An Era in Hong Kong Is Ending, Thanks to China’s Tight Embrace(wsj.com)
wsj.com
An Era in Hong Kong Is Ending, Thanks to China’s Tight Embrace
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-era-in-hong-kong-is-ending-thanks-to-chinas-tight-embrace-1474647072
94 comments
China is just as averse as any other country to secession, it only seems more oppressive about it because more people have tried to secede from it in the last decades. Brazil for instance has a history of revolts for secession, but after ten or twenty bloodbaths the people quieted down, and now only a handful timidly call for it. I'm sure other countries have a similar history, and I hope that nowadays they would have a more understanding attitude towards it. For instance, Catalonia seems to be closer than ever from seceding from Spain, and I hope they can do it without conflict. I wonder though what would happen if one day there are enough Texans to vote for a secession and enough reason to press for it if it's not legally accepted... I imagine Uncle Sam would not be very happy about it.
Disagree. Of course, secession is not an everyday occurrence.
But Scotland had a referendum 2014 about leaving the UK, and Scottish independence can be openly discussed. Some autonomous regions of Spain enjoy big degrees of autonomy, and might get more.
China is very protective of its integrity, and I'd say even more so than many, if not most countries.
(I wonder, incidentally, how constitutions deal with it.)
But Scotland had a referendum 2014 about leaving the UK, and Scottish independence can be openly discussed. Some autonomous regions of Spain enjoy big degrees of autonomy, and might get more.
China is very protective of its integrity, and I'd say even more so than many, if not most countries.
(I wonder, incidentally, how constitutions deal with it.)
>Some autonomous regions of Spain enjoy big degrees of autonomy, and might get more.
The Basque separatist movement hasn't been entirely peaceful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA_(separatist_group)
The Basque separatist movement hasn't been entirely peaceful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETA_(separatist_group)
Just some evidence, for example:
German constitution, article 1, paragraph 1: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
HK basic law, article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China."
German constitution, article 1, paragraph 1: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
HK basic law, article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China."
You should compare China with US, not UK. Alaska is not trying to get off of the United States, but it would make more sense than HK leaving China. Why HK should be independent? Just because some young people living there want it?
[deleted]
Erosion of which freedoms? For most of its modern history, Hong Kong was a dictatorship. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Government
> For almost all of its history under British rule, executive power in Hong Kong was concentrated in the hands of the colony governor, a position appointed by the British crown without any democratic input from Hong Kong citizens. The introduction of elected representatives determined by local elections, even limited to the role of "advisory councils", did not begin until after the 1984 agreements by the British to hand Hong Kong over to China.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Government
> For almost all of its history under British rule, executive power in Hong Kong was concentrated in the hands of the colony governor, a position appointed by the British crown without any democratic input from Hong Kong citizens. The introduction of elected representatives determined by local elections, even limited to the role of "advisory councils", did not begin until after the 1984 agreements by the British to hand Hong Kong over to China.
Trust me, you can have an appointed governor, yet many civil liberties and the rule of law.
Conversely, you can have a "Democratic People's Republic" without either (looking at you, North Korea).
Of course the UK was hypocritical in "recognising" the importance of democracy just before handing HK over to China.
But that HK enjoys civil liberties and the rule of law, more so than the mainland, and has so even under British administration, particularly after WW II, is undeniable.
Conversely, you can have a "Democratic People's Republic" without either (looking at you, North Korea).
Of course the UK was hypocritical in "recognising" the importance of democracy just before handing HK over to China.
But that HK enjoys civil liberties and the rule of law, more so than the mainland, and has so even under British administration, particularly after WW II, is undeniable.
E.g.
Hong Kong Is Banning Pro-Independence Candidates From Running in Elections
http://time.com/4436253/hong-kong-election-briefing-protests...
By the way Hong Kong under British rule was freer than mainland China has ever been under the CCP rule, even though they did not have democratically elected leaders.
Hong Kong Is Banning Pro-Independence Candidates From Running in Elections
http://time.com/4436253/hong-kong-election-briefing-protests...
By the way Hong Kong under British rule was freer than mainland China has ever been under the CCP rule, even though they did not have democratically elected leaders.
The British banned all pro-independence candidates, by not having elections. And by arresting, and occasionally killing protesters, but that's just how colonialism goes. [1]
The British were quite happy to give the people of Hong Kong freedom, when it didn't cost them anything. China's current behavior is not dissimilar. Hong Kong exchanged a colonial overlord ruling from London, with one ruling from Beijing. Neither concerns themselves much with the welfare of the populace.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton%E2%80%93Hong_Kong_strik...
The British were quite happy to give the people of Hong Kong freedom, when it didn't cost them anything. China's current behavior is not dissimilar. Hong Kong exchanged a colonial overlord ruling from London, with one ruling from Beijing. Neither concerns themselves much with the welfare of the populace.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton%E2%80%93Hong_Kong_strik...
That was before WWII. Immediately after WWII, Mark Young advocated to introduce representative democracy to HK. The fear of an invasion by Communist China was the main reason it didn't go through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong)
You talk about "the years until 84", then talk about "arrests and murder of protesters", citing a source talking about the IXX century... That's dishonest.
Maintaining foreign rule - by any empire - requires the use of informants, secret police, and suppression of political activity.
The Birtish didn't station thousands of soldiers in Hong Kong so they could have an exotic vacation. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_Overseas_Hong_K...
The Birtish didn't station thousands of soldiers in Hong Kong so they could have an exotic vacation. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_Overseas_Hong_K...
I'm not sure what point are you trying to make. Apart from the 1967 riots, which were orchestrated by another country anyway, when did the British Forces turn against Hong Kong people?
British HK was better for freedom of speech and rule of law, I believe. Participatory government is important but not the only factor in freedom.
It's not like HK volunteered to become a subject of the Crown in the first place though:
> In 1839, Britain invaded China to crush opposition to its interference in the country’s economic and political affairs. One of Britain’s first acts of the war was to occupy Hong Kong, a sparsely inhabited island off the coast of southeast China. In 1841, China ceded the island to the British, and in 1842 the Treaty of Nanking was signed, formally ending the First Opium War.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hong-kong-ceded-t...
If Canada invaded the US and forced rohde island to become a territory of Canada, I'd probably be bitter about it, even if it became safer to live there.
> In 1839, Britain invaded China to crush opposition to its interference in the country’s economic and political affairs. One of Britain’s first acts of the war was to occupy Hong Kong, a sparsely inhabited island off the coast of southeast China. In 1841, China ceded the island to the British, and in 1842 the Treaty of Nanking was signed, formally ending the First Opium War.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hong-kong-ceded-t...
If Canada invaded the US and forced rohde island to become a territory of Canada, I'd probably be bitter about it, even if it became safer to live there.
Most of the population were people who chose to migrate to Hong Kong after it became a British colony though.
Freedom of speech is worth little, when you don't have freedom of political activity. What good is it if you can criticize your government, when you can't do anything change it?
Speech, by itself, does nothing - until you transform it into action. Which was quite illegal. Inmates in a prison have as much freedom of speech as they could ever want - but they are not free.
Speech, by itself, does nothing - until you transform it into action. Which was quite illegal. Inmates in a prison have as much freedom of speech as they could ever want - but they are not free.
What good is it if you can criticize your government, when you can't do anything change it?
It's not going to be too long before the people of HK can do neither, much like their pitiable neighbours to the north.
It's not going to be too long before the people of HK can do neither, much like their pitiable neighbours to the north.
The government DID change.
How do you think HK got non-corrupt? Trust me, it wasn't because of a democracy.
How do you think HK got non-corrupt? Trust me, it wasn't because of a democracy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pus...
> ... beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.
> ... beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.
Control of domestic affairs under the "one country, two systems" framework introduced at the handover.
Wikipedia maintains a decent compendium on sources of tension: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong–Mainland_conflict
Wikipedia maintains a decent compendium on sources of tension: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong–Mainland_conflict
Perhaps those (post-British freedoms) were the freedoms the parent comment was referring to. I don't believe he or she stated the freedoms were because of British rule.
You are confusing suffrage with freedom.
[deleted]
It makes me sad to see this, less than 20 years on.
Chris Patten (last governor, and something of a surprise appointment) made a big effort to shape the handover agreement to give democracy the best chance of surviving. He ended up quite popular in HK and deeply disliked in Beijing.
He has often spoken that one of his biggest regrets was he and Britain couldn't have achieved more and complained that British governments haven't criticised China enough since handover (most recently having a pop at George Osbourne last year). You end up with the impression his 5 years there made more impact on him than the rest of his career.
Chris Patten (last governor, and something of a surprise appointment) made a big effort to shape the handover agreement to give democracy the best chance of surviving. He ended up quite popular in HK and deeply disliked in Beijing.
He has often spoken that one of his biggest regrets was he and Britain couldn't have achieved more and complained that British governments haven't criticised China enough since handover (most recently having a pop at George Osbourne last year). You end up with the impression his 5 years there made more impact on him than the rest of his career.
He certainly made quite a big (and lasting) impression on Hong Kong people. Perhaps by fate, he was the only career politician ever to take the role, and to date he is still the governor/chief executive with the most political skills ever to have led Hong Kong.
For anyone interested in the mainland/HK relationship, I urge you to check out the East West South North blog (1) run by Roland Soong, a local writer who translates Chinese/Cantonese newspaper articles, web videos, and forum posts into English. It’s ostensibly about local politics, but it also gets into the social dynamics and news events including tension between local people and mainlanders over real estate, government services, tourism, and elections.
In addition to activities in Hong Kong, there have been reports that China’s government has pressured overseas Chinese journalists, activists, and community leaders in other parts of the world (2) with at least one Chinese-Canadian journalist losing his job for not toeing the pro-China line. The Globe and Mail has reported that Chinese security agents on tourist visas regularly attempt to strong-arm certain expatriates to return home (3).
Finally, in China itself many journalists have simply given up. Many believe there is no future in the profession, because the government clamps down on almost any reporting that goes against local and national interests (4). The Communist/PRC propaganda machine has been around since 1949, but in an era of instant communications, social networking, and higher standards of living, the hopes and goals of China’s young journalists can’t bypass the power of a one-party political system that will do whatever it takes to achieve its vision of stability while preserving one-party rule.
1. http://www.zonaeuropa.com/weblog.htm
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/world/americas/chinese-can...
3. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-agents-...
4. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/12/china-journali...
In addition to activities in Hong Kong, there have been reports that China’s government has pressured overseas Chinese journalists, activists, and community leaders in other parts of the world (2) with at least one Chinese-Canadian journalist losing his job for not toeing the pro-China line. The Globe and Mail has reported that Chinese security agents on tourist visas regularly attempt to strong-arm certain expatriates to return home (3).
Finally, in China itself many journalists have simply given up. Many believe there is no future in the profession, because the government clamps down on almost any reporting that goes against local and national interests (4). The Communist/PRC propaganda machine has been around since 1949, but in an era of instant communications, social networking, and higher standards of living, the hopes and goals of China’s young journalists can’t bypass the power of a one-party political system that will do whatever it takes to achieve its vision of stability while preserving one-party rule.
1. http://www.zonaeuropa.com/weblog.htm
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/world/americas/chinese-can...
3. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-agents-...
4. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/12/china-journali...
Another good source of English-language news on HK is the Hong Kong Free Press run by Tom Grundy:
https://www.hongkongfp.com
https://www.hongkongfp.com
Although I think integration with mainland China is probably a good thing it's things like this I find alarming:
Hong Kongers are sensitive about encroachment by mainland law enforcement. Last year, several Hong Kong booksellers disappeared after publishing thinly sourced, salacious tell-alls about China’s leaders. They turned up later in detention in mainland China.
Hong Kongers are sensitive about encroachment by mainland law enforcement. Last year, several Hong Kong booksellers disappeared after publishing thinly sourced, salacious tell-alls about China’s leaders. They turned up later in detention in mainland China.
> I think integration with mainland China is probably a good thing
Why do you think cultural genocide is a good thing?
No, seriously, as a Hong Konger, I really would like to know if are there really any actual advantages.
Why do you think cultural genocide is a good thing?
No, seriously, as a Hong Konger, I really would like to know if are there really any actual advantages.
As an American who has spent a large amount of time in Hong Kong and China, lived there for a year, speak (limited) Chinese, basically go every year, read a ton about China, talk to Hong Konger's and Chinese about politics on a regular basis...I can tell you that most Americans have a very abstract understanding of the complexities of the situation and implications, yet at the same time we feel that we have a high understanding of the situation because the internet gives an illusion of knowledge. Basically if you are the typical American who reads the New York Times, you generally consider yourself well informed, and so you can consider a lot of the problems with the massive complexities of the world, "solved," by reading this level of publication, because there's an underlying assumption that our free and open media sources deliver a sufficiently robust amount of value, but if you haven't got any real deep exposure with the problem, you won't be able to discern what the gaps in a meta-analsysis may be. Basically, the person who you are asking that question will have no idea what you mean by, "cultural genocide," and no historical backdrop for why you would use that term in the first place.
For starters, we are not taught anything about Chinese history and "World History," is basically European history. Can you put yourself in the shoes of someone who is starting off from that perspective?
You hear a lot of broad oversimplifications over here such as, "China is communist!" vs, "No it's not, it's capitalist!" But not a lot of nuance behind the truth of such statements. The commentator is not likely intending to be malicious, he/she likely just does not have access to sufficient information to even know they are making a bad assessment.
For starters, we are not taught anything about Chinese history and "World History," is basically European history. Can you put yourself in the shoes of someone who is starting off from that perspective?
You hear a lot of broad oversimplifications over here such as, "China is communist!" vs, "No it's not, it's capitalist!" But not a lot of nuance behind the truth of such statements. The commentator is not likely intending to be malicious, he/she likely just does not have access to sufficient information to even know they are making a bad assessment.
It's true that I am not familiar with the "cultural genocide" you are referring to. Could you elaborate?
Sorry about that.
I guess my strong reaction came from a deep dislike of the concept of "integration" in this context. To me, "integration" means "to achieve sameness", so perhaps I should briefly explain how mainland China and Hong Kong differs. Apart from the differences in the political, economic and legal systems, culturally Hong Kong is very different from northern China; from the languages we speak, the script we write, to the food we eat, but more importantly, in our different worldviews and different thoughts on how the entire society should be run, like how business relationships should be maintained, how kids should be raised, how success is defined, who should we look up to, and so on. It's not completely different, but different enough to be distinctive.
Which brings us to today. Most primary schools now teach in a non-native tongue. Kickbacks are almost expected in deals because "that's China and we're in China". Infrastructure projects for "integration" are abnormally costly and got to go ahead with doctored projection data to justify them. We must "go north" and look for opportunities in mainland China, the government says -- what happened to the rest of the world?
And then there are 150 new settlers from mainland China every single day, 7 days a week 365 days a year, and our government have no say in who gets to come.
I guess my strong reaction came from a deep dislike of the concept of "integration" in this context. To me, "integration" means "to achieve sameness", so perhaps I should briefly explain how mainland China and Hong Kong differs. Apart from the differences in the political, economic and legal systems, culturally Hong Kong is very different from northern China; from the languages we speak, the script we write, to the food we eat, but more importantly, in our different worldviews and different thoughts on how the entire society should be run, like how business relationships should be maintained, how kids should be raised, how success is defined, who should we look up to, and so on. It's not completely different, but different enough to be distinctive.
Which brings us to today. Most primary schools now teach in a non-native tongue. Kickbacks are almost expected in deals because "that's China and we're in China". Infrastructure projects for "integration" are abnormally costly and got to go ahead with doctored projection data to justify them. We must "go north" and look for opportunities in mainland China, the government says -- what happened to the rest of the world?
And then there are 150 new settlers from mainland China every single day, 7 days a week 365 days a year, and our government have no say in who gets to come.
Come on.
"Most primary schools now teach in a non-native tongue"
They used to teach English in HK schools. At least Mandarin is in the same language family as Cantonese.
As someone who used to live in HK and then left before '97, "cultural genocide" sounds like a hyperbole to me. HK and China has much more in common than they differ. HK and Guangzhou are exceptionally similar in culture and speak the exact same dialect. In fact, many people in HK have relatives there.
Lastly, having left HK and seen the rest of the world, I want to ask "what culture?" Nearly all of HK culture is imported and cheap copies of other cultures such as China, UK, and Japan.
I can be onboard with opposing the political changes but culture is a stretch for HK. HK's culture is skin deep and very insular.
"Most primary schools now teach in a non-native tongue"
They used to teach English in HK schools. At least Mandarin is in the same language family as Cantonese.
As someone who used to live in HK and then left before '97, "cultural genocide" sounds like a hyperbole to me. HK and China has much more in common than they differ. HK and Guangzhou are exceptionally similar in culture and speak the exact same dialect. In fact, many people in HK have relatives there.
Lastly, having left HK and seen the rest of the world, I want to ask "what culture?" Nearly all of HK culture is imported and cheap copies of other cultures such as China, UK, and Japan.
I can be onboard with opposing the political changes but culture is a stretch for HK. HK's culture is skin deep and very insular.
> They used to teach English in HK schools.
Cantonese was used to teach Chinese if not other subjects in schools. I'm talking about the switch of the medium of instruction from either English or Cantonese to Putonghua. There are even not-so-subtle "not knowing Putonghua" = "treats customers bad" stuff appearing in textbooks.
> HK and Guangzhou are exceptionally similar in culture
I totally agree, but note I said northern China. Guangzhou is facing the same problem to a much larger degree, unfortunately people there have mostly given up.
> Lastly, having left HK and seen the rest of the world, I want to ask "what culture?" Nearly all of HK culture is imported and cheap copies of other cultures such as China, UK, and Japan.
Looks like I have a slightly broader definition of "culture" than yours. Would you say Aussie culture is a cheap copy of America's, for example?
Cantonese was used to teach Chinese if not other subjects in schools. I'm talking about the switch of the medium of instruction from either English or Cantonese to Putonghua. There are even not-so-subtle "not knowing Putonghua" = "treats customers bad" stuff appearing in textbooks.
> HK and Guangzhou are exceptionally similar in culture
I totally agree, but note I said northern China. Guangzhou is facing the same problem to a much larger degree, unfortunately people there have mostly given up.
> Lastly, having left HK and seen the rest of the world, I want to ask "what culture?" Nearly all of HK culture is imported and cheap copies of other cultures such as China, UK, and Japan.
Looks like I have a slightly broader definition of "culture" than yours. Would you say Aussie culture is a cheap copy of America's, for example?
My apologies. Someone later on in the thread gave me an update on the educational language changes and it is indeed absurd.
That said, as a member of the HK diaspora, whenever someone complains about culture it often ends up being a nativist argument against immigrants. To hear someone from HK bring that up, especially against a population we are similar to, is a bit hard to take.
That said, as a member of the HK diaspora, whenever someone complains about culture it often ends up being a nativist argument against immigrants. To hear someone from HK bring that up, especially against a population we are similar to, is a bit hard to take.
No need to apologise -- as my parents are still overseas I totally understand, how things are happening far more quickly (and in a more absurd direction) than overseas HKers ever imagine.
That said, I don't have anything against mainland Chinese people -- I have worked with them, became friends with them. Yet, it is through extensive interactions with them that have made me realise how different we are, not just in languages or food but in how we think. That's the essence of what we are trying to preserve, and what the PRC is trying to eradicate.
That said, I don't have anything against mainland Chinese people -- I have worked with them, became friends with them. Yet, it is through extensive interactions with them that have made me realise how different we are, not just in languages or food but in how we think. That's the essence of what we are trying to preserve, and what the PRC is trying to eradicate.
> Lastly, having left HK and seen the rest of the world, I want to ask "what culture?" Nearly all of HK culture is imported and cheap copies of other cultures such as China, UK, and Japan.
Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, this is a rather offensive thing to say no? If people think their culture is unique or at least different, who are we to say otherwise?
Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, this is a rather offensive thing to say no? If people think their culture is unique or at least different, who are we to say otherwise?
Yes you're absolutely right. The wording was terrible because I was caught up in the emotions and didn't think carefully about it. What I really should have said is that HK culture inherits and imports from a few other cultures and thus HK culture has always changed with its history.
I'm not sure if you're missing the point.
Yes, secondary schools used to teach in Chinese and English (more of the former if you chose a Chinese school, more of the latter if you chose an English one), but the Chinese used to be Cantonese.
Now they're teaching even primary schools in Mandarin. The lingua franca is Cantonese, and Mandarin is a foreign language. Obviously, this is problematic. When I was going through the school system, Mandarin instruction (as a separate class, not as a language of instruction) didn't even start until fourth grade. Can you imagine starting your first day of grade one and your teacher starts speaking gibberish to you? That's ridiculous.
Yes, secondary schools used to teach in Chinese and English (more of the former if you chose a Chinese school, more of the latter if you chose an English one), but the Chinese used to be Cantonese.
Now they're teaching even primary schools in Mandarin. The lingua franca is Cantonese, and Mandarin is a foreign language. Obviously, this is problematic. When I was going through the school system, Mandarin instruction (as a separate class, not as a language of instruction) didn't even start until fourth grade. Can you imagine starting your first day of grade one and your teacher starts speaking gibberish to you? That's ridiculous.
No I wasn't missing a point;I was missing an entire data set! I didn't know they moved that down to primary school! I knew they switched from English to Mandarin but I didn't realize they pushed it down to grade one.
I am obviously wrong on that point. Thanks for the info.
I am obviously wrong on that point. Thanks for the info.
Actually, I think I implied more than what I meant to say. While they are now pushing the use of Mandarin as a language of instruction (and pushing it further down the age group), I'm not so sure they are starting at grade one (I'm now part of the diaspora myself, but this is in the Cantonese news once in a while). That was just me wondering to myself the absurdity of being taught in a language that I would've barely heard of at that point in life.
http://news.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/2016021...
Of the 80 schools sampled, 36 teach Chinese in Cantonese in all classes, 22 teach in Putonghua in all classes, 9 teach in Putonghua in all classes of some grades, and the rest have a mix of both.
Of the 80 schools sampled, 36 teach Chinese in Cantonese in all classes, 22 teach in Putonghua in all classes, 9 teach in Putonghua in all classes of some grades, and the rest have a mix of both.
I'm not the OP, but here a few issues that they could've meant:
* the increasing dominance of Mandarin, rather than the native Cantonese (see [1] for details and background).
* the (attempted) imposition of a "moral and national education curriculum" [2] in schools in 2012, teaching better appreciation of the motherland. (This was mostly defeated by a public outcry. Some groups that opposed it, e.g. Scholarism, played a major role in the umbrella movement later.)
* creeping erosion of press freedom and other civil liberties, such as the Article 23 anti-subversion bill that was introduced in 2003, but rejected after massive protests, or the so-called "Internet Article 23" bill introduced in 2015.
* integration and China-focus at any cost, leading to projects such as the high-speed railway to Guangzhou (Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link) or the 50 km bridge to Zhuhai.
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/07/language?zid...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_and_national_education
* the increasing dominance of Mandarin, rather than the native Cantonese (see [1] for details and background).
* the (attempted) imposition of a "moral and national education curriculum" [2] in schools in 2012, teaching better appreciation of the motherland. (This was mostly defeated by a public outcry. Some groups that opposed it, e.g. Scholarism, played a major role in the umbrella movement later.)
* creeping erosion of press freedom and other civil liberties, such as the Article 23 anti-subversion bill that was introduced in 2003, but rejected after massive protests, or the so-called "Internet Article 23" bill introduced in 2015.
* integration and China-focus at any cost, leading to projects such as the high-speed railway to Guangzhou (Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link) or the 50 km bridge to Zhuhai.
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/07/language?zid...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_and_national_education
Broadly, it's action, whether intentional or unintentional yet beneficiary, to remove evidence of any difference between two bodies of people by destroying and/or suppressing information, language, practices, methods, or anything that you may want to loop into the word, "culture." Within the context of Hong Kong / China it's difficult to explain, essentially there is a massively different, "feel" to each locale, and completely different systems of laws, language, thinking about the world, ways of communicating and thinking about how to govern and organize society, among other factors.
It may or may not be within China's interest as a whole or in part, or their perceived interest to do away with these artifacts and methods of difference. But individual interests of the largely powerful economic scale within mainland China rather than attempting to decelerate the process, treat Hong Kong like a personal sandbox and pay people to attempt to bring the democratic governmental system down, and this involves all sorts of strategies which help toward that aim. It's not really a, "conspiracy theory," it's kind of just a long, slow out in the open slog that everyone knows about.
If you go to Hong Kong in the year 2047 and then go over to Shenzhen I predict you won't sense much of a difference crossing from one side to another -- I would contest that is not likely good for China as a whole as my other comments on this thread point out.
Further evidence to my point...can you imagine if you saw banners in the US being put up by the Federal Government which said, "Be Civilized...Speak English Everywhere, Including the Airport!"
Or, could you imagine textbooks in school which say, "don't do uncivilized things like spit on the street, or speak Spanish." Horrifying.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cantonese-lan...
It may or may not be within China's interest as a whole or in part, or their perceived interest to do away with these artifacts and methods of difference. But individual interests of the largely powerful economic scale within mainland China rather than attempting to decelerate the process, treat Hong Kong like a personal sandbox and pay people to attempt to bring the democratic governmental system down, and this involves all sorts of strategies which help toward that aim. It's not really a, "conspiracy theory," it's kind of just a long, slow out in the open slog that everyone knows about.
If you go to Hong Kong in the year 2047 and then go over to Shenzhen I predict you won't sense much of a difference crossing from one side to another -- I would contest that is not likely good for China as a whole as my other comments on this thread point out.
Further evidence to my point...can you imagine if you saw banners in the US being put up by the Federal Government which said, "Be Civilized...Speak English Everywhere, Including the Airport!"
Or, could you imagine textbooks in school which say, "don't do uncivilized things like spit on the street, or speak Spanish." Horrifying.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cantonese-lan...
You can start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
Cultural Revolution is another topic I haven't touched on -- many of our previous generation are those who fled it, and the exact same people they fled from (ie. the actual persons who might have flogged them in Struggle Sessions[1]) are now becoming the rulers of PRC.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
The Western elite hit upon a liberal system which did indeed produce massive economic and technical growth over the last couple of centuries.
This system requires ceaseless indoctrination of the populace - ideological carpet bombing by means of movies, TV, news, music, books, games, toys, whatever - on the supreme value of 'freedom', above and beyond any local cultural norms, or indeed rational evaluation of the benefits. People must just know in their bones that 'dulce et decorum est pro libertas mori', and that whatever came before is now obsolete and irrelevant.
Some people get riled up about that.
This system requires ceaseless indoctrination of the populace - ideological carpet bombing by means of movies, TV, news, music, books, games, toys, whatever - on the supreme value of 'freedom', above and beyond any local cultural norms, or indeed rational evaluation of the benefits. People must just know in their bones that 'dulce et decorum est pro libertas mori', and that whatever came before is now obsolete and irrelevant.
Some people get riled up about that.
> dulce et decorum est pro libertas mori
Should be "pro libertate" ("pro" governs the ablative case).
Edit: the reason you may not notice the difference in the original is that the ablative of "patria" is "patriā" (just with a long a, which isn't explicitly marked in all texts).
Should be "pro libertate" ("pro" governs the ablative case).
Edit: the reason you may not notice the difference in the original is that the ablative of "patria" is "patriā" (just with a long a, which isn't explicitly marked in all texts).
Sincere thanks for explanation, appreciate it. I have "[very] little Latin and no Greek", which is now a common condition among supposedly educated people, but still saddens me.
From your vantage point, do you see cultural integration (or as you put it, genocide) as anything but inevitable? This article certainly paints a picture that the PRC has every intention of achieving full integration as soon as possible.
I don't see it happening organically, so if it does happen it will only be by force by the PRC. Therefore, conversely we must do everything we can to fight it. Both are happening right now, and honestly I do not know what the future looks like.
I guess I should clarify. Economic integration. If you read the article a lot of mainland capital is flowing into Hong Kong. That being said I do think the political and cultural aspects are troubling.
I would posit that the article's assertion of capital flowing into Hong Kong is deeply flawed, and the article was possibly paid for by people from China or the US who have an interest in this happening (although I have very little basis for asserting that possibility).
The foundation for currency is trust. Hong Kong has a functioning legal system, whereas China does not and will not in the future - by eroding that autonomy, China is in effect canibalizing its own capital base.
If you have room mate A and room mate B, and room mate A is very trustworthy while B is not, but B starts writing down tons of IOUs for millions of dollars onto pieces of paper and gives them to roommate A, is roommate A now richer? Well it depends upon roommate B's ability to pay back. Now, if roommate B has a business selling widgets, but no organizational skills to keep all of the contracts in order, and outsources that to roommate A, then the system works. If roommate B interfere's with A's ability to organize by...I don't know...getting A drunk on a regular basis so he can't complete his job, then the enterprise as a whole collapses.
That's what is going to happen in China with what they are going to do with Hong Kong, with China obviously being B and Hong Kong being A.
The foundation for currency is trust. Hong Kong has a functioning legal system, whereas China does not and will not in the future - by eroding that autonomy, China is in effect canibalizing its own capital base.
If you have room mate A and room mate B, and room mate A is very trustworthy while B is not, but B starts writing down tons of IOUs for millions of dollars onto pieces of paper and gives them to roommate A, is roommate A now richer? Well it depends upon roommate B's ability to pay back. Now, if roommate B has a business selling widgets, but no organizational skills to keep all of the contracts in order, and outsources that to roommate A, then the system works. If roommate B interfere's with A's ability to organize by...I don't know...getting A drunk on a regular basis so he can't complete his job, then the enterprise as a whole collapses.
That's what is going to happen in China with what they are going to do with Hong Kong, with China obviously being B and Hong Kong being A.
Nobody is thinking this way. Chinese people with money aren't particularly distrustful of their government, they're just trying to buy what they want before someone else does.
An enormous number of Chinese people have made huge amounts of money. They've already bid up all the desirable areas in their own country to insane prices. It's San Francisco bad. So they look elsewhere. They see lots of opportunities in the West that offer more value for their money, an opportunity to escape from the brutal rat race that China is, and a mature legal system and deep cultural respect for property rights. All they have to do is make payment...
They can't just wire the money out because the Chinese government imposes strict capital controls. So they bypass them through HK, insurance schemes, investment schemes, through purchase and return of expensive luxury items, by having friends and family wire out of their accounts to their limits, with bitcoin, with good old bags of cash through the airport, or whatever other creative solutions they can find.
An enormous number of Chinese people have made huge amounts of money. They've already bid up all the desirable areas in their own country to insane prices. It's San Francisco bad. So they look elsewhere. They see lots of opportunities in the West that offer more value for their money, an opportunity to escape from the brutal rat race that China is, and a mature legal system and deep cultural respect for property rights. All they have to do is make payment...
They can't just wire the money out because the Chinese government imposes strict capital controls. So they bypass them through HK, insurance schemes, investment schemes, through purchase and return of expensive luxury items, by having friends and family wire out of their accounts to their limits, with bitcoin, with good old bags of cash through the airport, or whatever other creative solutions they can find.
Mainland Chinese capital is flowing into other countries as well, without the need for "integration" -- in economic terms, that would mean things like the relaxation of security listing rules (which are happening).
Did Hong Kong need that influx of capital though? I've never lived there but from what I've seen it doesn't seem to be a place that has struggled economically in the past few decades.
Probably most of the world would prefer Hong Kong to have self determination. But do you think it is inevitable that it will not?
The People's Liberation Army has 2.3 million personnel and Hong Kong has a population of approximately 7 million.
The People's Liberation Army has 2.3 million personnel and Hong Kong has a population of approximately 7 million.
I think you're manufacturing the kind of PLA in your mind that you would like to believe exists, to see what kind of response you get back, out of curiosity. The PLA in your mind is a super well-functioning, well-oiled, "modern army," which obeys commands perfectly, has no competing business interests paying for different activities and agendas, and is a top-down command and control type of Army with a heroic Dwight Eisenhower type of guy, marching precisely 2.8 million men down into Hong Kong in these neat little columns until they occupy all of the streets, and start raising up Chinese flags or something. That's just not at all reflective of what we know. It's a lot more opaque and there are so many unknowns. We do know China is rife with corruption and there are tons of competing interests, and the military is in no way exempt from that. One can become a multi-multi millionaire if not billionaire working in the military in China, if that gives any inkling of how a better representation of what the Chinese military being used in such an operation may look like.
Many other governments have bigger armies than the entire population of Hong Kong too, does that mean we must shut up and never speak ill of anyone?
I think in this case it's more that there's a ticking clock for Hong Kong. The international community pressured the return of control from Britain to China, so by 2047, if nothing _massive_ has changed, the international community will likely back any and all claims by China, including removing it's SAR status. Army size has basically nothing to do with it, I don't think.
Hong Kong is an amazing place that the world shouldn't lose. But I get the impression that, as China develops, it's using HK as a template for how to make cities great. Maybe it won't be a cultural genocide, so much as China catching up? Hong Kong's always been a mixture of cultures, that's part of what made it so special to begin with, so I think integrating with a more successful China could be good?
Hong Kong is an amazing place that the world shouldn't lose. But I get the impression that, as China develops, it's using HK as a template for how to make cities great. Maybe it won't be a cultural genocide, so much as China catching up? Hong Kong's always been a mixture of cultures, that's part of what made it so special to begin with, so I think integrating with a more successful China could be good?
Nah man, it will be cultural genocide. It's already happened significantly...I don't know else how to explain it without being obtuse. Go to Hong Kong, talk to some people there, ask them how things used to be. Go to Shenzhen, look at how things are there, talk to some people about what they think about Hong Kong. Compare the robustness and informativeness of the type of response you get from the citizens from each side of the border. It's a sad state of affairs. That being said, I also love Shenzhen, for different reasons.
Shenzhen is very different from the surrounding areas (Guangzhou, Hong Kong) though, as it's a very young planned city built after the Cultural Revolution, and most people there are from the rest of China.
Actually, China's army is the biggest in the world by active headcount and only the US, India, and North Korea have over a million. Given the time it takes to train and equip a soldier, that number can't grow very fast except in times of total war.
[deleted]
Yup and those people of hong kong are for more economic productive than the 2.3 million of the PLA.
It's economics thats more powerful than a bullet these days. It's a sort of suicide destroying HK.
It's economics thats more powerful than a bullet these days. It's a sort of suicide destroying HK.
I've been in (and around) Hong Kong since 2010.
Hong Kong is a beautiful country, a bustling dynamic city, with fantastic natural features on every side.
However it lost the ability to innovate, it became too expensive to live in, and talent has poured away.
At the same time liberties are being taken away, and there is a fear of Hong Kong losing its identity.
But there are seeds of hope; the localist / independence movement may still achieve the assumed impossible, and a startup scene is rapidly developing, and technology is beginning to be taken seriously.
I urge you to come visit some time.
Off topic / Advert
We're hosting the 3rd annual Hong Kong Code Conf in a few weeks, if you're looking for an excuse to visit.
http://hongkong.codeconf.io
Hong Kong is a beautiful country, a bustling dynamic city, with fantastic natural features on every side.
However it lost the ability to innovate, it became too expensive to live in, and talent has poured away.
At the same time liberties are being taken away, and there is a fear of Hong Kong losing its identity.
But there are seeds of hope; the localist / independence movement may still achieve the assumed impossible, and a startup scene is rapidly developing, and technology is beginning to be taken seriously.
I urge you to come visit some time.
Off topic / Advert
We're hosting the 3rd annual Hong Kong Code Conf in a few weeks, if you're looking for an excuse to visit.
http://hongkong.codeconf.io
It is the most expensive Cities in the world. And yet our government is doing jack about it.
Although this is off-topic, screw sites that require logins to read content like this.
The recipe is: open the 'web' Google search link in incognito mode and then pick the original url from the results, usually at #1.
Some sites still manage to defeat that. The Economist, for example, knows I've opened my 5 free articles, no matter if I browse incognito or whatever (I guess my IP gives me away :P ) .
I'm not going to use a proxy or TOR to read them.
I'm not going to use a proxy or TOR to read them.
For WSJ articles, this approach has always worked for me even without incognito mode.
Thanks, never knew that! May be a dumb question, but why does that work?
In private browsing mode the site won't have access to the cookies stored in the browser that it's been using to keep track of the number of "free" articles you've read. In addition, some news sites will selectively disable the paywall for certain referrers, especially search engines and social media sites, to strategically gain hits. So when you do what the original comment suggested, you appear to their site as someone who has never visited before and came from a Google search — in other words, they don't want your first experience with their website to be a paywall.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Right or wrong, Hong Kong is neither powerful nor self-sufficient enough to resist total integration into mainland China. I suspect the process will be fully complete within another decade. China today is an unacknowledged superpower that is fully capable of enforcing absolute dominance in nearby territories. No amount of international condemnation can stop China.
From a military point of view, Hong Kong as an island is very easy to isolate and fully suppress for years until the people change their minds. China has the economic clout and manpower to do this for decades if necessary.
I strongly believe Hong Kong politicians are better served by asking for concessions and benefits from the mainland (tax reduction, extra funding, etc) then attempting secessionist movements that are only going to spectacularly fail with a bloodbath of their people.
From a military point of view, Hong Kong as an island is very easy to isolate and fully suppress for years until the people change their minds. China has the economic clout and manpower to do this for decades if necessary.
I strongly believe Hong Kong politicians are better served by asking for concessions and benefits from the mainland (tax reduction, extra funding, etc) then attempting secessionist movements that are only going to spectacularly fail with a bloodbath of their people.
the graph showing gdp is very skewed. China was not an open market in 1985.
in the recent legislative elections,pro democracy voters won.it will be a tough fight for china.people here are prepared to sacrifice multiple generations for freedom.
i live around the region and follow hong kong closely. would like to share more,but limited by my mobile device.
source: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/09/05/legislative-legco-hong...
in the recent legislative elections,pro democracy voters won.it will be a tough fight for china.people here are prepared to sacrifice multiple generations for freedom.
i live around the region and follow hong kong closely. would like to share more,but limited by my mobile device.
source: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/09/05/legislative-legco-hong...
I have to ask the question... Why is China so goddamn rich and how did Hong Kong became so insignificant compared to mainland?
What happened in the mainland exactly in the last 10, 15 years?
Sorry if it's a naive comment
What happened in the mainland exactly in the last 10, 15 years?
Sorry if it's a naive comment
China got rich due to massive foreign investments eager to exploit cheap Chinese labor after Deng Xiaoping's "Reform and opening" [1]. During the last three decades, using the foreign money, China has been building an impressive infrastructure supporting its export-oriented economy, but little else. After the labor cost went up, China doesn't have much left to offer the world anymore.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
I'd love to hear more from the perspective of Hong Kong residents and natives. In the us we get relatively little coverage of the situation in Hong Kong.
I spoke to a few people from UK, and my guess is that people who voted for Brexit will have a better understanding of it.
No one is against the trade and economic integration, but they are against the political integration.
Then there is the languages. There is a different trying to get everyone to speak Mandarin as well, and trying to get everyone to speak Mandarin Only, while actively trying to kill Cantonese.
I really like the word Genocide used in this thread. It sorts of describe what is happening.
Then there is the languages. There is a different trying to get everyone to speak Mandarin as well, and trying to get everyone to speak Mandarin Only, while actively trying to kill Cantonese.
I really like the word Genocide used in this thread. It sorts of describe what is happening.
Hong Kong as we've all known it from before 1997 is being eroded and destroyed. People in Hong Kong hate the Chinese Communist Party and strongly dislike mainlanders, and this sentiment is fuelled by savage behaviour of mainland tourists in Hong Kong (including but not limited to defecating in public [1]). The only people in Hong Kong who are sympathetic towards the mainland are those who got involved in corrupt practices there and don't want to lose access to their illegitimate source of wealth.
[1] http://hongkong.coconuts.co/2016/02/02/chinese-woman-shocks-...
[1] http://hongkong.coconuts.co/2016/02/02/chinese-woman-shocks-...
I would love to tell you more, but the overall situation is too complex to be explained here, is it okay for me to contact you directly?
I'd suggest if you are gonna spend the time to out together your thoughts, that you share them with us all.
Would love to hear.
Would love to hear.
Please do so
HK only exists because the British needed a way to poison I mean sell the Raj opium crop to the Chinese. Maybe the Chinese have very long memories.
[deleted]
Fortunately, the HK people recognise the salami tactics of the CCP, and protest (as in the umbrella movement 2014), and a small but growing minority now agitates for some sort of independence.
However, given
* the increasing power of China on a world-wide stage, even vis-a-vis, say, the UK
* the decreasing relevance of HK for China (see the graph in the article: HK GDP was a quarter of China GDP, now under 3%)
* China's aversion to any secession (almost instinctive, though probably based on historically justified fear of crumbling order and prosperity when a dynasty falls apart), as seen in Xinjiang, Tibet, etc.
it is hard to see how the tensions can be reduced peacefully, rather than gathering steam.