Hong-Kong Protests

Mr T

Senior Member
For goodness sake, are you that ignorant of how Parliaments actually work?

No, I just have a proportionate view of how things work. Lobbying does not equate to meaningful influence. Anyone can lobby, whether it works of not is a different matter.

If business lobbying overrode the views of MPs, the UK wouldn't have a minimum wage and it certainly wouldn't be pushing £9 an hour.

The City of London Corporation has a permanent representative who sits right next to the Speaker in the House of Commons. His job is to ensure the City's interests are protected, and to directly lobby MPs.

You're talking about the City "Remembrancer". He (or she) can observe proceedings but cannot vote or intervene. In that respect they're no different than a member of the public sitting in the gallery. Similarly they can't see legislation in draft before it's made available to the public.

The office does sometimes give evidence to committees about legislation and review it to see how it might affect the City, but that's about it. The role is largely ceremonial apart from that.

The Whitehall Bureaucracy and Business will be pointing this out to Boris Johnson and his fellow Cabinet Ministers.

Any concerns the Foreign Office had appears to have been considered. I think it was in March, there was a discussion in Cabinet about the issue of HK and BNO passports. At the time the Home Secretary was in favour of changing the law and the Foreign Secretary wasn't. But now that the Foreign Secretary is on board - and indeed making many of the public announcements on the subject - that would appear to show that concerns about a Chinese response have been taken noted but not changed the government's position.

Also, the Foreign Office has no role in the management of immigration. The Home Office is much less worried about diplomacy than the FCO. So I doubt Home Office civil servants would be against a change in the law either.

Next, China hasn't said what it will do. It has made generic threats, like does when arms sales are made to Taiwan or countries criticise it on human rights grounds. There's no reason to believe it will take measures that will make a difference. Like it made threats against Australia and all it did in the end was put some import restrictions on barley. That hasn't changed Australian policy. In fact, I understand there are new rules coming that will restrict foreign takeover of Australian firms on national security grounds, which is largely aimed at China.

If China said something really concrete, like "if you extend immigration rights to HK residents, we will put a total trade and investment embargo on the UK as soon as the transition period with the EU has ended", that might cause a rethink. But if it's just the usual "we'll do something you might not like", I don't see anyone stepping in to help Beijing - unless the new security legislation is surprisingly narrowly-focused and former critics are less worried.

EDIT: Also, I'm slightly confused by your expectations of what will happen next. Are you saying that the UK government will not put the bill forward because of lobbying, or that it will put the bill forward but will be voted down by backbencher MPs?
 
Last edited:

abc123

Junior Member
Registered Member
Given the National Security Law is a done deal. I'm sure a significant number of people will take this opportunity to immigrate regardless of national security law or not. I do not see much harm with giving HK people this option. Some will go and some will stay. No harm regardless.

THIS.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
If anything, the world would be a better place if everyone could immigrate to the country that they prefer. Subject to security checks, of course.

This is it.

The thugs of Hong Kong would be happy to leave. The rest of the people in Hong Kong would be happy to see them leave. Win-Win. You would have thought!

But alas, that is not possible because, and here's the kick in the nuts. Of Great Britain! They have in their wisdom decided not to issue FULL British citizenship to these Hong Kongers to enable them to settle in the UK. We all know why they didn't do it at the time, as in the words of John Ross, they have had plenty of times to do so if they wish to. And the reasons why then remains true now.

As such, Hong Kong population have suffered their antics. Aided by outside forces with one objective in mind, and that's to destabilise China, and put pressure on China, put China on the defensive and make them look bad at the same time.

Noticed when a large crowd outside the British consulate demanding Britain for help, and none was received! Why didnt Great Britain help then?

So this Johnson's proposal (It's not a promise as made out by the MSM), which still requires going through legislation and parliament is an empty threats to China to make him look tough in front of the world audiance with regards to china's proposed national security law (a law that exist almost every country in the world). A lot of hot air that make Britain feels better about themselves, and nothing more. Because nothing substantial has been offered.

I for one would be happy for China to call their bluff, because I know Britain is bluffing with a lousy pair of two's. And as such will be shown up to their world as an unreliable country that still thinks it's has still got an empire and a role to play in the world.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Any concerns the Foreign Office had appears to have been considered. I think it was in March, there was a discussion in Cabinet about the issue of HK and BNO passports. At the time the Home Secretary was in favour of changing the law and the Foreign Secretary wasn't. But now that the Foreign Secretary is on board - and indeed making many of the public announcements on the subject - that would appear to show that concerns about a Chinese response have been taken noted but not changed the government's position.

Please please stop peddling half truths and innuendos. I'm calling you out on this. What changes has been proposed about BNO apart from the ones already announced which is nothing but a PR exercise from 6 months stay to 12 months stay.

Please stop living in your own fantasy!
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Hong Kong is overcrowded, but shedding part of the population isn't a long-term solution.
Seems quite long term to me. If you've got rot, you ablate the rotten tissue and you are left with less but only good tissue to regrow. China needs unity and having all anti-Chinese/CCP clear out Hong Kong would be one step closer to it. It sure beats painstakingly reeducating them for decades.
The issue is the lack of housing.
That's music to the CCP's ears. Chinese construction speed is like a time-lapse video except it's in real time LOL
Moreover, if as you say the people most likely to leave are young, that would lead to worse demographics in the city and a brain drain.
Very small price to pay for bringing Hong Kong in line so quickly. Besides, the brain drain is definitely not the entire departing population as most would be thugs who skipped school.

One of the best parts of this is that many Chinese find themselves fully understanding patriotism and the importance of strengthening their own mother county only after they have lived in another country. Before, life is just you, your government, your society, and everything else is on TV, not really real. So given this, the international struggle isn't really real but the personal struggle between self and society/government, is. It takes this international experience to teach them that life is bigger than personal wealth and lifestyle. Once these people experience the racism in the West against Asians, they might not be allowed back, but their children, who can be very educated, can come back finally understanding the honor and responsibility of being Chinese.
You suggested that "Chinese" (I assume you mean mainlanders) would be ready and willing to move to Hong Kong. I'm not sure that's the case. Most of the young mainland Chinese I've known didn't really rate Hong Kong, thanks in part to negative coverage in the Chinese media about how the city was chaotic, in contrast to the constant positive messages they get about mainland Chinese cities. Sure, sometimes you get mainland Chinese desperate to get into HK, but they're more like the pregnant mothers trying to get better healthcare and benefits/social housing. They're not eyeing up a lifetime of sacrifice and hard work.
Chinese people are very adaptive so don't worry about that. The Hong Kong of yesterday looked like Libya in civil war so everyone wants to stay away but once news gets out that the terrorists have fled and there is plenty of opportunity in the city, people will flood it! The biggest challenge will be quickly setting up controls on how many people get in.
Finally, if the plan is to replace young HKese that leave with mainland Chinese, you're going to just wipe out any gains from less demand on housing, therefore keeping Hong Kong overcrowded.
Well that's just not very flexible thinking, is it? If X people leave, must you replace them with an equal number of people? Is it scientifically possible to allow less people into Hong Kong than the number that left? I'll check with MIT's math dept; you call Harvard... LOL
 
Last edited:

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
when that HK lady claimed being blinded by police and it was like a symbol of unity to HK rioters. Here Reporter Linda Tirado is now permanently blind in her left eye after Minneapolis riot cops were recorded shooting at press members. Hypocrites. View attachment 60481

I bet she got an injunction from her lawyer to stop her medical records handed over to the police! sarcasm mode full on!
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Still remember US Consulate official in Hong Kong photographed meeting with the Hong Kong protest leaders last year during the riot ? Imagine what will the US politicians and American people think if Chinese Consulate or Embassy official meets with the Black Lives Matter movement leaders now. Respect of other country's sovereignty goes both way.

Institution of national security law in Hong Kong will stop this hostile act by the US government, just like the US national security act already in place will discourage Chinese officials from doing so.


Cor, I forgot aboit this, this and countless trips to thr US to meet Nancy Pelosy and others. This is one of the proof our friends Mr T are demanding us to proof of foreign interference.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
So I was spurred to look at the housing and land situation in Hong Kong and found this very good documentary which basically said that housing cost to income ratio in Hong Kong is by far the highest in the world with many people living in parking spot-sized apartments or even cages with just a bed in them! And the reason has nothing to do with scarcity of land but lack of development. I think it said some ridiculously low percentage of land (3.7%) was actually being used and it was all due to improper management and bureaucracy!

Now I'm really optimistic about the CCP developing the hell out of the place and putting far more people in. I really hope the terrorists al leave to the UK or somewhere else because they don't deserve this. They deserve to watch this from afar. Can you imagine the love that the Chinese people in Hong Kong would have for the CCP after having their lives upgraded from cage beds under British rule (and the toxic period thereafter) to modern apartments under the CCP? Glorious!

Here's the short documentary:
 

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Unsurprisingly, business exodus out of Hong Kong in-progress.

Nomura reviews scale of operations in Hong Kong

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Nomura is “seriously” examining its Greater China strategy and the scale of its operations in Hong Kong as relations between Beijing and the former British colony deteriorate, according to the chief executive of Japan’s largest investment bank.

Options under discussion, said Kentaro Okuda, include bolstering the size of Nomura’s majority-owned joint venture in mainland China — a Shanghai-based brokerage and asset management business that secured the necessary licences in 2019 and began operations in December.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Okuda, the former head of investment banking who became chief executive of Nomura in April, said Nomura’s roughly 1,000-person Hong Kong operations remained its most critical Asian hub outside Japan, but the situation now was “not the same as it used to be”.

His comments followed China’s approval last week of a plan to impose a national security law on Hong Kong and a retaliatory threat by the US to revoke the Asia financial hub’s special trade privileges, as Washington no longer deems the special administrative region to have the requisite autonomy from Beijing.

Although Mr Okuda said there were no plans to relocate staff from Hong Kong to elsewhere in the region, he noted that Nomura was actively expanding its operations in Singapore. “Because of the political situation, we are seriously looking at the size of the Hong Kong [operations] and others,” he said.

In common with industry peers, Nomura has made no decisions yet. Other large banks, asset managers and companies outside the financial sector have said that for now it makes sense to remain in Hong Kong, given the absence of demonstrably better alternatives.

Many senior executives have described their intention to “stomach” Beijing’s new security law. A survey on Wednesday by the American Chamber of Commerce showed that 60 per cent of the US companies that responded think the national security law will hurt their business operations in Hong Kong, but 70 per cent said they had no plans to relocate. Swire and Jardine Matheson, two of the former British colony’s oldest trading houses, have publicly supported the law, with Jardine advertising its position in a Hong Kong newspaper seen as favourable to Beijing on Wednesday.

In a statement last week, a Swire spokesman said the enactment of national security legislation “will be beneficial for the long-term future of Hong Kong as a world-leading business and financial centre”. Last year, Swire’s airline Cathay Pacific was caught between China and Hong Kong after some of its staff in the territory were involved in pro-democracy protests.

Mr Okuda stressed that while the Greater China business remained critically important to Nomura, the political situation had to be factored in. As the bank reviewed its strategy for the region, he said, one option could involve expansion of Nomura Orient, the mainland joint venture it set up last year with Orient International and Shanghai Huangpu Investment.

That business was established in response to efforts by Beijing over recent years to convince the global financial industry that its domestic markets were continuing to open up to foreign participation. Nomura’s existing expansion plan for the China joint venture is to increase staff to about 500 people by 2023.

Some political analysts have deemed that campaign part of a grander scheme by the Chinese government to chip away at the relevance of Hong Kong. Nomura’s swift application to form a majority owned joint venture in mainland China last year ran in parallel with similar moves by JPMorgan, UBS and Goldman Sachs.

Mr Okuda has used his first two months as head of Nomura to set out a number of strategic shifts he believes necessary to make the bank more competitive. At an investor event last month, he unveiled plans to broaden Nomura’s product portfolio with a new focus on private equity and private debt financing.

Nomura’s deliberations over its China strategy come as the financial industry wrestles with the impact of coronavirus and the longer-term fallout for investment flows. The bank’s performance in the first three months of 2020 illustrated the effect of the pandemic, with higher trading revenues offset by mark-to-market losses on credit derivatives.

In spite of the high rent and high cost of living, companies set up shop in Hong Kong because there is money to be made in China, not Hong Kong, and definitely not Singapore or Taiwan etc. If those companies see there is no difference between the political climate in China and Hong Kong, they might as well move or expand in China where the cost of doing business is cheaper. In fact, many companies have already done that last year, per the Nomura article and I re-quote below.
  • Options under discussion, said Kentaro Okuda, include bolstering the size of Nomura’s majority-owned joint venture in mainland China — a Shanghai-based brokerage and asset management business that secured the necessary licences in 2019 and began operations in December.
  • Nomura’s swift application to form a majority owned joint venture in mainland China last year ran in parallel with similar moves by JPMorgan, UBS and Goldman Sachs.
Hong Kong's loss will be China's gain. This will push Hong Kong to be more dependent on China for her economic well being. Hong Kong has been lukewarm towards the Greater Bay Area Initiative due to political reason. I expect she will now fully embrace it.
 
Top