Hong-Kong Protests


Appix

New Member
Registered Member
I have watched the riots for 12 months supported by the Western media-establishment and very good news that Beijing finally has taken action with the passing of the national security law. Very good news.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm not sure that's actually true. The pro-democracy camp were mostly very restrained and only wanted to improve the situation of ordinary HKers. They didn't have geopolitical goals other than keeping Hong Kong as an international city that was open to all.

It's true that there were groups in Hong Kong that were hostile to the CCP, but democratic reforms were never going to extend towards somehow challenging CCP rule of mainland China. Remember, views of mainland China were fairly decent for a long period of time after the handover. That meant that it would be improbable for a directly-elected Chief Executive to be elected if they were hostile to the CCP, because voters who didn't want a disruption to the stable cross-border relationship wouldn't vote for them.



Perhaps there's an old word in Chinese like autonomy where publicly you're able to do what you like, but in reality you have to obey a particular authority. But in English a "high degree of autonomy" would preclude being subordinate except on the issue of something that doesn't apply to HK like defence or foreign policy.

Also, when the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed, I expect that Zhao Ziyang and Deng Xiaoping didn't really have the current objectives of Xi and his friends in mind, nor would they have felt nearly as threatened by local HK groups campaigning for better human rights on the mainland. That's why Deng talked about a potential further 50 years of autonomy, because he was alert to the fact that Hong Kong and mainland China might not have aligned politically by 2047, and as he didn't want to forcibly make HK converge.



I think that if the CCP had intervened over issues like housing and made it publicly clear that a long-term plan had to be produced within the then Chief Executive's term, it would have gotten praise from HK residents.

At the end of the day, the CCP made a bad decision by seeking to protect the political status quo and relying on HK elites who have no interest in making housing more affordable or increasing taxes to pay for more public spending. It thought it could freeze the 1997 Hong Kong in place for 50 years, when in reality the city's needs were changing and the political system needed to change at the same time to allow for a more dynamic local government.
Fundamentally I see the problem is that Hong Kong under its status in which it was handed over to China still allowed itself to act as an enclave and staging area for groups and activities that were hostile to the Chinese central government and its security interests and its geopolitical interests.

Over time, that anti-Chinese govt/anti-CCP identity became so ingrained to the self image that some HKers had of themselves, that any infringement on the ability to organize or express that identity is being seen as an attack on the very essence of what HK meant to be.

You speak of the pro-democracy camp wanting the city merely to be an international city open to all, but there are many subfactions within the pro-democracy camp, with differing views on topics from the subject of independence of HK, to the violence seen last year in the city at the height of the protests, to the degree of willingness to outright court foreign intervention or guidance from China's geopolitical adversaries like the US.



If a "high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong should translate practically to the open hosting and staging of activities and groups hostile to the Chinese government and its interests then obviously that was never going to fly.
Maybe Deng at the time wouldn't have particularly felt concerned if it was just some HKers campaigning for better human rights on the mainland, but in the context of the modern geopolitical environment and the rhetoric and activities of some of the black shirts and pro-democracy camp and politicians and media groups all but openly allying itself with the US, then I imagine that very much would have set alarm bells ringing for Deng as well if he were still around.

If we're going to talk about what Deng may have envisioned down the line for HK, I doubt he imagined the socialization and perception of history of HK people and HK youth especially would have become what it was today, nor do I think he would have predicted the extent of foreign support for activities in HK that were counter to Chinese interests.



That said, I agree that the Chinese government shouldn't have overly relied on working with the elites of HK to its cause, because at the same time they were hands off enough from HK domestic affairs that it wasn't able to put up actual progressive housing and economic policies in the city even if they wanted to. I said that as much in my previous post.
 

superdog

Junior Member
Fundamentally I see the problem is that Hong Kong under its status in which it was handed over to China still allowed itself to act as an enclave and staging area for groups and activities that were hostile to the Chinese central government and its security interests and its geopolitical interests.

Over time, that anti-Chinese govt/anti-CCP identity became so ingrained to the self image that some HKers had of themselves, that any infringement on the ability to organize or express that identity is being seen as an attack on the very essence of what HK meant to be.

You speak of the pro-democracy camp wanting the city merely to be an international city open to all, but there are many subfactions within the pro-democracy camp, with differing views on topics from the subject of independence of HK, to the violence seen last year in the city at the height of the protests, to the degree of willingness to outright court foreign intervention or guidance from China's geopolitical adversaries like the US.

If a "high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong should translate practically to the open hosting and staging of activities and groups hostile to the Chinese government and its interests then obviously that was never going to fly.
Maybe Deng at the time wouldn't have particularly felt concerned if it was just some HKers campaigning for better human rights on the mainland, but in the context of the modern geopolitical environment and the rhetoric and activities of some of the black shirts and pro-democracy camp and politicians and media groups all but openly allying itself with the US, then I imagine that very much would have set alarm bells ringing for Deng as well if he were still around.

If we're going to talk about what Deng may have envisioned down the line for HK, I doubt he imagined the socialization and perception of history of HK people and HK youth especially would have become what it was today, nor do I think he would have predicted the extent of foreign support for activities in HK that were counter to Chinese interests.

That said, I agree that the Chinese government shouldn't have overly relied on working with the elites of HK to its cause, because at the same time they were hands off enough from HK domestic affairs that it wasn't able to put up actual progressive housing and economic policies in the city even if they wanted to. I said that as much in my previous post.
Yeah, no point in trying to wake up someone who's pretending to be asleep.

"The pro-democracy camp were mostly very restrained and only wanted to improve the situation of ordinary HKers. They didn't have geopolitical goals other than keeping Hong Kong as an international city that was open to all."

What a joke.

Anyone in Hong Kong who isn't blind to political news would know that it weren't the radical youths of today like Joshua Wong or Nathan Law who started the trend of reporting to US authorities and actively seeking foreign intervention. They were merely following the footsteps of (and still actively guided by) the biggest names in the traditional "pro-democracy camp" such as Lee Chu Ming (Martin Lee) , Lee Cheuk Yan and To Kun Sun, who has been doing similar things for many many years. And it's not just the HK Democratic Party either, other so-called "non-radical" pan-dem politicians such as Dennis Kwok (Civic Party) and Charles Mok (Professional Commons) were also very keen on meeting with US politicians like Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi to discuss US-HK policies. They were all members of the HK Legislative Council and they didn't even try to hide these meetings, that's how "restrained" they are.

The whole pan-dem sector in HK is corrupted to the core in terms of foreign inflence, there is no question about it. The new law is merely a first step (albeit an important one) if they really want to clean this up. A lot more remains to be done.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Fundamentally I see the problem is that Hong Kong under its status in which it was handed over to China still allowed itself to act as an enclave and staging area for groups and activities that were hostile to the Chinese central government and its security interests and its geopolitical interests.
Well that's sort of what happens in a democracy - people are free to vote and associate. It's not like China doesn't take advantage of that itself in other countries, such as when Chinese ambassadors have the opportunity to write opinion pieces in leading newspapers. That's also not a right afforded to US, UK or other European ambassadors unless they're praising China. Or setting up the Confucius Institutes to promote a positive image of Chinese policies and ideas. Or even helping organise overseas Chinese students to attend pro-China rallies/counter-demonstrate against anti-CCP protests.

If the CCP doesn't like what groups in Hong Kong were/are doing, it should have forgone all the conveniences and freedoms of the democratic world and just operated using the same policies as it has at home.

there are many subfactions within the pro-democracy camp
Sure, but the point remains - a directly-elected Chief Executive would have been highly unlikely to pick fights with Beijing or sought to antagonise it for no reason, because it would have pleased only a small number of people and worried a much larger group.

I don't want to sound like a broken record player, but the CCP's refusal to impliment full democracy in Hong Kong is probably the key reason for an increase in the number of groups operating in the city opposed to the CCP. For the first 10 years after the handover, bar a few small groups the most HK did to "oppose" the CCP was to commemorate the 1989 Beijing massacres. If the CCP had kept its promises (and done so say by 2010 - in time for the 2012 elections), there simply wouldn't be nearly as much hostility towards it as there is now. Any political analyst worth their salt could have told the CCP that they were on a road to create the circumstances they said they wanted to avoid at all costs.

If a "high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong should translate practically to the open hosting and staging of activities and groups hostile to the Chinese government and its interests then obviously that was never going to fly.
I think the CCP has a very thin skin and is too used to getting its own way. Governments across the world have to deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis. Plenty are able to do so without silencing people via the law - e.g. ignoring the smaller groups, putting out their own information to counter negative coverage, negotiation & consultation where the people in question may have a point, supporting groups that foster a positive message, lawsuits in the most outrageous claims, etc.

For example, if the CCP was embarrassed by books that exposed how many of the top leadership used their positions to enrich themselves, the answer wasn't to intimidiate the people that wrote or published them but to take real action against corruption (rather than use purges as a tool against political opponents). Public employees are still woefully paid in so many situations that it actively encourages them to be corrupt in one way or another, whether it's to do private work off the books, accept bribes or use connections for themselves and their families. A proper anti-corruption drive coupled with wage increases would help China.
 
Last edited:

Biscuits

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well that's sort of what happens in a democracy - people are free to vote and associate. It's not like China doesn't take advantage of that itself in other countries, such as when Chinese ambassadors have the opportunity to write opinion pieces in leading newspapers. That's also not a right afforded to US, UK or other European ambassadors unless they're praising China. Or setting up the Confucius Institutes to promote a positive image of Chinese policies and ideas. Or even helping organise overseas Chinese students to attend pro-China rallies/counter-demonstrate against anti-CCP protests.

If the CCP doesn't like what groups in Hong Kong were/are doing, it should have forgone all the conveniences and freedoms of the democratic world and just operated using the same policies as it has at home.



Sure, but the point remains - a directly-elected Chief Executive would have been highly unlikely to pick fights with Beijing or sought to antagonise it for no reason, because it would have pleased only a small number of people and worried a much larger group.

I don't want to sound like a broken record player, but the CCP's refusal to impliment full democracy in Hong Kong is probably the key reason for an increase in the number of groups operating in the city opposed to the CCP. For the first 10 years after the handover, bar a few small groups the most HK did to "oppose" the CCP was to commemorate the 1989 Beijing massacres. If the CCP had kept its promises (and done so say by 2010 - in time for the 2012 elections), there simply wouldn't be nearly as much hostility towards it as there is now. Any political analyst worth their salt could have told the CCP that they were on a road to create the circumstances they said they wanted to avoid at all costs.



I think the CCP has a very thin skin and is too used to getting its own way. Governments across the world have to deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis. Plenty are able to do so without silencing people via the law - e.g. ignoring the smaller groups, putting out their own information to counter negative coverage, negotiation & consultation where the people in question may have a point, supporting groups that foster a positive message, lawsuits in the most outrageous claims, etc.

For example, if the CCP was embarrassed by books that exposed how many of the top leadership used their positions to enrich themselves, the answer wasn't to intimidiate the people that wrote or published them but to take real action against corruption (rather than use purges as a tool against political opponents). Public employees are still woefully paid in so many situations that it actively encourages them to be corrupt in one way or another, whether it's to do private work off the books, accept bribes or use connections for themselves and their families. A proper anti-corruption drive coupled with wage increases would help China.
Yeah sure that's why US banned Chinese publicly funded media and removes most non anti China content on major American platforms.

You think western countries haven't been allowed to set up government influenced organizations inside China to spread positive views of the west? Are you delusional? Do you think Western protesters would be allowed to attack police while wielding Chinese or Russian flags and stay alive to tell the tale.

So called "democratic" leaders in HK are almost all bought off, almost all foreign media that influences public opinion is bought off or foreign state owned. Why would Chinese people want to deal with a group that "commemorates" a failed color revolution coup in China while remaining silent on real atrocities like Kent state massacre and Britain's own brutal suppression of HK liberation movements to just name a few? They're puppets to evil people who do NOT have the best interests for us in heart.

Look at the outside world and stop being naive. The Chinese government is so thin skinned they let outright terrorists and traitors thrive freely for more than a decade. If Chinese government was as thin skinned as the American government, Joshua Wong would have met a HJ-10 missile to the face and so would Pompeo the moment he steps off that plane inside China, Suleimani style.

You can spare us the last retarded double standard blurb. West wants to talk corruption when they have legalised it and barely able to build any project due to corruption overruns, and they're accusing the country with the world's greatest infrastructure and widely successful economic campaigns of being "corrupt". There's always human error in the system, but USA always applies one standard to themselves and another to everyone else. When it takes 1 week for Chinese scientists to sequence a novel virus and start measures, it's treated as a mistake, while it takes 6 months for USA to even do basic precautions. The west is 10 times as corrupt, and doing jack shit about it, at least China arrests the ones they can find.

Yankee boot licking will not help either HK or mainland, do you seriously think these people have our best interest at heart? You must be the type of person that believes in many Nigerian princes then.
 

Xsizor

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yeah sure that's why US banned Chinese publicly funded media and removes most non anti China content on major American platforms.

You think western countries haven't been allowed to set up government influenced organizations inside China to spread positive views of the west? Are you delusional? Do you think Western protesters would be allowed to attack police while wielding Chinese or Russian flags and stay alive to tell the tale.

So called "democratic" leaders in HK are almost all bought off, almost all foreign media that influences public opinion is bought off or foreign state owned. Why would Chinese people want to deal with a group that "commemorates" a failed color revolution coup in China while remaining silent on real atrocities like Kent state massacre and Britain's own brutal suppression of HK liberation movements to just name a few? They're puppets to evil people who do NOT have the best interests for us in heart.

Look at the outside world and stop being naive. The Chinese government is so thin skinned they let outright terrorists and traitors thrive freely for more than a decade. If Chinese government was as thin skinned as the American government, Joshua Wong would have met a HJ-10 missile to the face and so would Pompeo the moment he steps off that plane inside China, Suleimani style.

You can spare us the last retarded double standard blurb. West wants to talk corruption when they have legalised it and barely able to build any project due to corruption overruns, and they're accusing the country with the world's greatest infrastructure and widely successful economic campaigns of being "corrupt". There's always human error in the system, but USA always applies one standard to themselves and another to everyone else. When it takes 1 week for Chinese scientists to sequence a novel virus and start measures, it's treated as a mistake, while it takes 6 months for USA to even do basic precautions. The west is 10 times as corrupt, and doing jack shit about it, at least China arrests the ones they can find.

Yankee boot licking will not help either HK or mainland, do you seriously think these people have our best interest at heart? You must be the type of person that believes in many Nigerian princes then.
While you've made good points, I think what Mr T wanted to say is that China should have more stomach for pain/irritation from elements like Joshua Wong / leaders of pro-dem simply because China is in part to be blamed for creating an ecosystem for these elements to grow and thrive.

Either take extremely decisive action against these elements or be ready to suffer the minor yet constant irritation from them. Being thin skinned is not an option.
 

Biscuits

Junior Member
Registered Member
While you've made good points, I think what Mr T wanted to say is that China should have more stomach for pain/irritation from elements like Joshua Wong / leaders of pro-dem simply because China is in part to be blamed for creating an ecosystem for these elements to grow and thrive.

Either take extremely decisive action against these elements or be ready to suffer the minor yet constant irritation from them. Being thin skinned is not an option.
The national security law is quite balanced. If nothing else it is "in character" for Beijing, they'll never be overly violent in a crackdown like USA. They'll not be thin skinned like India either.

I think China could have done a bit more in regards of defeating the most severe traitors, but this law is probably as far as they will go, minimal effort but solves the problem over time. I don't fully agree with it but it is what it is
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well that's sort of what happens in a democracy - people are free to vote and associate. It's not like China doesn't take advantage of that itself in other countries, such as when Chinese ambassadors have the opportunity to write opinion pieces in leading newspapers. That's also not a right afforded to US, UK or other European ambassadors unless they're praising China. Or setting up the Confucius Institutes to promote a positive image of Chinese policies and ideas. Or even helping organise overseas Chinese students to attend pro-China rallies/counter-demonstrate against anti-CCP protests.

If the CCP doesn't like what groups in Hong Kong were/are doing, it should have forgone all the conveniences and freedoms of the democratic world and just operated using the same policies as it has at home.



Sure, but the point remains - a directly-elected Chief Executive would have been highly unlikely to pick fights with Beijing or sought to antagonise it for no reason, because it would have pleased only a small number of people and worried a much larger group.

I don't want to sound like a broken record player, but the CCP's refusal to impliment full democracy in Hong Kong is probably the key reason for an increase in the number of groups operating in the city opposed to the CCP. For the first 10 years after the handover, bar a few small groups the most HK did to "oppose" the CCP was to commemorate the 1989 Beijing massacres. If the CCP had kept its promises (and done so say by 2010 - in time for the 2012 elections), there simply wouldn't be nearly as much hostility towards it as there is now. Any political analyst worth their salt could have told the CCP that they were on a road to create the circumstances they said they wanted to avoid at all costs.



I think the CCP has a very thin skin and is too used to getting its own way. Governments across the world have to deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis. Plenty are able to do so without silencing people via the law - e.g. ignoring the smaller groups, putting out their own information to counter negative coverage, negotiation & consultation where the people in question may have a point, supporting groups that foster a positive message, lawsuits in the most outrageous claims, etc.

For example, if the CCP was embarrassed by books that exposed how many of the top leadership used their positions to enrich themselves, the answer wasn't to intimidiate the people that wrote or published them but to take real action against corruption (rather than use purges as a tool against political opponents). Public employees are still woefully paid in so many situations that it actively encourages them to be corrupt in one way or another, whether it's to do private work off the books, accept bribes or use connections for themselves and their families. A proper anti-corruption drive coupled with wage increases would help China.
And I hate to sound like a broken record, but the mere possibility of giving HK the authority to make its own decisions in terms of matters of foreign affairs or security means that giving HK "full democracy" cannot be achieved without effectively neutering its ability to mount any kind of challenge to Beijing on anything that the central government cares about.

If there was some kind of guarantee that HK would not ever seek to challenge Beijing on anything that it cares about, then giving the sort of "universal suffrage" debate that caused the 2014 movement wouldn't have happened. Beijing was willing to grant HK universal suffrage so long as the candidates were effectively able to be checked and vetoed by the central government, but we all know that what the opposition wanted was to have the power to elect people that could have the ability to outright stand in opposition to Beijing instead.


But let's not miss the forest for the trees -- this discussion began because it was about the driving push factors for why some people in HK might be interested in leaving HK (whether now, in the recent past, or in the future).
As I've mentioned, I think that there is a legitimate socioeconomic component for it in terms of the economic prospects of the city for certain parts of the population.
However the other big part of it I described was a fear and loathing of China, the CCP, and mainland Chinese people as well.

And before you say it -- no, I don't think for the people I'm talking about that "fear of losing democracy and freedom" itself is a push factor even with the recent national security law, because that would suggest that the fear is of losing the principle of democracy and freedom. Rather, what is most feared is the loss of freedom to openly act against Chinese interests and act against Chinese people or carry out violence and subversion in the city and the gradual loss of the ability to be openly localist against mainland Chinese people.

For those individuals, the greatest part of their own identity is the alignment against China, the CCP and mainland Chinese people.
It is fine for those people to have that identity -- everyone is all entitled to their own self perceived identity -- but let's not enable the holier than thou soundbites to perpetuate and ignore the fundamental identity and localist factors that have been driving HK political turmoil over these years.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just goes to show how bad the new law is - even pro-Beijing/CCP officials disagree on its consequences.

A prominent adviser to China’s top legislative body believes Hong Kong people cannot be prosecuted just for provoking hatred towards the authorities under the sweeping
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, while the city’s No 2 official has sought to reassure residents their fundamental rights and freedom to criticise the government will not be undermined.

The view of Basic Law Committee member Albert Chen Hung-yee, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong, contradicted remarks by senior Beijing official Zhang Xiaoming on Wednesday.

Zhang, deputy director of the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, said spreading rumours – such as falsely claiming police killed several people during an operation at Prince Edward MTR station last year – would be deemed illegal under the new law and one could be arrested for provoking “hatred” among Hong Kong residents towards the central or local governments.

But Chen noted the national security law stated people could be arrested for colluding with external forces to provoke hatred “by unlawful means”, and that it was not illegal to spread fake news in the city.

“Zhang mentioned that hatred was provoked as it was claimed that people died in Prince Edward station,” Chen told a radio programme.
“But this in itself would not constitute a crime … because my understanding is that in Hong Kong, it does not seem to be unlawful to spread fake information or news.”

....
They can't both be right.
 

Top