HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law(reuters.com)
reuters.com
HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/hong-kongs-apple-daily-newspaper-says-police-arrest-five-directors-2021-06-16
174 comments
The CCP aren't idiots. They knew the time was right to do it, because in western circles, that were a bit slow to understand the world around them, freedom was not in good graces with political leaders. It was the perfect time to tighten the grip.
The G7 was disappointing. It was all talk in my opinion, although there aren't many venues to handle a situation like Hong Kong.
The G7 was disappointing. It was all talk in my opinion, although there aren't many venues to handle a situation like Hong Kong.
Do you mean that Western leaders started to turn their backs on freedom, too? You are absolutely right, I fear. So much of the talk about China in the West doesn't even mention human rights, just trade imbalance or cyber security. In an age of nuclear detente, I suppose it was inevitable that democracy's most potent opponents would be homegrown. I never considered that this also means abandoning imperiled democracy abroad, but it surely does.
'Freedom's' problem has always been that it's a very loose term. Freedom to do what? I can't even go into a grocery store after the federal government said i don't have to wear my mask if i'm fully vaccinated, without my mask. Virtue signalling by other Americans has become more powerful than the centralized federal governments ability to restrict my rights. I believe the US is scarier because it's more akin to mob rule. China is going to collapse when they get a very weak leader but the US is going to tear itself apart.
> Do you mean that Western leaders started to turn their backs on freedom, too?
The last time the Western leaders actually cared about freedom and values instead of resources in a major conflict was 1939-1945... there was no "turning their backs", as said backs were turned all the time. The Western world never had a major problem cooperating with dictatorships, military regimes or other autocracies as long as they either were somewhat (far) right or supplied cheap oil.
China is no different, the whole world is looking away from their attempt to re-enact the Holocaust upon Uyghurs and other minorities as long as China supplies them with cheap crap and/or cheap, no-strings-attached funding for infrastructure and bailouts.
The last time the Western leaders actually cared about freedom and values instead of resources in a major conflict was 1939-1945... there was no "turning their backs", as said backs were turned all the time. The Western world never had a major problem cooperating with dictatorships, military regimes or other autocracies as long as they either were somewhat (far) right or supplied cheap oil.
China is no different, the whole world is looking away from their attempt to re-enact the Holocaust upon Uyghurs and other minorities as long as China supplies them with cheap crap and/or cheap, no-strings-attached funding for infrastructure and bailouts.
I visited Hong Kong in January 2020 for the second time, having become mesmerized with the development, skyline and freedom during my first visit in 2018. It was a truly sad sight to see, people afraid to speak, red banners everywhere, lots of questions asked at the border etc.
Well, there's still Vancouver ;)
Any idea that this happened only recently? There are already raids earlier along with other punishment. Without new provocation, this one seems totally unnecessary.
A reasonable interpretation about this raid, based on the timing and some knowledge about China and CPP, would be: this is a response to G7's recent communique.
But I bet not many people get the message because with some existing ideology that people usually are not aware of, casual relations among events are often ignored.
This shows the importance of cultural understanding and the lack of it when western commentators look at events in China. July 1st marks the 100th anniversary of the CCP, its pretty simple. It was probably done just to make ensure stability and so that it goes by without a hitch and nobody tries anything stupid. This sort of stuff is pretty typical of them, especially near important dates.
I may be typical but it's nuts. Send your secret police to harass your critics whenever an important date is coming up.
Technically, it was 500 uniformed officers, and not the secret police (which in this case would be the MSS).
Well it's more complex now. There is a special unit for NSL matters, and the NSL permitted the state agencies to openly operate in HK (they were thankfully already operating but not openly), but I think it's mostly done with the coordination of the NSL unit, which is also connected to police. So probably some of the people in the raid were staff from the NSL unit.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30...
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30...
I have the same take a you do. Those implicit signals make sense in a Chinese cultural context but are much harder for the non initiated to pick on. This being said, State actors in the West have their analysts and certainly know what's afoot, cue the official response from the EU and Britain. But the general public can't parse it, which is important in democracies.
But why would this be in any way surprising? We knew since the agreement between China an the UK that this day would come. The whole world knew. Maybe the residents of HK had some vague hope China would give them more freedom than in the mainland (why would they??) but in other parts of the world the picture was rather clear. I expected massive emigration but as far as I can tell people had the idea to stay and fight at home.
But it is early, it was supposed to be left alone for another 30 years.
CCP actions, or rather Xi, imo, reflect a level of nativity or perhaps just typical authoritarian paranoia. People in Hong Kong were warming up to the mainland, more and more were identifying as Chinese primarily. If CCP had left well alone and continued on the course, they would have had a loyal Hong Kong with a new generation that could accept gradual reform, but they've poisoned that well.
CCP actions, or rather Xi, imo, reflect a level of nativity or perhaps just typical authoritarian paranoia. People in Hong Kong were warming up to the mainland, more and more were identifying as Chinese primarily. If CCP had left well alone and continued on the course, they would have had a loyal Hong Kong with a new generation that could accept gradual reform, but they've poisoned that well.
It was late.
PRC scholars warned new HK generations would culturally drift 10+ years ago. The fact that HK has existed in a national security state of exception for 20+ years, while simultaneously operating as a western spy hub outside of Chinese purview is fundamentally an untenable situation that no sane country should accede to.
Reality is PRC who has always had FULL legal authority over issues of foreign policy under 1C2S post handover and was unprecedentedly patient with HK, while HKers have never demonstrated reasonable accommodation for "one country" interests. Apple Daily's Jimmy Lai met with Pompeo & Pence during height of US/PRC rivalry (read: treason) is just one of the many symptoms of why this crack down was overdue.
Newer HK generations growing up on western textbooks were never going to be loyal. Currently tensions could have been mitigated if PRC rammed through patriotic education and NSL 10+ years ago instead of naively assuming an increasingly irrelevant HK relative to mainland would passively accept loss of privilege and integrate as just another mainland city. Expect newer gen of HKers under PRC cultivation to actually align with PRC interests. For CCP, resetting HK culture is the anecdote that was long recognized but administered too late.
PRC scholars warned new HK generations would culturally drift 10+ years ago. The fact that HK has existed in a national security state of exception for 20+ years, while simultaneously operating as a western spy hub outside of Chinese purview is fundamentally an untenable situation that no sane country should accede to.
Reality is PRC who has always had FULL legal authority over issues of foreign policy under 1C2S post handover and was unprecedentedly patient with HK, while HKers have never demonstrated reasonable accommodation for "one country" interests. Apple Daily's Jimmy Lai met with Pompeo & Pence during height of US/PRC rivalry (read: treason) is just one of the many symptoms of why this crack down was overdue.
Newer HK generations growing up on western textbooks were never going to be loyal. Currently tensions could have been mitigated if PRC rammed through patriotic education and NSL 10+ years ago instead of naively assuming an increasingly irrelevant HK relative to mainland would passively accept loss of privilege and integrate as just another mainland city. Expect newer gen of HKers under PRC cultivation to actually align with PRC interests. For CCP, resetting HK culture is the anecdote that was long recognized but administered too late.
> It was late.
> PRC scholars warned new HK generations would culturally drift 10+ years ago.
Data suggests that the drift of HK generations [1] in the past two decades are swayed by what happened in China: Hong Kong people identified themselves more as Chinese during 2008 (especially during the Beijing Olympics), less so after being denied universal suffrage despite promises in the Basic Law (the Umbrella Movement in 2013), and when Hong Kong people started to accept TikTok (Douyin) and the like from China, Hong Kong once again diverged from China after 2019 (the extradition Law, its opposing protests, and the Covid-19 outbreak starting in Wuhan).
[1]: https://www.pori.hk/pop-poll/ethnic-identity-en/q001.html?la...
> The fact that HK has existed in a national security state of exception for 20+ years... For CCP, resetting HK culture is the anecdote that was long recognized but administered too late.
What you said explains a lot why Hong Kong people, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and others alike, want to distance themselves from China: CCP does not want diversity and inclusion, that the perceived security (of the party) trumps everything else. CCP wants control, not better governance or de facto long term security, which requires leaving minorities alone. To govern by doing nothing that goes against nature, as in Taoism, is an ancient tradition of China that CCP does not get.
> Apple Daily's Jimmy Lai met with Pompeo & Pence during height of US/PRC rivalry (read: treason) is just one of the many symptoms of why this crack down was overdue.
This explains very well what I mean.
The meeting of Jimmy Lai with Pompeo and Pence did not pose any material threat to national security or the security of CCP—after all, in this information age, the US can learn what they need to learn without such meetings, so the meeting is largely symbolic, and to reduce such information flow CCP can only rely on a Great-Firewall-style censorship in Hong Kong, which is considered unacceptable by many. To consider such immaterial meetings as treason shows sheer insecurity (paranoid) of CCP, and this insecurity is what brings its de factor insecurity, because it is worrying too much and overreacting.
> PRC scholars warned new HK generations would culturally drift 10+ years ago.
Data suggests that the drift of HK generations [1] in the past two decades are swayed by what happened in China: Hong Kong people identified themselves more as Chinese during 2008 (especially during the Beijing Olympics), less so after being denied universal suffrage despite promises in the Basic Law (the Umbrella Movement in 2013), and when Hong Kong people started to accept TikTok (Douyin) and the like from China, Hong Kong once again diverged from China after 2019 (the extradition Law, its opposing protests, and the Covid-19 outbreak starting in Wuhan).
[1]: https://www.pori.hk/pop-poll/ethnic-identity-en/q001.html?la...
> The fact that HK has existed in a national security state of exception for 20+ years... For CCP, resetting HK culture is the anecdote that was long recognized but administered too late.
What you said explains a lot why Hong Kong people, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and others alike, want to distance themselves from China: CCP does not want diversity and inclusion, that the perceived security (of the party) trumps everything else. CCP wants control, not better governance or de facto long term security, which requires leaving minorities alone. To govern by doing nothing that goes against nature, as in Taoism, is an ancient tradition of China that CCP does not get.
> Apple Daily's Jimmy Lai met with Pompeo & Pence during height of US/PRC rivalry (read: treason) is just one of the many symptoms of why this crack down was overdue.
This explains very well what I mean.
The meeting of Jimmy Lai with Pompeo and Pence did not pose any material threat to national security or the security of CCP—after all, in this information age, the US can learn what they need to learn without such meetings, so the meeting is largely symbolic, and to reduce such information flow CCP can only rely on a Great-Firewall-style censorship in Hong Kong, which is considered unacceptable by many. To consider such immaterial meetings as treason shows sheer insecurity (paranoid) of CCP, and this insecurity is what brings its de factor insecurity, because it is worrying too much and overreacting.
Breakdown by demographics and shift in "HKer" identity is driven by 30s and below [0], i.e. the generations influenced by reintroduction of political education leading up to handover. Curriculum under colonial rule was much more apolitical. Clear trajectory of influence. Most countries underling decolonization do not promote politics of their colonizers. PRC allowed this arrangement to persist under 1C2S for as long as tenable, but last 10 years demonstrated those who anticipated blowback were prescient.
[0] https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/935/90/sites/default/fi...
>perceived security (of the party)
Hundreds of terrorist's attacks in XinJiang, Tibetans being weaponized by CIA for decades, HK being vulnerable spyhub into PRC activities... none of this is perceived. XJ/Tibet was left relatively alone by old oblast model and sheer inability for poor PRC to project influence, HK had 20+ years to ratify NSL. Doing nothing failed.
>not pose any material threat
It's pretty charitable to assume Apple Daily had no material influence on protests. There is zero reason for HK media tycoon to coordinate with US Secretary of State / ex CIA Head during period of Sino/US tensions and have it quoted on US state department website as discussions that has material impact on PRC foreign policy [1]. Thinking otherwise is naïve. Or assuming CCP merely over reacting when they have credibly demonstrated ability to expose foreign intelligence assets. HK is spy capital of Asia after all, CCP good at catching spies and crushing foreign influence.
[1] https://2017-2021.state.gov/secretary-pompeos-meeting-with-h...
There's probably some alternative chain of events where HK met PRC half way by introducing NSL that would have opened up for some political reforms HKers wanted. No sane government would grand _more_ privileges to subjects not beholden to national security, less flaunts against it, which is an absurd arrangement in the first place.
[0] https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/935/90/sites/default/fi...
>perceived security (of the party)
Hundreds of terrorist's attacks in XinJiang, Tibetans being weaponized by CIA for decades, HK being vulnerable spyhub into PRC activities... none of this is perceived. XJ/Tibet was left relatively alone by old oblast model and sheer inability for poor PRC to project influence, HK had 20+ years to ratify NSL. Doing nothing failed.
>not pose any material threat
It's pretty charitable to assume Apple Daily had no material influence on protests. There is zero reason for HK media tycoon to coordinate with US Secretary of State / ex CIA Head during period of Sino/US tensions and have it quoted on US state department website as discussions that has material impact on PRC foreign policy [1]. Thinking otherwise is naïve. Or assuming CCP merely over reacting when they have credibly demonstrated ability to expose foreign intelligence assets. HK is spy capital of Asia after all, CCP good at catching spies and crushing foreign influence.
[1] https://2017-2021.state.gov/secretary-pompeos-meeting-with-h...
There's probably some alternative chain of events where HK met PRC half way by introducing NSL that would have opened up for some political reforms HKers wanted. No sane government would grand _more_ privileges to subjects not beholden to national security, less flaunts against it, which is an absurd arrangement in the first place.
[deleted]
This happened under British Hong Kong too. The British never tolerate dissenting voice.The 1960 and 1967 protest, the British label it as Riot, end in violence too.
I think Hong Kong can only be peaceful if they solve the huge inequality. The image of wealth and poverty living side by side is very dystopian.
This is just utter nonsense, and I say this as someone who grew up in northern Ireland. So you think HK will be better when it's more equal?
I am not really familiar with Northern Ireland and how it relates to Hong Kong. Most of youngster in HK are quite pessimistic on their economic future. Working hours are long. Houses are very expensive, small and crowded. The strange things is most of the population don't speak English but in corporate the language are English. This make a lot of locals was overlooked in Job Promotion.
This won't change if the BJ overlords move in:
Working hours and conditions on the mainland are even worse than in HK, famously so.
If the office language gets pushed more towards Mandarin that doesn't help locals. The uneducated don't speak Beijing'r Mandarin just like they don't speak flawless RP English. They will still get overlooked, but now the their bosses will be princelings from the north instead... Yay?
Working hours and conditions on the mainland are even worse than in HK, famously so.
If the office language gets pushed more towards Mandarin that doesn't help locals. The uneducated don't speak Beijing'r Mandarin just like they don't speak flawless RP English. They will still get overlooked, but now the their bosses will be princelings from the north instead... Yay?
The N Ireland thing is about British repression, which was mentioned. Some people like to claim the British occupy northern Ireland (they don't, the majority want British rule). If a free press, fair elections, rule of law are what repressing dissent looks like, then I'm not sure how the CCP stack up!
I haven't read as much about Northern Ireland as I would have wished to, but the parallels are quite similar, especially the legal "innovations" used to quell dissent.
For example, the recent National Security Law allows non-jury trials, which seems to me taken directly from the Northern Ireland playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_court
There are a some interesting NI court case(s?) which I've encountered in the past couple years relating to riots that were occasionally cited in the Hong Kong court which escapes me right now.
Anyway the point is that while freedoms are indeed being eroded in Hong Kong, it's a fallacy to paint the British colonial rule as benevolent just to make a point. (Most of the freedoms were granted to Hong Kong in the 1990s _after_ UK signed the Sino British joint declaration, it worked as a narrative to kind of force the Chinese government to revert a bunch of freedoms and hence the UK escaped most of the blame for making much of those those repressive laws in the first place)
For example, the recent National Security Law allows non-jury trials, which seems to me taken directly from the Northern Ireland playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_court
There are a some interesting NI court case(s?) which I've encountered in the past couple years relating to riots that were occasionally cited in the Hong Kong court which escapes me right now.
Anyway the point is that while freedoms are indeed being eroded in Hong Kong, it's a fallacy to paint the British colonial rule as benevolent just to make a point. (Most of the freedoms were granted to Hong Kong in the 1990s _after_ UK signed the Sino British joint declaration, it worked as a narrative to kind of force the Chinese government to revert a bunch of freedoms and hence the UK escaped most of the blame for making much of those those repressive laws in the first place)
The British tried to hold democratic elections during that time, but it was the Communist Party that pressured them not to. The riots you're talking about were Hong Kong Communist going against the British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots
I read wikipedia. I just realized that the suppresion is more brutal than what I imagined. Are u referring to HK 1997 election? That election is after the British reluctantly agree to handover HK. From the CCP point of view the elections is a plot to sabotage the Handover. It is not that iI agree or disagree with CCP view or British motive. There are many anti colonial politicians in Asia suspicious of the British motive.
I would politely disagree with you on the G7 front - its all talk and no action. In the end the people who will suffer for the comments made in the G7 are these journalists. The fact is all that has been done is a bunch of talking. The fact is yes there are things which CCP is doing that is very wrong, and yes they have a very low tolerance towards dissent. However, any comment coming from USA and England makes the scenario even worse. In part this is because the "west" doesn't have a particularly positive PR impression in Asia. Many view the G7 as a group of countries that take their own decisions without consulting others.
For any protest to be successful, one side has to eventually reach a compromise. When the protests first started in 2019 for months they were peaceful. This was actually the time when they were the scariest for the CCP as its very hard to justify any action against them. Heck, I had friends who were PRC nationals who crossed the border to take part in them (just because they were curious what protest was and no other political reason whatsoever, and yes, they're alive and fine right now). The problems started when a few people displayed xenophobia towards PRC which unraveled into violence. At this point it became incredibly easy for CCP to smear the protests back home as all they needed to show in their local media was the few instances of violence against PRC nationals, juxtaposed against images of their own soldiers who were shown sweeping streets. Once England and USA started making comments about the human rights situation it was essentially a death knell for the protesters. This is because in China many consider USA and England's human rights comments hypocritical given that both countries grew economically by exploiting slaves (in USA's case) and colonies (in England's case).
Personally, I don't think politicians making bold statements from countries halfway across the world will help at all. Xenophobia overseas will make the matters even worse. Rather than turning anti-China and uber-nationalistic what would dismantle the CCP is to actually work towards winning the hearts of the 1 billion+ population, majority of whom actually have benefited from the CCP's reign.
For any protest to be successful, one side has to eventually reach a compromise. When the protests first started in 2019 for months they were peaceful. This was actually the time when they were the scariest for the CCP as its very hard to justify any action against them. Heck, I had friends who were PRC nationals who crossed the border to take part in them (just because they were curious what protest was and no other political reason whatsoever, and yes, they're alive and fine right now). The problems started when a few people displayed xenophobia towards PRC which unraveled into violence. At this point it became incredibly easy for CCP to smear the protests back home as all they needed to show in their local media was the few instances of violence against PRC nationals, juxtaposed against images of their own soldiers who were shown sweeping streets. Once England and USA started making comments about the human rights situation it was essentially a death knell for the protesters. This is because in China many consider USA and England's human rights comments hypocritical given that both countries grew economically by exploiting slaves (in USA's case) and colonies (in England's case).
Personally, I don't think politicians making bold statements from countries halfway across the world will help at all. Xenophobia overseas will make the matters even worse. Rather than turning anti-China and uber-nationalistic what would dismantle the CCP is to actually work towards winning the hearts of the 1 billion+ population, majority of whom actually have benefited from the CCP's reign.
The thing is, the Hong Kong government didn't give a shit to peaceful protests. After 1 million people protested peacefully on 9th June 2019, the official response from the government was "The Second Reading debate on the Bill will resume on June 12.". All these people were ignored. It made people realise they need something else to make the government respond.
People only vandalised at first. Some actions by protesters were over the top to outsiders, but they came after many peaceful protests and after police and triads colluded to attack protesters[2] (the producer of this documentary was arrested and charged). Protesters had to protect themselves at least at first.
In short, China tolerated peaceful protests in Hong Kong for a reason - they did no damage, and the government could safely ignore them and pretend Hong Kong still had autonomy. Once they had impact, authorities were quick to silence the people by any means.
[1] - https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201906/09/P2019060900587...
[2] - https://www.rthk.hk/tv/dtt31/programme/hkce/episode/706428?l...
People only vandalised at first. Some actions by protesters were over the top to outsiders, but they came after many peaceful protests and after police and triads colluded to attack protesters[2] (the producer of this documentary was arrested and charged). Protesters had to protect themselves at least at first.
In short, China tolerated peaceful protests in Hong Kong for a reason - they did no damage, and the government could safely ignore them and pretend Hong Kong still had autonomy. Once they had impact, authorities were quick to silence the people by any means.
[1] - https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201906/09/P2019060900587...
[2] - https://www.rthk.hk/tv/dtt31/programme/hkce/episode/706428?l...
> The problems started when a few people displayed xenophobia towards PRC which unraveled into violence. At this point it became incredibly easy for CCP to smear the protests back home as all they needed to show in their local media was the few instances of violence against PRC nationals,
A nuclear power with 9000 tanks don't need reasons, let alone one which did many worse things with even less remorse.
A nuclear power with 9000 tanks don't need reasons, let alone one which did many worse things with even less remorse.
> Rather than turning anti-China and uber-nationalistic what would dismantle the CCP is to actually work towards winning the hearts of the 1 billion+ population, majority of whom actually have benefited from the CCP's reign.
How is the West supposed to make that happen, against a population that is being actively brainwashed? Almost all ways of entering information into China are censored.
How is the West supposed to make that happen, against a population that is being actively brainwashed? Almost all ways of entering information into China are censored.
> freest laissez faire city state in the world
It's just so easy to idolize Hong Kong and ignore the severe failures in its socioeconomic system for the sake of critiquing China. Please do better.
cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/FD941A3D3003D8EA05ACE2C5A9C00110/S0305741000046828a.pdf/legacy_of_the_british_administration_of_hong_kong_a_view_from_hong_kong.pdf
It's just so easy to idolize Hong Kong and ignore the severe failures in its socioeconomic system for the sake of critiquing China. Please do better.
cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/FD941A3D3003D8EA05ACE2C5A9C00110/S0305741000046828a.pdf/legacy_of_the_british_administration_of_hong_kong_a_view_from_hong_kong.pdf
From your article:
> The dark side of colonialism is also manifested glaringly in what many people still regard as the British betrayal of the long-term interests of the Hong Kong people in the 1982-84 sovereignty retrocession negotiations and in the subsequent British appeasement of PRC infringements of, and non- compliance with, the Joint Declaration, especially on democratization and the formation of the Court of Final Appeal.
well that turned out exactly as predicted! your paper did indeed lay valid criticism on the British for abandoning HK to the PRC, not doing enough to safeguard the Joint Declaration and make sure China kept its promises on civil rights and autonomy, and foretold the disemboweling of its constitution and freedoms by the mainland.
> The dark side of colonialism is also manifested glaringly in what many people still regard as the British betrayal of the long-term interests of the Hong Kong people in the 1982-84 sovereignty retrocession negotiations and in the subsequent British appeasement of PRC infringements of, and non- compliance with, the Joint Declaration, especially on democratization and the formation of the Court of Final Appeal.
well that turned out exactly as predicted! your paper did indeed lay valid criticism on the British for abandoning HK to the PRC, not doing enough to safeguard the Joint Declaration and make sure China kept its promises on civil rights and autonomy, and foretold the disemboweling of its constitution and freedoms by the mainland.
I shared your sadness at the time and have lived also there a lot over the last 10 years, including when the FOO was going to be debated in June 2019, triggering the unrest. All this is actually a good thing if you love HK. Apple Daily peddled a lot of divisive fake news, doomscrolling and rumors that 'fake justified' the violence in 2019 - 2020. Slightly more real politic take: having provided a useful pretext for the long overdue NSL, they are shut down.
It's not about dissent. Dissent is useful. It's about narratives that go against the country, sovereignty and threaten security. CPC has no total grip on power. It has many internal factions jostling for power, and > 90% of the population are not party members. That's why it is so sensitive to disturbances, because it's a constant struggle to build something that lasts.
HK is not crushed and silenced, it is liberated from violence and chaos, and empowered to build a new future, if only its youth will take the responsibility and do something constructive to that end. It has not been 'caught off guard' by the 'speed'. The NSL was supposed to have been implemented after the handover, over 20 years ago, and local media and people actively provoked risks to country, sovereignty and security, through 2019-2020 thus providing a pretext for NSL promulgation. Even so, it took more than a year of, as you say, "horrifying wanton violence, where we witnessed the rapid destruction of the freest laissez faire city state in the world", for NSL to arrive.
It's not freedom that was destroyed tho, unless you consider 'freedom to violence and chaos' as freedom. It was a required-by-the-Basic-Law long-overdue legal-loophole that was ultimately the thing that was destroyed by all that violence, and, tragically a few people's lives who suffered terrible injuries and death. Maybe one day they can be remembered as important people who contributed, however unwittingly, to ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity in HK. To the new decade!
It's not about dissent. Dissent is useful. It's about narratives that go against the country, sovereignty and threaten security. CPC has no total grip on power. It has many internal factions jostling for power, and > 90% of the population are not party members. That's why it is so sensitive to disturbances, because it's a constant struggle to build something that lasts.
HK is not crushed and silenced, it is liberated from violence and chaos, and empowered to build a new future, if only its youth will take the responsibility and do something constructive to that end. It has not been 'caught off guard' by the 'speed'. The NSL was supposed to have been implemented after the handover, over 20 years ago, and local media and people actively provoked risks to country, sovereignty and security, through 2019-2020 thus providing a pretext for NSL promulgation. Even so, it took more than a year of, as you say, "horrifying wanton violence, where we witnessed the rapid destruction of the freest laissez faire city state in the world", for NSL to arrive.
It's not freedom that was destroyed tho, unless you consider 'freedom to violence and chaos' as freedom. It was a required-by-the-Basic-Law long-overdue legal-loophole that was ultimately the thing that was destroyed by all that violence, and, tragically a few people's lives who suffered terrible injuries and death. Maybe one day they can be remembered as important people who contributed, however unwittingly, to ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity in HK. To the new decade!
While I agree, as a current resident, I also witnessed the insane destructive behavior of Apple Daily, who did exagerate quite a bit the situation and was far from a neutral observer. I'd even say that telling kids the police murdered 2000 people was not exactly helping them strategize rather than throw themselves in desperate waves at the police... These guys all pushed the situation towards a point of no return for the communists, which could have been instead worked around.
Ofc a strong and self assured nation would be able to swallow it, and China shows us how weak and self doubting it is, but I won't cry too many tears for that newspaper.
I'm even a tad annoyed Lai is presented as a glorious press freedom figure when I felt reading it that it was on the abusive side of freedom. I guess we all need now to redraw the line at which we collaborate vs resist and Im not yet at the resist stage.
Ofc a strong and self assured nation would be able to swallow it, and China shows us how weak and self doubting it is, but I won't cry too many tears for that newspaper.
I'm even a tad annoyed Lai is presented as a glorious press freedom figure when I felt reading it that it was on the abusive side of freedom. I guess we all need now to redraw the line at which we collaborate vs resist and Im not yet at the resist stage.
The situation is clearly asymmetric tough. The Apple Daily is not a great paper and they got more coverage than they deserve but they are symptomatic of a need for people to voice opposing opinions.
Now there is basically nothing left. Local news outlets will censor themselves because the law is overly vague and will be systematically interpreted in the broadest possible way. Journalists are harassed and intimidated, if not threatened physically.
The independence of justice is also in peril with judges being replaced and pressured into compliance.
There is no turning back for HK, it's just terribly sad. It could have been an example for China, an experiment. Anti-China sentiment was comparatively fairly low while there was some token respect for the 2-system.
I agree with you that China only shows us how weak it really is with its display of comically over-the-top caricatural retaliation against any form of dissent.
I'm not sure what resisting can look like though. No cooperation is granted but while I'm a resident, I'm also a foreigner and a guest here. Options are limited apart from being an observer.
I love HK with all my heart and it kills me to see it go through that transformation into a pro-CCP satellite.
The tank has breached the border -figuratively- and I don't think anything will stop it now. I expect freedoms to slowly erode a lot further over the next few years as the CCP increases its hold over the various representative bodies (only patriots allowed!).
Now there is basically nothing left. Local news outlets will censor themselves because the law is overly vague and will be systematically interpreted in the broadest possible way. Journalists are harassed and intimidated, if not threatened physically.
The independence of justice is also in peril with judges being replaced and pressured into compliance.
There is no turning back for HK, it's just terribly sad. It could have been an example for China, an experiment. Anti-China sentiment was comparatively fairly low while there was some token respect for the 2-system.
I agree with you that China only shows us how weak it really is with its display of comically over-the-top caricatural retaliation against any form of dissent.
I'm not sure what resisting can look like though. No cooperation is granted but while I'm a resident, I'm also a foreigner and a guest here. Options are limited apart from being an observer.
I love HK with all my heart and it kills me to see it go through that transformation into a pro-CCP satellite.
The tank has breached the border -figuratively- and I don't think anything will stop it now. I expect freedoms to slowly erode a lot further over the next few years as the CCP increases its hold over the various representative bodies (only patriots allowed!).
It sometimes goes beyond harassment and intimidation of journalists into outright assault:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_attack_on_Kevin_Lau
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_attack_on_Kevin_Lau
We don't cry tears because of the kind of journalism, we cry tears because it was on some level journalism or at minimum freedom of expression and the clampdown means the same it will happen to you if you try that route.
Anyone who contradicts Putin and gets any stickiness or popularity ends up dead. You don't have to agree with Putin's antagonists to realize why that is bad.
Anyone who contradicts Putin and gets any stickiness or popularity ends up dead. You don't have to agree with Putin's antagonists to realize why that is bad.
In every country in the world, when you claim that police murdered 2000 people, you will get in trouble. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression, exept when you have very good evidence but even then it's dangerous to make such claims.
This is not true.
Go on to Twitter right now and say those things. In almost every democracy, nothing will happen to you.
Put up a website and make that claim.
You might get banned from Facebook.
If the Apple journalists published information about the roughly 10 000 people that were killed in Tianamen protests, would they get shut down as well? [1]
Do you see somewhere in the UK or the US where 500 police raid a major news entity?
They might do that if the paper leaked sensitive military information ... but even then that'd be extremely rare and it would not happen merely for making ridiculous claims.
Anyone who challenges Xi or the CCP will end up in jail.
The obvious solution would be to allow Hong Kong residents to vote in their own leaders and decide for themselves.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42465516
Go on to Twitter right now and say those things. In almost every democracy, nothing will happen to you.
Put up a website and make that claim.
You might get banned from Facebook.
If the Apple journalists published information about the roughly 10 000 people that were killed in Tianamen protests, would they get shut down as well? [1]
Do you see somewhere in the UK or the US where 500 police raid a major news entity?
They might do that if the paper leaked sensitive military information ... but even then that'd be extremely rare and it would not happen merely for making ridiculous claims.
Anyone who challenges Xi or the CCP will end up in jail.
The obvious solution would be to allow Hong Kong residents to vote in their own leaders and decide for themselves.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42465516
No you won't. There are lots of conspiracy theory lunatics running around in Western (or many other) countries claiming stuff like this and nobody is arresting them if they don't also propagate or participate in violence.
tell that to twitter or facebook
Was Apple Daily regularly sharing outright falsified stories?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Daily
It's interesting that most people here don't read Apple Daily. Those who can read Apple Daily and know the real nature don't want to talk too much because the opinion doesn't align the majority of HNer's belief based on partial information.
It's a tabloid newspaper but more than that, it's full of hate and anger. That's its strength because there's a big market for it.
It's a tabloid newspaper but more than that, it's full of hate and anger. That's its strength because there's a big market for it.
>These guys all pushed the situation towards a point of no return for the communists
Ah yes, the victim left absolute no choice to the aggressor than to punch them in the face ! What sort of logic is that ?
You don't arrest bad journalists, just like you don't burn bad books or censor bad movies out of the excuse that they're bad. On first principles, the nature of things is more important than their subjective value.
Ah yes, the victim left absolute no choice to the aggressor than to punch them in the face ! What sort of logic is that ?
You don't arrest bad journalists, just like you don't burn bad books or censor bad movies out of the excuse that they're bad. On first principles, the nature of things is more important than their subjective value.
You dont but they do. So we have three choices: lick their boots, throw ourselves at their jails, or discuss alternatives until we find one. I'd rather continue discussing than say it's already too late, but I live in it and you dont so maybe that's why.
There are no alternatives in totalitarian regimes, the only other option is to leave. Yes, I have lived in one.
> These guys all pushed the situation towards a point of no return for the communists, which could have been instead worked around.
It couldn't have been worked around. It doesn't work this way. There is no other way, in 2048, or in 2022, no other way around. That's the goal of Beijing. Tell us if it's something else.
On other hand, if HK turns into mini-Syria, it would've mobilised way more people, even the most inert, and apolitical.
For Beijing, it will also be a guaranteed loss both ways then. They lose 2048, and HK on the platter as it is, with its access to world financial markets. I believe only a scare of this kind have a chance to make Beijing to back off.
Third, HK is the seat of Western money in Asia. If the bank where their money is will literally burn to the ground, at least then they would've not pretend that nothing happens.
Some times, a solution to violence, is bigger violence.
It couldn't have been worked around. It doesn't work this way. There is no other way, in 2048, or in 2022, no other way around. That's the goal of Beijing. Tell us if it's something else.
On other hand, if HK turns into mini-Syria, it would've mobilised way more people, even the most inert, and apolitical.
For Beijing, it will also be a guaranteed loss both ways then. They lose 2048, and HK on the platter as it is, with its access to world financial markets. I believe only a scare of this kind have a chance to make Beijing to back off.
Third, HK is the seat of Western money in Asia. If the bank where their money is will literally burn to the ground, at least then they would've not pretend that nothing happens.
Some times, a solution to violence, is bigger violence.
Well the goal of Beijing is for the party to survive, there are many solutions between murdering us all and let HK become a country.
I mean we're a city, we have no army, what do you propose ? I propose to work around the party, like Macau, sing the anthem from time to time and basta, the problem can only be fixed by China as a whole, not at our level.
Beijing cannot "back off" more violence, they can only double down. Put yourself in their shoe: if they're a mafia in need of legitimacy and survival, that committed too many crimes to welcome honest competition, how can a HK citizen think that burning a local metro station will make them "oh right, freedom is too important for HK, we should maybe even copy them".
Before immediately jumping to desperate violence, maybe we can try to bribe them. Which is what we did before, and what we now do albeit with a bit more cost to re-assure that yes yes we're good patriots until the dragon goes back to sleep...
I prefer to discuss about things in a less free Hong Kong than starve and steal in a mini Syria but you're welcome to solve problems that way where you live :D
I mean we're a city, we have no army, what do you propose ? I propose to work around the party, like Macau, sing the anthem from time to time and basta, the problem can only be fixed by China as a whole, not at our level.
Beijing cannot "back off" more violence, they can only double down. Put yourself in their shoe: if they're a mafia in need of legitimacy and survival, that committed too many crimes to welcome honest competition, how can a HK citizen think that burning a local metro station will make them "oh right, freedom is too important for HK, we should maybe even copy them".
Before immediately jumping to desperate violence, maybe we can try to bribe them. Which is what we did before, and what we now do albeit with a bit more cost to re-assure that yes yes we're good patriots until the dragon goes back to sleep...
I prefer to discuss about things in a less free Hong Kong than starve and steal in a mini Syria but you're welcome to solve problems that way where you live :D
> if they're a mafia in need of legitimacy and survival, that committed too many crimes to welcome honest competition,
If you back down to a mafia in need of legitimacy and survival, you support the mafia, and you become a man without honour.
Such people never returned a punch to the face, and never prevailed.
> I mean we're a city, we have no army, what do you propose ?
For the amount of money an average HK billionaire has, you can buy enough arms from Bulgaria, or Balkans to arm the whole HK population 10 times over.
If you back down to a mafia in need of legitimacy and survival, you support the mafia, and you become a man without honour.
Such people never returned a punch to the face, and never prevailed.
> I mean we're a city, we have no army, what do you propose ?
For the amount of money an average HK billionaire has, you can buy enough arms from Bulgaria, or Balkans to arm the whole HK population 10 times over.
Since when is Bulgaria and the Balkans a military industrial complex? I thought the Bulgarians made tomatoes and peppers and the Serbs made slibovitz and plum jam. Both countries are homes to great food. North Macedonia too.
Guessing by your name, you are a local? South-East Europe is a huge producer, and trade centre for small arms, sometimes to the big surprise of their own citizens.
While small arms are peanuts in comparison to jet fighters, and missiles by value on the world's arms market, they are still there, and Balkan makers have good prices, and collaborative governments.
While small arms are peanuts in comparison to jet fighters, and missiles by value on the world's arms market, they are still there, and Balkan makers have good prices, and collaborative governments.
The average HK billionaire is rich because of China. They aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.
Feel truly bad for Hong Kong here.
Sadly nothing will be done here by the west.
Let's not forget a "social justice" warrior LeBron James criticized an NBA owner for tweeting "Stand with Hong Kong" not too long ago. It's all about money in the west.
“So many people could have been hurt [not only] financially, but physically, emotionally, spiritually"
- LeBron James
- LeBron James
“Sadly nothing will be done here by the west.”
What concrete actions would you suggest?
What concrete actions would you suggest?
I hope they’re not inviting us to bomb China until representative democracy takes root. We’re not terribly good at that, but we’re far more effective at that than diplomacy.
My hope is, just as it's commonplace for Chinese people to learn English, it becomes commonplace for Westerners to learn Mandarin. Only once we can communicate can we start to break through cultural and ideological barriers. It would be impossible to stop the flood of readily consumable Western Mandarin media and culture.
Unfortunately I think too many would see learning Mandarin as China winning a culture war, instead of seeing it as building a foundation for expropriating the CCP's control over Chinese ideology.
Unfortunately I think too many would see learning Mandarin as China winning a culture war, instead of seeing it as building a foundation for expropriating the CCP's control over Chinese ideology.
I definitely think there should be more cultural exchange, but as to your "missionary" plan of attack, it doesn't really work like that. If you really want to alter China having this fantasy that you're simply better than they are all you need is for them to see it will not help.
Many Chinese people already speak English, have lived and travelled overseas, but "dangerous" Western ideas have not penetrated into and changed their culture. The reason is not because: "the CPC controls it", it's because people Chinese people are very proud of who they are, and they accept the CPC is doing the right thing. Not meaning 100% agreement with the government -- it regularly bends to the will of the people to cool their anger when it's done something that didn't work.
Somewhat related to your point: I think people should definitely engage with China more, rather than just the biased hologram of China presented in Western media. That's good for everyone, whatever your goal is.
The culture bias goes both ways, and there's probably people who hope Westerners don't get a clear idea of China, and don't want them to learn Mandarin and engage more, because they're afraid of "Chinese ideas" penetrating and "expropriating" (to use your term) their culture and control.
Many Chinese people already speak English, have lived and travelled overseas, but "dangerous" Western ideas have not penetrated into and changed their culture. The reason is not because: "the CPC controls it", it's because people Chinese people are very proud of who they are, and they accept the CPC is doing the right thing. Not meaning 100% agreement with the government -- it regularly bends to the will of the people to cool their anger when it's done something that didn't work.
Somewhat related to your point: I think people should definitely engage with China more, rather than just the biased hologram of China presented in Western media. That's good for everyone, whatever your goal is.
The culture bias goes both ways, and there's probably people who hope Westerners don't get a clear idea of China, and don't want them to learn Mandarin and engage more, because they're afraid of "Chinese ideas" penetrating and "expropriating" (to use your term) their culture and control.
The owner of Apple Daily should thank his stars that he is not charged under Australian law.
We have a situation here in Australia where people accused of vaguely defined "national security" crimes are charged secretly and tried by secret courts.
We have also had counter-terrorism police raid and arrest journalists and youtube comedians because a minister felt that he was insulted by them.
We have a situation here in Australia where people accused of vaguely defined "national security" crimes are charged secretly and tried by secret courts.
We have also had counter-terrorism police raid and arrest journalists and youtube comedians because a minister felt that he was insulted by them.
Just a note that Apple Daily [0] is a pro-democracy tabloid and is not affiliated with Apple computer.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Daily
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Daily
Hong Kong is dead, and the CCP killed it.
Daily reminder that the Chinese Government should never ever be trusted.
China agreed not to touch Hong Kong's system politically or economically until at least 2047.
They couldn't manage even half of that, and there are now many Hong Kongers sitting in jail for the "crime" of supporting democracy in Hong Kong (not even China!), which was made illegal by the CCP under "national security" laws.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems
Daily reminder that the Chinese Government should never ever be trusted.
China agreed not to touch Hong Kong's system politically or economically until at least 2047.
They couldn't manage even half of that, and there are now many Hong Kongers sitting in jail for the "crime" of supporting democracy in Hong Kong (not even China!), which was made illegal by the CCP under "national security" laws.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems
The writing was on the wall well before it was even handed over. England was in no position to defend the island after the lease on the New Territories ended, nor are they capable of doing anything to prevent the CCP from slowly eroding institutions in Hong Kong now. Everyone else has little to no skin the game to risk anything significant. Their only hope was the belief that the economic development of China would usher in democratic reforms, which hasn't happened.
England never had any leverage in negotiations, so it makes sense that the CCP wouldn't care or honor anything because they correctly predicted that repercussions would be minimal. Over time, the importance of Hong Kong as a financial and economic hub/ gateway to China has waned substantially, so now the instability in the region isn't as costly anymore. The incentives were never there for the CCP to act in good faith.
It is incredibly unfortunate what is happening, but realistically it was only a matter of time before these things happened, the terms they agreed upon weren't much more than window dressing to allow England to exit gracefully.
England never had any leverage in negotiations, so it makes sense that the CCP wouldn't care or honor anything because they correctly predicted that repercussions would be minimal. Over time, the importance of Hong Kong as a financial and economic hub/ gateway to China has waned substantially, so now the instability in the region isn't as costly anymore. The incentives were never there for the CCP to act in good faith.
It is incredibly unfortunate what is happening, but realistically it was only a matter of time before these things happened, the terms they agreed upon weren't much more than window dressing to allow England to exit gracefully.
Britain failed to enact democratic reforms well before the handover [0]. Chris Patton and successive British governments are partly to blame [1].
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong)
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/i-should-have-...
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong)
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/i-should-have-...
You are right, that was probably the most significant path not taken, though at the time it probably wasn't attended to with 1997 in mind which is why it was left on the back burner. By the time sovereignty negotiations began in the 80s it was probably too late.
[deleted]
What are the geopolitical implications of China breaking agreements like this? I figure governments will trust the word of China even less.
> China agreed not to touch Hong Kong's system politically or economically until at least 2047.
China just kept the good ol' colonial system rolling.
China just kept the good ol' colonial system rolling.
British Hong Kong is not a democracy too. British rule. Hong Kong only have a limited election in 1985 only after the the handover was sealed. The CCP looks at the 1985 election as a British plot to sabotage the handover.
I dont really buy this. HK is apart of China, why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?
> HK is [a part] of China
Politically? Physically? Culturally? Morally? Currently Hong Kong is ruled by China. Many in Hong Kong might prefer something different. If the government in Beijing allowed them to, they might choose complete independence.
> why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?
Why should a government in Beijing be allowed to dictate policy for people in Hong Kong based on the fact that Hong Kong was under control of a different government in mainland China hundreds of years ago before the British (unlawfully) took it from them?
Should the people of Hong Kong have a say in this? The people in Hong Kong have been asking for the right of self-determination. Is there some reason that the people of Hong Kong should not get this right?
Politically? Physically? Culturally? Morally? Currently Hong Kong is ruled by China. Many in Hong Kong might prefer something different. If the government in Beijing allowed them to, they might choose complete independence.
> why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?
Why should a government in Beijing be allowed to dictate policy for people in Hong Kong based on the fact that Hong Kong was under control of a different government in mainland China hundreds of years ago before the British (unlawfully) took it from them?
Should the people of Hong Kong have a say in this? The people in Hong Kong have been asking for the right of self-determination. Is there some reason that the people of Hong Kong should not get this right?
As a Hongkonger, I see some similarities of culture between Hong Kong and China, but the differences are materially stronger, even more so than when you compare some countries in Europe.
I can give one distinct example. Our people's definition of patriotism in general is to make things happen so we can be proud of ourselves, that's why 2 million (or 25% of the population) walked out. Instead of "voicing support" so "we" look good despite terrible decisions or actions by the government. Many Chinese are intelligent and good people, they just can't get over this particular bit because of years of education and cross influence while the counter voices are silenced. (Apologies for the generalization, I do make friend with Chinese, this just represent the sample size of all the Chinese people I've interacted with.)
Personally I think nationalism is just an necessary evil because tribes are stronger. I'd rather identify with people having same believe, interests and thought spectrum. So the thought of "this place or these group of people must belong to us" is just beyond me, particularly if the process involves destroying all the value of this place.
I think everyone would be happier if Hong Kong is independent, and we work out a deal that benefits both sides. Too bad we're human, we love power, so CCP reached an illogical conclusion. Hongkongers are now talking about leaving with the main focus the preservation of our cultural identity. Much easier these days with tech.
I can give one distinct example. Our people's definition of patriotism in general is to make things happen so we can be proud of ourselves, that's why 2 million (or 25% of the population) walked out. Instead of "voicing support" so "we" look good despite terrible decisions or actions by the government. Many Chinese are intelligent and good people, they just can't get over this particular bit because of years of education and cross influence while the counter voices are silenced. (Apologies for the generalization, I do make friend with Chinese, this just represent the sample size of all the Chinese people I've interacted with.)
Personally I think nationalism is just an necessary evil because tribes are stronger. I'd rather identify with people having same believe, interests and thought spectrum. So the thought of "this place or these group of people must belong to us" is just beyond me, particularly if the process involves destroying all the value of this place.
I think everyone would be happier if Hong Kong is independent, and we work out a deal that benefits both sides. Too bad we're human, we love power, so CCP reached an illogical conclusion. Hongkongers are now talking about leaving with the main focus the preservation of our cultural identity. Much easier these days with tech.
Serious question. How common is it for a group of people to have this level of self determination? Eg if people in California decided not to be part of the US, can they?
Well, if the people of California all wanted to leave, they could elect a legislature and a Congressional delegation that is pro-secession. This is farther than China will allow Hong Kong.
After this, the California Congressional delegation could introduce a California secession bill. This bill would be debated in Congress.
If they were really serious, the Californians could support a constitutional amendment specifically allowing secession sort of like Article 50 of the EU.
But there are other example of people having this right. The people of Scotland narrowly voted to remain in the UK (but could have left). The people of Northern Ireland have the option to leave the UK. The UK chose to leave the EU. Puerto Rico could probably leave the US (who currently rules them) if they wanted to.
After this, the California Congressional delegation could introduce a California secession bill. This bill would be debated in Congress.
If they were really serious, the Californians could support a constitutional amendment specifically allowing secession sort of like Article 50 of the EU.
But there are other example of people having this right. The people of Scotland narrowly voted to remain in the UK (but could have left). The people of Northern Ireland have the option to leave the UK. The UK chose to leave the EU. Puerto Rico could probably leave the US (who currently rules them) if they wanted to.
If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else. If somehow California fought back and held out for a few years, maybe the US would give up and let them go, but probably not without intentionally destroying every single valuable asset that state has.
As much as people like to paint China as a villain here, a very solid proportion would support similar actions in the US.
As much as people like to paint China as a villain here, a very solid proportion would support similar actions in the US.
> If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else
Maybe. Maybe not. I personally think the US military would give them a couple of weeks just like they did last time when certain southern states tried to break away. However whether or not the federal government waits a few weeks isn't the main question.
If the people of California held a vote on whether they should be allowed to secede, zero US military personnel would interfere in any way. After holding such a vote, if the California delegation to Congress wanted to, they could force a vote on whether to allow California to secede.
While I would be very surprised if they were allowed to secede, I bet the people of California could win concessions from the other state governments. California elects nearly an eighth of the house of representatives. Combine their delegation with right-wing republicans who might be more than happy to eject California and the House might just vote to lose California. Through all of this, the military will do nothing. The Senate will be harder to convince, because every state has the same amount of representation.
Texas discussed secession recently, as did a few other States. While we did militarily crush the states who tried to leave in the 1860s, they attacked us first. Then we invaded them and brought them back.
Maybe. Maybe not. I personally think the US military would give them a couple of weeks just like they did last time when certain southern states tried to break away. However whether or not the federal government waits a few weeks isn't the main question.
If the people of California held a vote on whether they should be allowed to secede, zero US military personnel would interfere in any way. After holding such a vote, if the California delegation to Congress wanted to, they could force a vote on whether to allow California to secede.
While I would be very surprised if they were allowed to secede, I bet the people of California could win concessions from the other state governments. California elects nearly an eighth of the house of representatives. Combine their delegation with right-wing republicans who might be more than happy to eject California and the House might just vote to lose California. Through all of this, the military will do nothing. The Senate will be harder to convince, because every state has the same amount of representation.
Texas discussed secession recently, as did a few other States. While we did militarily crush the states who tried to leave in the 1860s, they attacked us first. Then we invaded them and brought them back.
> Hong Kong (not even China!)
Hong Kong is China since 1997 with same nationality law that's the reason its called one country and two systems. Obviously the thin layer between two system is getting thinner, because like any law, basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be.
I believe all of this is happening given China does not want to be another USSR. Hong Kong was used as a launch pad to do the same and ruling establishment learning from the past actions in cold war between US and USSR cracked down heavily using the interpretation of basic law to suite their needs. It was inevitable, just the time-line shortened due to the kind of chaos Hong Kong went through with violent protests.
Hong Kong is China since 1997 with same nationality law that's the reason its called one country and two systems. Obviously the thin layer between two system is getting thinner, because like any law, basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be.
I believe all of this is happening given China does not want to be another USSR. Hong Kong was used as a launch pad to do the same and ruling establishment learning from the past actions in cold war between US and USSR cracked down heavily using the interpretation of basic law to suite their needs. It was inevitable, just the time-line shortened due to the kind of chaos Hong Kong went through with violent protests.
China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047. Beijing is in flagrant violations of its international treaty obligations.
The New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but Britain was under no obligation to transfer Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back at any time for any reason. They graciously agreed to return them for China, but in exchange Beijing made explicit promises, which it's openly disregarding.
The New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but Britain was under no obligation to transfer Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back at any time for any reason. They graciously agreed to return them for China, but in exchange Beijing made explicit promises, which it's openly disregarding.
> They graciously agreed to return them for China
Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.
Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.
The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. It's not a question of who "should" own Hong Kong based on some centuries old history. It's a question of who the people of Hong Kong choose to govern them. Had an open referendum been held in 1997, it's almost certainly the case that the citizenry would not have voted to return to the tutelage of the dictatorship in Beijing.
This is something I don't understand as well. Why didn't Hong Kong choose to become an independent state when they had the chance? They could have thrived like Singapore does.
Hong Kong is still a more free society. So probably its not a good suggestion to make it worse than what it is already due to heavy handed approach to national security. Please check report in Hong Kong (52 points) [1] and Singapore (49 points) [2] on freedom.
In Hong Kong one can go for protest if its not breaking the National Security Law, in Singapore no one can protest unless approved by Police, recent case highlights it when a student send a tweet to protest when Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison visited Singapore [3].
Hong Kong is still very good when it comes to internet and freedom of expression. Also it follows common law jurisdictions and judges are able to give judgements against the government in many instances. Also Singapore has POFMA [4], which is worse than rules in Hong Kong.
In Hong Kong anyone can form a company and manage it without having a local permanent resident or citizen as Director. In Singapore one cannot form a limited liability company easily unless has a local permanent resident or citizen as Director (for others need a special conditions and permission).
[1] https://freedomhouse.org/country/hong-kong/freedom-world/202...
[2] https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...
[3] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/spf-tweet-pro...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Online_Falseho...
In Hong Kong one can go for protest if its not breaking the National Security Law, in Singapore no one can protest unless approved by Police, recent case highlights it when a student send a tweet to protest when Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison visited Singapore [3].
Hong Kong is still very good when it comes to internet and freedom of expression. Also it follows common law jurisdictions and judges are able to give judgements against the government in many instances. Also Singapore has POFMA [4], which is worse than rules in Hong Kong.
In Hong Kong anyone can form a company and manage it without having a local permanent resident or citizen as Director. In Singapore one cannot form a limited liability company easily unless has a local permanent resident or citizen as Director (for others need a special conditions and permission).
[1] https://freedomhouse.org/country/hong-kong/freedom-world/202...
[2] https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...
[3] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/spf-tweet-pro...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Online_Falseho...
They could thrive only if their Govt rule like Singapore Govt.
alau1218(2)
Sounds like a good approach. Why not put it to practice by letting China own Florida for 150 years, then see who Floridians want to join at the end of it.
>The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed.
First I must say that what's happening to HK is tragic, and I very much empathize with their situation, and am not at all in agreement with how the CCP is handling this.
But this is quite the take! I don't know if you're US-based, but by that logic if the Native Americans held a referendum, they would have most certainly not allowed the U.S. government to form on their land.
This is simply a case of Big Stick Ideology, something the U.S. is quite familiar with [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
[EDIT: No, I'm not suggesting that this is right, just making an observation]
First I must say that what's happening to HK is tragic, and I very much empathize with their situation, and am not at all in agreement with how the CCP is handling this.
But this is quite the take! I don't know if you're US-based, but by that logic if the Native Americans held a referendum, they would have most certainly not allowed the U.S. government to form on their land.
This is simply a case of Big Stick Ideology, something the U.S. is quite familiar with [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology
[EDIT: No, I'm not suggesting that this is right, just making an observation]
Yes, that is why people feel that what was done to Native Americans was wrong. By which I mean that Americans believe it was wrong. It was also 200 years ago, and no explicit treaty had been signed to another world power granting them rights (the French and Spanish sold them out).
Unless you think it was right and the Big Stick is right, then HK is more than tragic. It is a violation of international treaty and of human rights.
Unless you think it was right and the Big Stick is right, then HK is more than tragic. It is a violation of international treaty and of human rights.
No, I do not think Big Stick is right.
The U.S. has a whole history with Latin America that was a lot less than 200 years ago. I'd argue that many outside of the U.S believe this policy isn't a thing of the past.
>French and Spanish sold them out
I don't find the suggestion that those that were subjugated needed rights granted to them by outside groups, including those that colonized them to begin with.
Again, I'm in agreement that this is wrong, but I also believe that "Rules for thee but not for me" is not a very productive type of diplomacy either.
The U.S. has a whole history with Latin America that was a lot less than 200 years ago. I'd argue that many outside of the U.S believe this policy isn't a thing of the past.
>French and Spanish sold them out
I don't find the suggestion that those that were subjugated needed rights granted to them by outside groups, including those that colonized them to begin with.
Again, I'm in agreement that this is wrong, but I also believe that "Rules for thee but not for me" is not a very productive type of diplomacy either.
If that's the case we would see an effort to reverse those wrongs by reverting all the economic benefit that America gained at the expense of Native Americans. All the land and lives taken, and all the wealth and prosperity they could have generated. The total sum if repaid would probably erase a significant part of America from the map.
So it was wrong. But clearly not wrong enough to warrant erasing America and its wealth from existence. Saying sorry and expressing regret is cheap. Actual action is expensive.
As an aside, I wonder what the psychological effects are from growing up in a nation where the public discourse is all about how the nation was unjustly founded. If a significant part of the next generation believes that America's historical foundations are rotten to the core and that its existence is a tragedy, what happens next?
So it was wrong. But clearly not wrong enough to warrant erasing America and its wealth from existence. Saying sorry and expressing regret is cheap. Actual action is expensive.
As an aside, I wonder what the psychological effects are from growing up in a nation where the public discourse is all about how the nation was unjustly founded. If a significant part of the next generation believes that America's historical foundations are rotten to the core and that its existence is a tragedy, what happens next?
> If that's the case we would see an effort to reverse those wrongs by reverting all the economic benefit that America gained at the expense of Native Americans.
Note that, like LatinX, Native Americans is something only white people say. They call themselves Indians. Activist/government terms usually end up kind of patronizing for some reason.
(And they were called Indians before people from India were called that.)
Note that, like LatinX, Native Americans is something only white people say. They call themselves Indians. Activist/government terms usually end up kind of patronizing for some reason.
(And they were called Indians before people from India were called that.)
India has been used in the English language for over 1,000 years, and in Latin and before that Greek for at least 1,500 years before that, along with Indian and its equivalents in other languages.
This was of course well before anyone used the word "Indian" to refer to Native Americans.
This was of course well before anyone used the word "Indian" to refer to Native Americans.
Even before America was discovered, "the Indies"/Indians/indios was used to refer to Ethiopia as well as India. They didn't have very clear ideas of where things were but that also suggests it was just meant to refer to any tropical area.
Or you can use backformation and say it's short for Indigenous.
Or you can use backformation and say it's short for Indigenous.
The name India literally derives from the Sindhu river (aka the Indus river), which became Hindu in Persian (S->H is a common sound correspondence between Sanskrit and Persian), and dropped the initial H when getting into Greek. It was also used to refer to some areas beyond India -- (i.e, modern Indonesia or the "East Indies", but the origin of it was from civilizational India.).
I've never heard of India being used to refer to Ethiopia. Ethiopia itself is a phrase of Greek origin, and dates back at least to Herodotus.
I've never heard of India being used to refer to Ethiopia. Ethiopia itself is a phrase of Greek origin, and dates back at least to Herodotus.
Yeah, as a neutral observer, I feel conflicted. What the CCP is doing feels wrong.
But on the other hand, China was forced to agree to the HK situation particularly since they were at a disadvantage militarily and economically to the British empire.
China (CCP) would understandably not be in a mood to comply with agreements they felt coerced into.
I genuinely don't understand the full situation, and I'm not trying to imply that the CCP is in the right.
I'm just trying to understand if the whole "bullied into a disadvantaged agreement" is a valid world view to take.
But on the other hand, China was forced to agree to the HK situation particularly since they were at a disadvantage militarily and economically to the British empire.
China (CCP) would understandably not be in a mood to comply with agreements they felt coerced into.
I genuinely don't understand the full situation, and I'm not trying to imply that the CCP is in the right.
I'm just trying to understand if the whole "bullied into a disadvantaged agreement" is a valid world view to take.
Hong Kong was built from nothing by the British. Before the British arrived and settled HK, it was but an empty jungle mountains sticking of an estuary on the Ocean. By comparison, the powerhouse of southern China, Guangzhou, was plenty populated. They ceded some empty land to the brits to build a trading port some distance away.
Why would the Communist Party of China have more of a claim to this land than the brits? When HK was ceded and built, the CCP didn't even exist and wouldn't for a few more hundred years. A different power (the Qing empire) controlled the land from afar. They are from a different ethnic group (Manchurian), from modern day northern China / Russia, and have very little to do with the Cantonese people who inhabit southern China.
(I live here)
Why would the Communist Party of China have more of a claim to this land than the brits? When HK was ceded and built, the CCP didn't even exist and wouldn't for a few more hundred years. A different power (the Qing empire) controlled the land from afar. They are from a different ethnic group (Manchurian), from modern day northern China / Russia, and have very little to do with the Cantonese people who inhabit southern China.
(I live here)
[deleted]
> China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047
Independence in domestic matters is still there in Hong Kong, as it was before 1997 (at that time also chief executive is not elected). Hong Kong earlier worked under common law system and it still has the same system (China system is continental law system). Nationality law was enacted using provisions of basic law which provided a thin layer between one country and two systems. Also this is in response to threats of using Hong Kong as launch pad for attack on China in cold war.
> They graciously agreed to return them for China
Lived long enough in Hong Kong to know it was anything but gracious. UK left because they milked enough from Hong Kong and risking a war with China for a small gains were not worthwhile.
Independence in domestic matters is still there in Hong Kong, as it was before 1997 (at that time also chief executive is not elected). Hong Kong earlier worked under common law system and it still has the same system (China system is continental law system). Nationality law was enacted using provisions of basic law which provided a thin layer between one country and two systems. Also this is in response to threats of using Hong Kong as launch pad for attack on China in cold war.
> They graciously agreed to return them for China
Lived long enough in Hong Kong to know it was anything but gracious. UK left because they milked enough from Hong Kong and risking a war with China for a small gains were not worthwhile.
What city in the USSR was equivalent to Hong Kong? I am not aware of any cities in the USSR that enjoyed freedom of the press and an independent judiciary at the level that Hong Kong did prior to the NSL crackdowns.
No however ironically Russians today enjoy vastly more freedom than Chinese citizens.
I think the post might have been referencing how the USSR fractured into a lot of smaller countries.
I have no idea but maybe west Germany?
I think you mean East Germany, but I think you are right... and if Russia came back for East Germany now, there would be a war and it would likely go nuclear, because it is part of a powerful neighboring country. HK's neighbor is who took over.
What does west Germany have to do with Russia?
"basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be."
There is no independent judiciary in China, the law is whatever the CCP wants it to be.
In this case, they didn't like what some newspaper was doing, so they had it shut down, and put out the PR spin though thought would work best. That's it.
FYI the 'violent protests' were not very violent, and definitely favourable to the loss of freedoms with the current regime.
One option would be to let the citizens of HK make the decision on those things.
There is no independent judiciary in China, the law is whatever the CCP wants it to be.
In this case, they didn't like what some newspaper was doing, so they had it shut down, and put out the PR spin though thought would work best. That's it.
FYI the 'violent protests' were not very violent, and definitely favourable to the loss of freedoms with the current regime.
One option would be to let the citizens of HK make the decision on those things.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-...
keyword:Apple Daily
keyword:Apple Daily
A reminder that Mark Simon, a senior figure at Next Media (owner of Apple Daily), has literally worked for the CIA and his father was a senior US intelligence officer. [1]
[1] https://www.citizendaily.news/mark-simon-jimmy-lais-right-ha...
[1] https://www.citizendaily.news/mark-simon-jimmy-lais-right-ha...
>U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price said the United States was "deeply concerned by Hong Kong authorities' selective use of the national security law to arbitrarily target independent media organizations
cough Julian Assange cough
cough Julian Assange cough
[deleted]
This is a pretty cool response:
"Hong Kong democracy paper runs defiant edition day after raid" - yahoo news
https://news.yahoo.com/hong-kong-democracy-paper-runs-023820...
"Hong Kong democracy paper runs defiant edition day after raid" - yahoo news
https://news.yahoo.com/hong-kong-democracy-paper-runs-023820...
And China's industry has the world by the balls, so there's not much that can be done from an external perspective to prevent this. That said, I'm not sure many nations would do anything even if China didn't have leverage over them.
Hong Kong’s fate was sealed in 1984 when the UK agreed to return it to China. And that was when China was far weaker than now, and could have been confronted at far less cost. Instead, the West got played, transferring massive capital and know-how to China while convincing themselves that economic integration would inevitably lead to greater political freedom.
This is true. Sometimes I wonder if the UK thought HK would become a trojan horse. A symbol of good living standards and democracy. That was ignoring thousands of years of wars for unification that built China. It is built on blood and blood will continue to be shed until the whole of China is united. This is what reading books and watching movies will tell you.
> Sometimes I wonder if the UK thought HK would become a trojan horse
You may be in luck - a whole bunch of UK documents and letters from the Thatcher era were unclassified recently. You can search the archive for any mention of "Hong Kong"[1], or any other keyword of interest
1. https://www.margaretthatcher.org/search?dt=0&w=hong+kong&sea...
You may be in luck - a whole bunch of UK documents and letters from the Thatcher era were unclassified recently. You can search the archive for any mention of "Hong Kong"[1], or any other keyword of interest
1. https://www.margaretthatcher.org/search?dt=0&w=hong+kong&sea...
All you have to do is look at who was in power in 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1984_British_incumbent...
(TLDR: Conservatives.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1984_British_incumbent...
(TLDR: Conservatives.)
We should all stop buying products made in China as much as possible. At least, until the current communist gov is in charge.
So, we buy nothing?
Even the domestic products basically say "Assembled in the USA"
( from parts made in China)
But the sad reality is that the raw materials needed for a lot of the things we take for granted in everyday life... require an astounding amount of environmental destruction, something China is still more than happy to do.
I'm not saying we need to loosen environmental laws in the States, we need to instead completely overhaul the way we manufacture things to take as much advantage of recycling as we possibly can.
And nobody cares to do that. Why would we? It's cheaper in China, after all.
Even the domestic products basically say "Assembled in the USA"
( from parts made in China)
But the sad reality is that the raw materials needed for a lot of the things we take for granted in everyday life... require an astounding amount of environmental destruction, something China is still more than happy to do.
I'm not saying we need to loosen environmental laws in the States, we need to instead completely overhaul the way we manufacture things to take as much advantage of recycling as we possibly can.
And nobody cares to do that. Why would we? It's cheaper in China, after all.
Just try. You will be surprised how often (not always) there's an alternative. Then, even if you pay a bit more, in most cases you'll be getting better quality too.
Find me a smartphone that is made in the US with no Chinese parts, then.
Or anything that goes into a laptop.
Or desktop.
Those are the primary components/products that China needs to destructively mine and process raw materials for. Until we recycle electronics as a standard instead of a "we care about being Green(tm)" gesture... manufacturing is always going to go where it's cheapest.
Or anything that goes into a laptop.
Or desktop.
Those are the primary components/products that China needs to destructively mine and process raw materials for. Until we recycle electronics as a standard instead of a "we care about being Green(tm)" gesture... manufacturing is always going to go where it's cheapest.
https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/
https://www.falcon-nw.com/falcon/craftsmanship
I believe Digital Storm is also using primarily US components but can't find it on their site.
Intel has several US foundries, and some ARM foundries are in the US as well.
https://www.falcon-nw.com/falcon/craftsmanship
I believe Digital Storm is also using primarily US components but can't find it on their site.
Intel has several US foundries, and some ARM foundries are in the US as well.
> https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/
They actually have China-made chassis as per they "origin declaration" table.
They actually have China-made chassis as per they "origin declaration" table.
'Hollister California' brand shout out there from the HK Police.
Perhaps Biden administration has no reaction because Apple Daily (and its boss) was very active in spreading misinformation about Hunter Biden
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-politics-idUKKBN...
I am not sure if the president is in fact happy about the raid. One has to pay the price if good ol' Joe is pissed.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-politics-idUKKBN...
I am not sure if the president is in fact happy about the raid. One has to pay the price if good ol' Joe is pissed.
nahnopay(1)
Is this retaliation for US and EU putting trade disputes aside?
It's inevitable. There is no chance the CCP will allow a free press under it's umbrella. They just need to find the right bit of populism to excuse the rundown i.e. 'They are causing sanctions'.
They'll get no sympathy on the mainland, and in HK they'll try to go on as normal as though it did not happen.
What the 'Rest of the World' should do is just recognize that HK is not 'China' and remove their special access to markets, currency etc..
China will use HK as their access point to the global economy unless the West does something about it, sadly, they may not.
They'll get no sympathy on the mainland, and in HK they'll try to go on as normal as though it did not happen.
What the 'Rest of the World' should do is just recognize that HK is not 'China' and remove their special access to markets, currency etc..
China will use HK as their access point to the global economy unless the West does something about it, sadly, they may not.
Do they need HK as long as there are no sanctions otherwise?
HK is the financial gateway between China and the Rest of the World and that's how most foreign direct investment happens.
It's because HK is open to the world and also China, but ROW not really open to China.
China, by 'taking over HK' really implies that HK shouldn't really enjoy fee access to world markets.
This is unlikely to change though as the situation benefits everyone financial and it's not based on human rights rather it was based on transparency, commercial law, accounting standards etc..
So as long as investors stay protected, that commercial law remains in place, they can get their money out, that balance sheets still mean what they did before ... it's probably just going to stay that way.
China doesn't need to change those things to control HK, all they need to do is clamp down on the political system and eject anyone 'causing trouble'. Which they can do.
If China went after foreign account holders, or if vaporware mainland accounting standards start showing up in HK companies it may eventually be a problem, but I don't see why that would change.
Due to the fact the lease to UK was a set timeframe, China holds all the cards here.
It's because HK is open to the world and also China, but ROW not really open to China.
China, by 'taking over HK' really implies that HK shouldn't really enjoy fee access to world markets.
This is unlikely to change though as the situation benefits everyone financial and it's not based on human rights rather it was based on transparency, commercial law, accounting standards etc..
So as long as investors stay protected, that commercial law remains in place, they can get their money out, that balance sheets still mean what they did before ... it's probably just going to stay that way.
China doesn't need to change those things to control HK, all they need to do is clamp down on the political system and eject anyone 'causing trouble'. Which they can do.
If China went after foreign account holders, or if vaporware mainland accounting standards start showing up in HK companies it may eventually be a problem, but I don't see why that would change.
Due to the fact the lease to UK was a set timeframe, China holds all the cards here.
Change of accounting standards will certainly follow as totalitarian governments are walking hand in hand with creative accounting. You just cant have society of doublespeak and censorship while maintaining transparent financial system.
If CCP will try to preserve financial system degradation might just take longer, but after few decades and several imminient emigration waves it's will be mainland all over.
If CCP will try to preserve financial system degradation might just take longer, but after few decades and several imminient emigration waves it's will be mainland all over.
I thought Shanghai had a pretty large share at this point, nonconvertibility of the yuan notwithstanding.
No, it's just local political repression.
I was watching HK Apple Daily since the Hong Kong protests and lately a few of their latest videos have been showing up in my feed. While I’ve stopped watching, the thumbnails look incendiary in nature so seeing this happen is not surprising considering the news security law
Every time any Chinese diplomat opens their mouth, something incendiary comes out these days. There will be books written in the future and these times will be used an example on how to lose friends fast. The absolute reverse of soft power.
As far as I can tell, you have US regulatory capture by the same multinational corporations and their executives which are getting rich by marketing products and services driven heavily by Chinese labor and supply chains. They have no financial interest in rocking the boat with the CCP, so Washington’s intervention will never amount to more than empty rhetoric and saber rattling.
Sadly for Hong Kong, US big tech, energy, healthcare, etc don’t care if they’re free so they won’t be.
Sadly for Hong Kong, US big tech, energy, healthcare, etc don’t care if they’re free so they won’t be.
milofeynman(1)
Well deserved. Apple Daily is not pro democrazy but pro-chaos. It routinely manufatures fake news and rumors that only matched by the mainstream fake news.
I'm all for pro democrazy. But there is a clear line between pushing a democratic agenda for the benefit of Hong Kong people and that of provoking dissidents at any opportunity possible with whatever means possible, to foster agendas by local tycoons and foreign intelligence agencies, which eventually cost Hong Kong people.
If you have never read the published paper on fostering dissidents for "academic" research in Hong Kong pease search for it.
I'm all for pro democrazy. But there is a clear line between pushing a democratic agenda for the benefit of Hong Kong people and that of provoking dissidents at any opportunity possible with whatever means possible, to foster agendas by local tycoons and foreign intelligence agencies, which eventually cost Hong Kong people.
If you have never read the published paper on fostering dissidents for "academic" research in Hong Kong pease search for it.
>> It routinely manufatures fake news and rumors...
For which there is and should be plenty of room in a functioning society that is free to voice its opinion, however "pro-chaos".
For which there is and should be plenty of room in a functioning society that is free to voice its opinion, however "pro-chaos".
I guess even the lowest bar of news integrity is an optional choice when it comes to Hong Kong?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Notice how there's no clause stating that this right is conditional on "news integrity".
Notice how there's no clause stating that this right is conditional on "news integrity".
Any country put limits on its media, and free media is not always a force for good:
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/in-depth-the-63-uk-journalist...
In depth: The 63 UK journalists arrested and/or charged following the News of the World hacking scandal
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/in-depth-the-63-uk-journalist...
In depth: The 63 UK journalists arrested and/or charged following the News of the World hacking scandal
That makes me laugh. I guess the United States is ran solely on this document and no other detailed laws.
> Well deserved. Apple Daily is not pro democrazy but pro-chaos. It routinely manufatures fake news and rumors that only matched by the mainstream fake news.
Whereas the chinese dictatorship is a bastion of transparency, honesty and democracy?
Whereas the chinese dictatorship is a bastion of transparency, honesty and democracy?
Where did I state that? Or is this whole fuss just another imagined adversary against China of the US crusader mentality?
I was a resident for many years, I witnessed the peaceful protests of 2014, I witnessed horrifying wanton violence in 2019, I witnessed the rapid destruction of the freest laissez faire city state in the world. Above all I feel great sadness for the people of Hong Kong.
The CCP cannot tolerate any dissenting voices as a matter of preserving their total grip on power. It was an inevitability Hong Kong would be crushed and silenced although the world and Hong Kong was caught off guard by the speed at which this has occurred. I take some consolation with the G7's recent communique.