Occupy Central...News, Photos & Videos ONLY!!

shen said:

Banner reads, "Down with Capitalism. Occupy Central."

Click to expand...

Just as the US admitted shortly after the so-called “Arab Spring” began spreading chaos across the Middle East that it had fully funded, trained, and equipped both mob leaders and heavily armed terrorists years in advance, it is now admitted that the US State Department through a myriad of organizations and NGOs is behind the so-called “Occupy Central” protests in Hong Kong.

The Washington Post would report in an article titled, “Hong Kong erupts even as China tightens screws on civil society,” that:

Chinese leaders unnerved by protests elsewhere this year have been steadily tightening controls over civic organizations on the mainland suspected of carrying out the work of foreign powers.

The campaign aims to insulate China from subversive Western ideas such as democracy and freedom of expression, and from the influence, specifically, of U.S. groups that may be trying to promote those values here, experts say. That campaign is long-standing, but it has been prosecuted with renewed vigor under President Xi Jinping, especially after the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych following months of street demonstrations in Kiev that were viewed here as explicitly backed by the West.

The Washington Post would also report (emphasis added):

One foreign policy expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, said Putin had called Xi to share his concern about the West’s role in Ukraine. Those concerns appear to have filtered down into conversations held over cups of tea in China, according to civil society group members.

“They are very concerned about Color Revolutions, they are very concerned about what is going on in Ukraine,” said the international NGO manager, whose organization is partly financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), blamed here for supporting the protests in Kiev’s central Maidan square. “They say, ‘Your money is coming from the same people. Clearly you want to overthrow China.’ ”

Congressionally funded with the explicit goal of promoting democracy abroad, NED has long been viewed with suspicion or hostility by the authorities here. But the net of suspicion has widened to encompass such U.S. groups as the Ford Foundation, the International Republican Institute, the Carter Center and the Asia Foundation.

Of course, NED and its many subsidiaries including the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute do no such thing as “promoting democracy,” and instead are in the business of constructing a global network of neo-imperial administration termed “civil society” that interlocks with the West’s many so-called “international institutions” which in turn are completely controlled by interests in Washington, upon Wall Street, and in the cities of London and Brussels.



Image: While the Washington Post would have readers believe NED is in the business of promoting “freedom of expression” and “democracy” the corporate-financier interests represented on NED’s board of directors are anything but champions of such principles, and are instead notorious for principles precisely the opposite.
The very concept of the United States ”promoting democracy” is scandalous when considering it is embroiled in an invasive global surveillance scandal, guilty of persecuting one unpopular war after another around the planet against the will of its own people and based on verified lies, and brutalizing and abusing its own citizens at home with militarized police cracking down on civilians in towns like Ferguson, Missouri – making China’s police actions against “Occupy Central” protesters pale in comparison. “Promoting democracy” is clearly cover for simply expanding its hegemonic agenda far beyond its borders and at the expense of national sovereignty for all subjected to it, including Americans themselves.

In 2011, similar revelations were made public of the US’ meddling in the so-called “Arab Spring” when the New York Times would report in an article titled, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” that:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.

The article would also add, regarding NED specifically, that:

The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.




Image: US Senator John McCain on stage in Kiev, Ukraine cheerleading US
funded sedition in Eastern Europe. In 2011, McCain would famously taunt
both Russia and China that US-funded subversion was coming their way.
“Occupy Central” is one of many waves that have hit China’s shores since.


Pro-war and interventionist US Senator John McCain had famously taunted both Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping’s predecessor in 2011 that the US subversion sweeping the Middle East was soon headed toward Moscow and Beijing. The Atlantic in a 2011 article titled, “The Arab Spring: ‘A Virus That Will Attack Moscow and Beijing’,” would report that:

He [McCain] said, “A year ago, Ben-Ali and Gaddafi were not in power. Assad won’t be in power this time next year. This Arab Spring is a virus that will attack Moscow and Beijing.” McCain then walked off the stage.

Considering the overt foreign-funded nature of not only the “Arab Spring,” but now “Occupy Central,” and considering the chaos, death, destabilization, and collapse suffered by victims of previous US subversion, “Occupy Central” can be painted in a new light – a mob of dupes being used to destroy their own home – all while abusing the principles of “democracy” behind which is couched an insidious, diametrically opposed foreign imposed tyranny driven by immense, global spanning corporate-financier interests that fear and actively destroy competition. In particular, this global hegemon seeks to suppress the reemergence of Russia as a global power, and prevent the rise of China itself upon the world’s stage.

The regressive agenda of “Occupy Central’s” US-backed leadership, and their shameless exploitation of the good intentions of the many young people ensnared by their gimmicks, poses a threat in reality every bit as dangerous as the “threat” they claim Beijing poses to the island of Hong Kong and its people. Hopefully the people of China, and the many people around the world looking on as “Occupy Central” unfolds, will realize this foreign-driven gambit and stop it before it exacts the heavy toll it has on nations that have fallen victim to it before – Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, and many others.

Click to expand...

The goal of the US in Hong Kong is clear - to turn the island into an epicenter of foreign-funded subversion with which to infect China's mainland more directly.


October 1, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Protesters of the "Occupy Central" movement in Hong Kong shout familiar slogans and adopt familiar tactics seen across the globe as part of the United States' immense political destabilization and regime change enterprise. Identifying the leaders, following the money, and examining Western coverage of these events reveal with certainty that yet again, Washington and Wall Street are busy at work to make China's island of Hong Kong as difficult to govern for Beijing as possible.

Naming Names: Who is Behind "Occupy Central?"

Several names are repeatedly mentioned amid coverage of what is being called "Occupy Central," the latest in a long line of US-engineered color revolutions, and part of America's vast, ambitious global geopolitical reordering which started in earnest in 2011 under the guise of the so-called "Arab Spring."

Benny Tai, a lecturer of law at the University of Hong Kong, is cited by various sources across the Western media as the primary organizer - however there are many "co-organizers" mentioned alongside him. The South China Morning Post in an article titled, "Occupy Central is on: Benny Tai rides wave of student protest to launch movement," mentions most of them (emphasis added):
Political heavyweights including Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, former head of the Catholic diocese Cardinal Jospeh Zen Zi-kiun and Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming addressed the crowd.
The Post also mentions (emphasis added):
Jimmy Lai Chi-Ying, the embattled boss of Next Media who is under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption over donations to pan-democrat politicians, said he arrived immediately after a call from Martin Lee Chu-ming.
Benny Tai regularly attends US State Department, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its subsidiary the National Democratic Institute (NDI) funded and/or organized forums. Just this month, he spoke at a Design Democracy Hong Kong (NDI-funded) conference on political reform. He is also active at the University of Hong Kong's Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL) - also funded by NDI. CCPL's 2013-2014 annual report lists Benny Tai as attending at least 3 of the center's functions, as well as heading one of the center's projects.




Martin Lee, Jimmy Lai, and Joseph Zen are all confirmed as both leaders of the "Occupy Central" movement and collaborators with the US State Department. Martin Lee, founding chairman of the Democratic Party in Hong Kong, would even travel to the United States this year to conspire directly with NED as well as with politicians in Washington. Earlier this year, Lee would even take to the stage of NED's event "Why Democracy in Hong Kong Matters." Joining him at the NED-organized event was Anson Chan, another prominent figure currently supporting the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong's streets.

Media mogul Jimmy Lai was reported to have met with Neo-Con and former president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz in June 2014. China Daily would report in an article titled, "Office opposes foreign interference in HK," that:
A special edition of Eastweek showed Lai, owner of Next Media and Apple Daily, meeting Paul Wolfowitz, a former US deputy secretary of defense in George W. Bush’s administration. The pair met on Lai’s private yacht for five hours in late May.
Wolfowitz, who was also president of the World Bank between 2005 and 2007, is well-known in the US for his neo-conservative views and belief in a unilateral foreign policy. Wolfowitz also held the post of under secretary of defense between 1989 and 1993. He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Lai would also seek Wolfowitz' help in securing various business deals in Myanmar. The South China Morning Post in their article, "Jimmy Lai paid Paul Wolfowitz US$75,000 for help in Myanmar," reported that:
Leaked documents show Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying paid former US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz US$75,000 for his help with projects in Myanmar.
According to a July 22, 2013, remittance notice by the Shanghai Commercial and Savings Bank, Wolfowitz received the money from Lai as "compensation for services in regards to Myanmar".
Lai's liasons with notorious Neo-Con Wolfowitz should be no surprise - as NED, the principle director of Washington's vast portfolio of political agitators worldwide is rife with Neo-Cons who intermingle both on NED's board of directors, as well as in various other corporate-financier funded think tanks. NED itself is merely a front, couching geopolitical and corporate-financier interests behind the cover of "promoting freedom" and "democracy" around the world.




There is also "student leader" Joshua Wong, who was arrested amid the protests. Wong has had his career tracked by the NDI's "NDItech" project since as early as 2012. In a post titled, "In Hong Kong, Does "Change Begin with a Single Step"?," NDI reports:
Scholarism founder Joshua Wong Chi-fung, 15, has become an icon of the movement, and his skillful interactions with media have been memorialized and disseminated on Youtube. Through this page, Hong Kong youth have coalesced around common messages and images – for example, equating MNE with “brainwashing” and echoing themes reminiscent of the 1989 Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement.

Wong's work serves to challenge attempts by Beijing to reestablish Chinese institutions on the island, preserving Western-style (and co-opted) institutions including the education system.


The aforementioned Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee is also entwined with the US NED, regularly attending forums sponsored by NED and its subsidiary NDI. In 2009 she was a featured speaker at an NDI sponsored public policy forum hosted by "SynergyNet," also funded by NDI. In 2012 she was a guest speaker at the NDI-funded Women's Centre "International Women's Day" event. The Hong Kong Council of Women (HKCW) itself is also annually funded by the NDI. Just this year, should would also find herself associated with CCPL, presenting at one of its functions beside "Occupy Central" leader Benny Tai himself.

In addition to SynergyNet, CCPL, and HKCW, there are several other US-funded NGOs supporting, legitimizing, and justifying "Occupy Central," or hosting those leading it. Among them is the US NED-funded "Hong Kong Transition Project" which claims it is "tracking the transition of Hong Kong people from subjects to citizens." In name and mission statement alone, the goal of the US in Hong Kong is clear - to turn Hong Kong into an epicenter of foreign-funded subversion with which to infect China's mainland with more directly.

The Transition Project was tasked with legitimizing Occupy Central's "pro-democracy referendum" conducted earlier this year - which then served as justification for increasing unrest on Hong Kong's streets. Guardian in a June 2014 article titled, "Hong Kong's unofficial pro-democracy referendum irks Beijing," would report:
About 730,000 Hong Kong residents – equivalent to a fifth of the registered electorate – have voted in an unofficial "referendum" that has infuriated Beijing and prompting a flurry of vitriolic editorials, preparatory police exercises and cyber-attacks.
Occupy Central with Love and Peace (OCLP), the pro-democracy movement that organised the poll, hopes to pressure Beijing into allowing Hong Kong's 7.2 million residents to choose their own leader by 2017. If Beijing refuses, OCLP says, the movement will mobilise at least 10,000 people next month to block the main roads in Central, a forest of skyscrapers housing businesses and government offices on Hong Kong island's northern shore.
The Transition Project links with other US-funded organizations, including the Hong Kong-based "think tank" Civic Exchange. Funded by Exxon, the US State Department's NDI, the British Council, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Morgan Stanley, Citi Group, the British Consulate itself, and many others, its claim of being "Hong Kong's independent public policy think tank" is scandalous.

The Agenda: What Does "Occupy Central" Really Want?

US NDI openly states on its own page dedicated to its political meddling in Hong Kong that:
In 2005, NDI initiated a six-month young political leaders program focused on training a group of rising party and political group members in political communications skills. In 2006, NDI launched a District Council campaign school for candidates and campaign managers in the lead-up to the 2007 elections.
NDI has also worked to bring political parties, government leaders and civil society actors together in public forums to discuss political party development, the role of parties in Hong Kong and political reform. In 2012, for example, a conference by Hong Kong think tank SynergyNet supported by NDI featured panelists from parties across the ideological spectrum and explored how adopting a system of coalition government might lead to a more responsive legislative process.
Indeed, the very organizations, forums, and political parties the "Occupy Central" movement is associated with and led by are the creation of foreign interests - specifically the US State Department through NDI. Since "democracy" is "self-rule," and every step of "Occupy Central" has seen involvement by foreign interests, "democracy" is surely not the protest's true agenda.

Instead, it is "soft" recolonizationaudr by Washington, Wall Street, and London. If "Occupy Central" is successful and Beijing ever foolishly agrees to allowing the leaders of this foreign-orchestrated charade to run for office, what will be running Hong Kong will not be the people, but rather foreign interests through a collection of overt proxies who shamelessly sustain themselves on US cash, political backing, and support across the West's vast media resources.

The West's Long War With China

"Occupy Central" is just one of many ongoing gambits the US is running against Beijing. A visit to the US NED site reveals not one, but four pages dedicated to meddling in China's internal politics. NED's activities are divided among China in general, Tibet, Xinjiang - referred to as "East Turkistan" as it is called by violent separatists the US backs - and Hong Kong. All of NED's funding goes to politically subversive groups aligned to and dependent on the West, while being hostile toward Beijing. They range from "monitoring" and "media" organizations, to political parties as well as fronts for violent extremists. And as impressive as this network of political subversion is, it itself is still but a single part of a greater geopolitical agenda to encircle, contain, and eventually collapse the political order of Beijing and replace it with one favorable to Wall Street and Washington.

As early as the Vietnam War, with the so-called "Pentagon Papers" released in 1969, it was revealed that the conflict was simply one part of a greater strategy aimed at containing and controlling China. While the US would ultimately lose the Vietnam War and any chance of using the Vietnamese as a proxy force against Beijing, the long war against Beijing would continue elsewhere.


This containment strategy would be updated and detailed in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral” where it outlines China’s efforts to secure its oil lifeline from the Middle East to its shores in the South China Sea as well as means by which the US can maintain American hegemony throughout the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The premise is that, should Western foreign policy fail to entice China into participating in the “international system” as responsible stakeholders, an increasingly confrontational posture must be taken to contain the rising nation.

This includes funding, arming, and backing terrorists and proxy regimes from Africa, across the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and even within China’s territory itself. Documented support of these movements not only include Xinjiang separatists, but also militants and separatists in Baluchistan, Pakistan where the West seeks to disrupt a newly christened Chinese port and pipeline, as well as the machete wielding supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar’s Rakhine state - yet another site the Chinese hope to establish a logistical hub.

Meddling in Thailand and stoking confrontation between China and an adversarial front including Vietnam, the Philippines, and Japan are also components of this spanning containment policy.

Whatever grievances those among "Occupy Central's" mobs may have, they have forfeited both their legitimacy and credibility, not to mention any chance of actually achieving progress. Indeed, as the US-engineered "Arab Spring" has illustrated, nothing good will come of serving insidious foreign interests under the guise of "promoting democracy." The goal of "Occupy Central" is to make Hong Kong ungovernable at any cost, especially at the cost of the people living there - not because that is the goal of the witless though well-intentioned participants being misled by Washington's troupe of seditious proxies, but because that is the goal of those funding and ultimately directing the movement from abroad.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Click to expand...

There is a revolution happening in Hong Kong right now that has drawn the entire world’s attention to this tiny island in Asia. While many people have made their voices known on social media in support of this movement, my heart is greatly saddened by the efforts of the Hong Kong people. In my opinion the protests are absurd and a travesty to the city.

Many people applaud the Hong Kong locals saying their protests are peaceful, orderly, and a model example for how protests should be carried out. That’s a great compliment to the people of Hong Kong but in my opinion they shouldn’t even be protesting in the first place. The purpose of this article is to give people a broader viewpoint, and challenge them to think outside the box.


The issue at hand is Hong Kong people want the chance to vote for their own leader. The Beijing Communist government ruled last month that people can elect their next leader in 2017, however a pro-Beijing committee must approve the candidates. Hong Kongers fear that this will allow China to screen candidates and as a result they have not accepted this decision.

China's Parliament Building in Beijing
China’s Parliament Building in Beijing

Having lived in Mainland China for 7 years, I bring a different perspective to this argument. I have traveled to Hong Kong numerous times over those 7 years and always had nothing but respect and admiration for Hong Kong. Beijing lent Hong Kong to the British for 100 years (1897-1997) and the city transformed itself into the financial and shipping hub of Asia. During the handover in 1997, everyone feared communist China would regain control and change everything, instead Beijing admired what the British accomplished and kept Hong Kong the same.

In the 17 years following the handover, the Beijing government has done nothing but help Hong Kong grow and having protests like this will only jeopardize Hong Kong’s relationship with China. A relationship that Hong Kong desperately needs. I’m currently writing this post from Scotland and can’t help but draw some comparisons to the recent vote of independence in this country. While many Scots wanted to leave the United Kingdom, the majority of them realized they were stronger together than they were by themselves and voted accordingly. This is exactly the same for Hong Kong, this SAR (Special Administrative Region) is much stronger with support from China.

Crossing the border between Hong Kong and Mainland China
Crossing the border between Hong Kong and Mainland China

My biggest issue with these protests are Hong Kong citizens have never considered how fortunate they are right now. They should be thankful for the tremendous amount of freedom they already have and realize that 1.4 billion Chinese people would give anything to be in their shoes. Here are some examples of what I mean:

1. When Hong Kong’s budget has a surplus (as in 2011) Hong Kong citizens and PR’s (Permanent Residents) receive a complimentary bonus from the government the last one was $HKD 6,000 ($USD 775). Not many countries in the world can run their budget at a surplus and certainly not many would redistribute the surplus back to it’s citizens.

2. The Hong Kong passport gives its citizens visa-free access to 152 countries around the world. Chinese citizens on the other hand can only visit 43 countries without a visa. This puts the Chinese passport on the same level as countries like Congo and Rwanda.

3. Hong Kong citizens enjoy one of the lowest personal income taxes in the world, with the maximum rate fixed at only 15%, China’s maximum (along with many Western countries) is at 45%.

4. The Index of Economic Freedom has ranked Hong Kong the World’s Freest Economy for 20 consecutive years (1995-2014). China currently ranks #137 in the world.

5. Hong Kong has the world’s most developed transportation system in the world. Over 90% of daily travels are on public transport, the highest such percentage in the world. China’s public transport is extensive in major cities but still lacking in rural areas.

6. Hong Kong legal system is completely independent from the legal system of Mainland China. Hong Kong continues to follow the English common law tradition that was established under British rule.

7. Internet censorship in Hong Kong operates under complete different principles and regulations from those of Mainland China. Currently Mainland China forbids Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and many other social media websites.

8. Hong Kong is a tax haven for imports. Everything from Bordeaux wine, Nike shoes, and Apple iPhones are imported into Hong Kong without any duty taxes, thereby making Hong Kong the cheapest place in the world to purchase many Western products. China’s duty taxes are notoriously high (between 50-100%) making it one of the world’s most expensive places to purchase a Western product.

These are just a few of the many benefits citizens of Hong Kong receive. I read this list and find it hard to believe why people would want to protest a government that has provided such amazing benefits. In addition I haven’t even began to describe the social benefits like medical coverage, social security, and disability benefits for Hong Kong citizens that are much better than their neighbors in Mainland China.

Protests with a sign reading "We are Hong Konge, not Chinese"
Protestors with a sign reading “We are Hong Kong People, not Chinese”

My second issue with these protests is the Hong Kong citizens extreme and often raciest views towards Mainland Chinese. There is an opinion floating around Hong Kong that the island would be better without Mainland Chinese. Hong Kong people like to identify themselves as “Hong Kongers” and despise people labeling them as “Chinese”. In actuality all Hong Kong people came from the Mainland, this is a proven fact as every Hong Kong citizen can trace their roots back to the Mainland.

In
In this photo Hong Kong people are verbally attacking Mainland Chinese tourists who wait outside a shopping mall

It is this hatred for Mainland Chinese that have caused Hong Kong citizens to protest against the government in Beijing. It is very naive in my opinion. Don’t Hong Kong citizens realize that Mainland Chinese tourists are the key to their booming economy? Long lines of tourists outside shopping malls are creating jobs, filling hotels rooms, airplane seats, and restaurant chairs as everyone wants to come to and experience this former British colony. As we approach the Chinese October holidays tourism companies are expecting a 30-50% decrease in Mainland Chinese tourism during the holiday. Hong Kong people will feel that they have won a small battle, until they see the effects of slower economy, rising prices, and loss of jobs as a major decrease in tourism will send Hong Kong’s economy into a recession. Over the last 5 years Singapore has emerged as the next hub for Asia’s finance, shipping, and entrepreneurial companies. As long as these protests continue Hong Kong’s economy will deteriorate and Singapore will take even more business away from Hong Kong.

My final issue with the protests is that democratic elections are not always the answer to everyone’s problems, ask any American voter in the 2000 United States Presidential Election. Fourteen years ago American voters participated in one of the closest presidential elections in American history. Democratic candidate Al Gore received 48.4% of the popular vote compared to George Bush’s 47.9%. George Bush lost the popular vote and still became the President of America! This is possible because George Bush won more votes from the Electoral College, which is the institution that actually elects the president in America, not the American voters themselves. Many Americans felt betrayed by the government. They shouldn’t have though this was actually the 4th time in American history a president failed to win the popular vote but went on to become president.

My point in bringing up America’s political system is to show everyone that even America, the world’s most famous democracy, you can have a public vote that still has government intervention, there is no such thing as 100% freedom.

I look around the world and see the unrest between Israel and Palestine, British and Americans hostages being executed by terrorist groups in Syria, the harsh conflict between Russia and Ukraine and feel I am so blessed to live in Hong Kong as an expat and have a tremendous amount of freedom.

I challenge all Hong Kong citizens to think about the opportunities you’ve had compared to your brothers in Mainland China. Protesting against Beijing is not the answer, embrace your Chinese roots, cherish your British influence, and most importantly:

Click to expand...

It seems that some people, especially a few post-1980 politicians, would prefer China to remain under British, French, American or other colonial rule, as she was partially colonised before the second world war. Do they prefer to remain a colony calling themselves Hongkongers, rather than Chinese? Do they realise that they could become US-controlled, like Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan and other countries that received a "democratic" vote and also economic control under the name of "democracy", resulting in poverty?

I feel very sad about young people being misled into believing that universal suffrage would improve the lives of Hong Kong people. I believe in democracy, but not the colonial type which ties it economically to the US or other former colonies. I spent many years of my life opposing the unfair and corrupt treatment of Hong Kong people by the British colonials during the years from 1950 to 1980.

Fair-minded people will admit that China has strictly adhered to the Joint Declaration
When the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed in 1984, I was happy to see that Hong Kong laws would remain unchanged, and that the "one country, two systems" principle would be observed. Since 1997, Hong Kong, under Chinese sovereignty, has introduced voting for the Legislative Council step by step. Britain never agreed to introducing universal suffrage under its colonial system, while China kept her word and allowed Hong Kong to introduce voting, step by step.

Some Hong Kong people, who had never fought for justice under the British government, suddenly set up political parties after 1980, calling themselves "democrats". Each of them apparently wanted to be the future ruler of Hong Kong so they split into different groups, each using a democratic name. They condemned China as communist, but seemed not to notice that China's communism was unlike the original communist system, because China introduced some "Chinese characteristics". For example, the livelihood of millions of people was improved.

That does not mean China is without fault. The recent trials of Chinese officials have sadly indicated that corruption still needs to be wiped out.

Most of us can see that every country, including new democratic countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, was robbed of its land or resources by the former colonials, while the Chinese central government frequently assisted Hong Kong in many ways, even when we were still under colonial rule.

It was agreed between Britain and China that the laws of Hong Kong would not be changed on its return to China in 1997. That did not mean that, from 1997, Hong Kong would be independent. "One country, two systems" meant that Hong Kong would be within Chinese sovereignty, though the current Hong Kong laws in 1997 would remain unchanged. In fact, China has carried out that agreement, while some Hong Kong politicians have repeatedly tried to change it.

Fair-minded people will admit that China has strictly adhered to the Joint Declaration. They will admit that China has kept to her promises, just as China kept the agreement made that Hong Kong could remain under British control until 1997.

Whenever the subject of Hong Kong's reunification with China is raised, the same group of politicians stirs up trouble, especially to influence young people who did not live through those earlier times, to reject the agreement of 1984, and demand a Western democracy.

In fact, the central government has not stated what it intends to do in 2047, but the so-called democrats of Hong Kong have shown that they do not want to listen, or to agree with whatever the central government has planned. Agreements cannot be made unless both sides are willing to talk, but these new "democrats" think they know everything, and that the central government must accept their plans, without even listening to what it has in mind for 2047.

In fact, the radical Hong Kong democrats do not even agree with one another on what they want, except, it seems, to disagree with everything.

I feel sure that China will come up with a very acceptable plan for 2047, if Hong Kong's opposition would just wait, listen and see, instead of crying before they are hurt. Remember how some politicians cried foul before 1997? In the end, China offered a workable system for both the country and Hong Kong.

Why don't we work together, talk together, and come up with a united plan for Hong Kong's future? What Hong Kong needs urgently is better living conditions for the workers, and fair distribution of wealth. Surely we don't want fighting and killing such as we have seen in Egypt, Syria and other countries where the call for democracy usually triggers a struggle for power.

Elsie Tu, born in 1913, arrived in Hong Kong in 1951 to begin her long and uninterrupted work on helping the poor and disenfranchised through her various roles as an educator, social activist, and as an elected member of the Urban Council and Legislative Council, and other public offices she held. This article first appeared in the China Daily

Click to expand...

Protesters cry democracy but most are driven by dislocation and resentment at mainlanders’ success
Martin Jacques
The Guardian, Tuesday 30 September 2014 14.45 EDT
Jump to comments (1650)
Pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong
Pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong on Tuesday. ‘Hong Kong has lost its role as the gateway to China.’ Photograph: Chris McGrath/Getty Images
The upheaval sweeping Hong Kong is more complicated than on the surface it might appear. Protests have erupted over direct elections to be held in three years’ time; democracy activists claim that China’s plans will allow it to screen out the candidates it doesn’t want.

It should be remembered, however, that for 155 years until its handover to China in 1997, Hong Kong was a British colony, forcibly taken from China at the end of the first opium war. All its 28 subsequent governors were appointed by the British government. Although Hong Kong came, over time, to enjoy the rule of law and the right to protest, under the British it never enjoyed even a semblance of democracy. It was ruled from 6,000 miles away in London. The idea of any kind of democracy was first introduced by the Chinese government. In 1990 the latter adopted the Basic Law, which included the commitment that in 2017 the territory’s chief executive would be elected by universal suffrage; it also spelt out that the nomination of candidates would be a matter for a nominating committee.

This proposal should be seen in the context of what was a highly innovative – and, to westerners, completely unfamiliar – constitutional approach by the Chinese. The idea of “one country, two systems” under which Hong Kong would maintain its distinctive legal and political system for 50 years. Hong Kong would, in these respects, remain singularly different from the rest of China, while at the same time being subject to Chinese sovereignty. In contrast, the western view has always embraced the principle of “one country, one system” – as, for example, in German unification. But China is more a civilisation-state than a nation-state: historically it would have been impossible to hold together such a vast country without allowing much greater flexibility. Its thinking – “one civilisation, many systems” – was shaped by its very different history.

In the 17 years since the handover, China has, whatever the gainsayers might suggest, overwhelmingly honoured its commitment to the principle of one country, two systems. The legal system remains based on English law, the rule of law prevails, and the right to demonstrate, as we have seen so vividly in recent days, is still very much intact. The Chinese meant what they offered. Indeed, it can reasonably be argued that they went to extremes in their desire to be unobtrusive: sotto voce might be an apt way of describing China’s approach to Hong Kong. At the time of the handover, and in the three years I lived in Hong Kong from 1998, it was difficult to identify any visible signs of Chinese rule: I recall seeing just one Chinese flag.

Notwithstanding this, Hong Kong – and its relationship with China – was in fact changing rapidly. Herein lies a fundamental reason for the present unrest: the growing sense of dislocation among a section of Hong Kong’s population. During the 20 years or so prior to the handover, the territory enjoyed its golden era – not because of the British but because of the Chinese. In 1978 Deng Xiaoping embarked on his reform programme, and China began to grow rapidly. It was still, however, a relatively closed society. Hong Kong was the beneficiary – it became the entry point to China, and as a result attracted scores of multinational companies and banks that wanted to gain access to the Chinese market. Hong Kong got rich because of China. It also fed an attitude of hubris and arrogance. The Hong Kong Chinese came to enjoy a much higher standard of living than the mainlanders. They looked down on the latter as poor, ignorant and uncouth peasants, as greatly their inferior. They preferred – up to a point – to identify with westerners rather than mainlanders, not because of democracy (the British had never allowed them any) but primarily because of money and the status that went with it.

Much has changed since 1997. The Chinese economy has grown many times, the standard of living of the Chinese likewise. If you want to access the Chinese market nowadays, why move to Hong Kong when you can go straight to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu and a host of other major cities? Hong Kong has lost its role as the gateway to China. Where previously Hong Kong was China’s unrivalled financial centre, now it is increasingly dwarfed by Shanghai. Until recently, Hong Kong was by far China’s largest port: now it has been surpassed by Shanghai and Shenzhen, and Guangzhou will shortly overtake it.

Two decades ago westerners comprised the bulk of Hong Kong’s tourists, today mainlanders account for the overwhelming majority, many of them rather more wealthy than most Hong Kong Chinese. Likewise, an increasing number of mainlanders have moved to the territory – which is a growing source of resentment. If China needed Hong Kong in an earlier period, this is no longer nearly as true as it was. On the contrary, without China, Hong Kong would be in deep trouble.

Understandably, many Hong Kong Chinese are struggling to come to terms with these new realities. They are experiencing a crisis of identity and a sense of displacement. They know their future is inextricably bound up with China but that is very different from embracing the fact. Yet there is no alternative: China is the future of Hong Kong.

All these issues, in a most complex way, are being played out in the present arguments over universal suffrage. Hong Kong is divided. About half the population support China’s proposals on universal suffrage, either because they think they are a step forward or because they take the pragmatic view that they will happen anyway. The other half is opposed. A relatively small minority of these have never really accepted Chinese sovereignty. Anson Chan, the former head of the civil service under Chris Patten, and Jimmy Lai, a prominent businessman, fall into this category, and so do some of the Democrats. Then there is a much larger group, among them many students, who oppose Beijing’s plans for more idealistic reasons.

One scenario can be immediately discounted. China will not accept the election of a chief executive hostile to Chinese rule. If the present unrest continues, then a conceivable backstop might be to continue indefinitely with the status quo, which, from the point of view of democratic change, both in Hong Kong and China, would be a retrograde step. More likely is that the Chinese government will persist with its proposals, perhaps with minor concessions, and anticipate that the opposition will slowly abate. This remains the most likely scenario.

An underlying weakness of Chinese rule has nevertheless been revealed by these events. One of the most striking features of Hong Kong remains the relative absence of a mainland political presence. The Chinese have persisted with what can best be described as a hands-off approach. Their relationship to the administration is either indirect or behind the scenes. Strange as it may seem, the Chinese are not involved in the cut and thrust of political argument. They will need to find more effective ways of making their views clear and arguing their case – not in Beijing but in Hong Kong.

Click to expand...

Hong Kong (CNN) -- Pro-democracy demonstrators seized back part of Hong Kong's bustling Mong Kok district Saturday after a night of scuffles.
Spurred on by police attempts to reopen part of the district to traffic, the protesters' numbers increased overnight, swelling to around 9,000, according to Hong Kong police.
By Saturday morning, the demonstrators had reclaimed the territory that they had ceded less than a day earlier.
Amid the tussling, Hong Kong Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, the government negotiator, announced Saturday that talks with pro-democracy protesters will take place Tuesday, with Lingnan University President Leonard Cheng as moderator.
"The meeting is expected to take place for about two hours," she said, adding that it will be broadcast live but not open to the public.
The reaction from Yvonne Leung, spokeswoman for the Hong Kong Federation of Students, was lukewarm at best. She said in statement that the protest group didn't "have much opinion" about the details of the meeting.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...