the 56.9% vote of the District Council in favor of the opposition.

The logic of comparing the poll numbers in this article doesn't add up and the proposed correlation is not valid. 67.5% of respondents did not accept the violence while 31.1% of respondents accepted or supported it. This does not correlate with the votes favoring the opposition.

Because so many people "understand or support" violence, even after a series of violent demonstrations, they have not been turned to oppose the opposition. In addition, opinion polls show that 42.5% of people believe that the SAR government should bear the greatest responsibility for violence, while only 12.9% think that violent demonstrators should bear the biggest responsibility. This explains the logic of the people who voted for the opposition. Although the demonstrators are violent, the police's killings and corpses are far more brutal, and the SAR government is responsible for all kinds of violence. So they insisted on voting for the opposition.

The question is biased to favor holding the government responsible as the vague and politically loaded polling question does not differentiate between responsibility for instigating, committing vs controlling the violence, nor does it get into reasons for resorting to violence and the degrees and contexts of the wide range of violence that happened. The logical conclusion from this poor quality data can only be that 42.5% of respondents held the government responsible for either failing to control or committing or instigating any violence, while 12.9% of respondents held the rioters/violent protesters responsible for committing or instigating any violence.

The core view of the opposition is "police brutality", which is based on numerous false news. For example, opinion polls show that 48% of people believe that the police killed the demonstrators at Prince Edward Station. But the riots have continued to this day. The government has not set up a war room to fight public opinion. Letting opponents fabricate and disseminate news of police killings has caused many people to have a deep-rooted concept of hatred, coupled with extremely low popularity among the chief executive. It has become the core reason for the defeat of the establishment. (Lu Yongxiong)

Of course a large volume and wide variety of fake news has an impact. The incompetence of the authorities in responding to this fake news is also to blame. There is also the pre-existing distrust, historical circumstances, and colonial subject legacy of HK society.
 
Very good and very grounded.

It all sends a strong message, that an inquiry into the Riots and its Policing is now a necessity, if only to expose exactly what the rioters were doing and the Police response, with a chance to put on the record with supporting evidence, a full repudiation of the protestors claims of killings.
The propagation of fake news is a serious problem that Carrie Lam has singularly failed to properly address, so maybe she should go as well, as she is clearly out of her political depth in this situation.

This would meet two major demands of the protestors, while simply undertaking measures that the situation very clearly calls for.
The Legislative really need to start learning and practicing the arts of politics and this is no longer a dry administrative role.

Grounded but highly flawed article.

Agreed that a special inquiry into all sides and all related happenings is necessary to determine the facts.

The failure to confront fake news is systemic and does not fall on Carrie Lam or her administration alone. Carrie Lam has made highly incompetent decisions as CE mishandling this whole episode but it can also be chalked up to growing pains for HK society and 1C2S with freedom and democracy overall. Her stepping down would not solve any problems and ruins a growth opportunity for herself and everything I just mentioned bigger than just her.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Very good and very grounded.

It all sends a strong message, that an inquiry into the Riots and its Policing is now a necessity, if only to expose exactly what the rioters were doing and the Police response, with a chance to put on the record with supporting evidence, a full repudiation of the protestors claims of killings.
The propagation of fake news is a serious problem that Carrie Lam has singularly failed to properly address, so maybe she should go as well, as she is clearly out of her political depth in this situation.

This would meet two major demands of the protestors, while simply undertaking measures that the situation very clearly calls for.
The Legislative really need to start learning and practicing the arts of politics and this is no longer a dry administrative role.

Old friend, I think you are being way too hopeful, to the point of naively here.

The rioters has a dedicated propaganda wing entirely dedicated to capturing any and all instances where the police didn’t treat protestors like little emperors and empresses.

As with all things, context is key. Often half the truth is the most convincing lie.

It’s one thing if a policeman smacks you over the head with his baton out of the blue; it’s a very different story if he did so because you just threw a Molotov that set his squad mates on fire. You can bet that any footage the rioters release will be carefully edited to remove any and all evidence of any provocation or wrongdoing on their part leading up to a violent police response.

While otoh, the rioters violently attack civilians who video and photograph any wrongdoing on their part. As with their masters the west, the rioters are willing to go to almost any length to make sure their prospective is the only acceptable ‘truth’.

In this context, if there was any inquiry, the rioters would ‘win’ as they have been preparing for that from the get go.

I think Beijing should stop wasting time to convince the die hards, and instead start reminding the majority that consequences exist for their choices and actions.

When the rioters return to the streets, as they are bound to do with a vengeance, HK should declare martial law and impose a curfew.

The PAP would go in in secret, and once the hours of curfew had been reached, they will deploy, while all internet and phone services are suspended.

Everyone in breach of curfew are rounded up and sent to the mainland for processing.

Since they will be sent to regular mainland prisons, they should be given special, different jumpsuits to help the guards better identify them when they are released into gen-pop.

In the meantime, a new national security law should be imposed on HK by Beijing, whereby anyone suspected of being a foreign agent would have their HK citizenship suspended and sent to the mainland for trial. The high percentage of foreign nationals within HK’s judiciary makes them unsuitable to judge such cases.

The rioters are only so bold because despite their rhetoric, they know Beijing plays by the rules, so they feel like they have nothing to fear. It’s way past time they learnt some fear again.

And before anyone starts, ask yourself if the holier-than-thou, bastin of all things good-America would ever allow anything as trivial as laws or agreements to allow people who work to actively harm American interests and threaten American citizens’ safety and well-being to live in impunity anywhere on Earth, never mind on their own soil.

All China would be doing is playing by the same rules the West itself does rather than preach.
 

KYli

Brigadier
Your highlighted phrase is misleading. The breakdown shows there is at least a roughly 20% swing vote whose minds change between elections. Both government supporters and the opposition only have a reliable 40% of the vote.

You are compare apple with orange. The previous Hong Kong District Council elections had a very low turnout and wasn't politicized. It is Hong Kong Legislative Council elections that really count and being used to analyze the 4-6 ratio.


The logic of comparing the poll numbers in this article doesn't add up and the proposed correlation is not valid. 67.5% of respondents did not accept the violence while 31.1% of respondents accepted or supported it. This does not correlate with the votes favoring the opposition.

Because you refused to accept the fact that only 39.8% of respondents truly opposed violence. You still think people are rational. 27.7% of respondents opposed violence but understood the reason of the violent protests. What that means is that their political affiliation decided that they would blame the government and police not the rioters and vote for the pan-Dems camp, at least not yet.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Replying to boath PanAsian and PLAwolf, - the art of politics is about the narrative and being seen to be doing something.
For Carrie Lam, the buck stops there and the inability of Legco to function effectively in this crisis, is a function of weak and inept leadership.
When a weak and inept leader becomes part of the issue, you get new blood in stop the hemorrhage of credibility and use that to wrong foot the opposition.

It is the efficiency of the Oppositions Propaganda Wing that makes the Public Enquiry all the more critical. All the claims made by the opposition need to be put under forensic and high profile public scrutiny. No doubt the PanDems will try to make it into a circus, but no matter as long as the CE remains the Ring Master. The CE has the power to set the remit of the inquiry and ensure that all relevant factors are included in the evidence.
This is primarily for the benefit of Hong Kongers as the MSM will; without doubt filter and distort for the International audience.
What is important is for LegCo to retain control of the narrative and start to publicly debunk the claims of now serving district Councillors.
If this is not done and if no Inquiry is instigated, you run the risk of handing LegCo to the PanDems who will crow about starting "the inquiry that Beijing was too scared to allow" and who will make sure that the remit was so skewed that a Salam Witch Trial will look like Jurisprudence by comparison.

It really is time for a new CE and some fancy footwork to retake the initiative and the narrative back in the SAR itself. Forget abroad - nothing will shake the MSM narrative and all you can do is make them lose interest, by drying up the flow of juicy news with not so helpful facts.
 
Support for Hong Kong protests in China has consequences for some mainlanders
I wouldn't have thought to be possible anyone in mainland China would do so; follow the link
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
if interested
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
I like your analogy, but I still think the foreign black hands have got alot to do with this.

I mean, think back when the humiliation started. Yes, it was the mis-guided youth that started to smoke what the drug pushers was selling.

No one was saying it was the youth's fault for smoking the stuff, instead it was the British drug pushers with their goal of paying for their tea, and at the same time bleeding China dry, and keeping China down!

Today, the situation is not much different. We have a bunch of idealistic mis-guided youth, but instead of feeding on drugs supplied by the British drug pushers, it is feeding on values, logistics and money supplied to them by another country with their goal of keeping China down!

Spot the difference?
Get used to it. Your enemy will try to attack you in any way possible. It is your job to defend and to attack him back in any way you can as well. I put nothing above the desperation of what the US will do to keep China down. And I say nothing should be considered too unethical for China tn inflict upon the US in response, now, or in the future. You can only blame your children and yourself for not educating them properly if they become addicted to drugs; you cannot blame drug dealers because they will laugh and tell you it's their job to poison your kids. Underhanded tactics are the only way a war can be fought when there is MAD to prevent total nuclear destruction. Always look inward for improvement and the way forward, because looking outward at things you cannot control will never yield anything beyond complaints.
 

Engineer

Major
the art of politics is about the narrative
Most media outlet is controlled by the opposition. Media that's not under the controlled of the opposition are harassed by mobs and prevented from reporting. Furthermore, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube shut down accounts that condemned the opposition. Other than the police, the government has no allies.

For Carrie Lam, the buck stops there and the inability of Legco to function effectively in this crisis, is a function of weak and inept leadership.
The inability of Legco to function is because the council was trashed by a mob sent by the opposition. Even on a good day, the opposition filibusters all day long so nothing meaningful ever gets discussed.

All the claims made by the opposition need to be put under forensic and high profile public scrutiny. No doubt the PanDems will try to make it into a circus, but no matter as long as the CE remains the Ring Master. The CE has the power to set the remit of the inquiry and ensure that all relevant factors are included in the evidence.
That's assuming the opposition is rational, which it isn't.
 
You are compare apple with orange. The previous Hong Kong District Council elections had a very low turnout and wasn't politicized. It is Hong Kong Legislative Council elections that really count and being used to analyze the 4-6 ratio.

Your article is comparing apples to oranges which I illustrated using their own information.

Because you refused to accept the fact that only 39.8% of respondents truly opposed violence. You still think people are rational. 27.7% of respondents opposed violence but understood the reason of the violent protests. What that means is that their political affiliation decided that they would blame the government and police not the rioters and vote for the pan-Dems camp, at least not yet.

Your article and the polling it cites are vague and misleading, again I merely pointed that out based on its own information.
 
obviously not in Hong Kong, but I don't know where to put these allegations:

Chinese city halts crematorium plan but stand-off between police and protesters goes on
  • Huazhou government says it will consult the public on ‘different views’ to proposed development in town of Wenlou
  • Dozens hurt and up to 100 detained following two days of protests, locals say
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


+

Chinese riot police fire teargas and beat up protesters in Guangdong province
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




right now I'm looking for coordinates of that place, I may update this post

EDIT it looks to me something got lost in translation in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:
"Huazhou, Guangdong province"
isn't
"about 100km (60 miles) north of Hong Kong"
but about 230 miles to south west of Hong Kong
 
Last edited:
Top