Student group leader arrested on suspicion of inciting secession in HK(hongkongfp.com)
hongkongfp.com
Student group leader arrested on suspicion of inciting secession in HK
https://hongkongfp.com/2020/07/29/breaking-pro-independence-student-group-leader-arrested-on-suspicion-of-inciting-secession-under-hong-kongs-security-law/
117 comments
There have been plenty of successful, peaceful-ish secessions in history. Off the top of my head, the British Empire mostly dissolved
semi-peacefully, which was basically a tonne of secessions. Norway essentially seceded from Sweden. Russia didn’t fight TOO hard against the fall of the USSR. You could argue Brexit is a secession of sorts. I’m sure there are more.
Not that there wasn’t plenty of protest, struggle and loss of life in things like the dissolving of the British Empire and USSR, but the more powerful actor did eventually give up, vs. simply saying “we have the bigger army, we’re gonna crush you.”
In most cases, there was extended protest, to the point where popular opinion shifted over time to heavily support secessionists, and the colony/whatever became an expensive inconvenience, that wasn’t worth the tax revenue. Hong Kong are probably hoping that eventually the same thing will happen with them.
Not that there wasn’t plenty of protest, struggle and loss of life in things like the dissolving of the British Empire and USSR, but the more powerful actor did eventually give up, vs. simply saying “we have the bigger army, we’re gonna crush you.”
In most cases, there was extended protest, to the point where popular opinion shifted over time to heavily support secessionists, and the colony/whatever became an expensive inconvenience, that wasn’t worth the tax revenue. Hong Kong are probably hoping that eventually the same thing will happen with them.
Locally, Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, being the only country in the history of the world to gain independence against its own will -- certainly the only one I know of. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_in_Malaysia
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_in_Malaysia
> Not that there wasn’t plenty of protest, struggle and loss of life in things like the dissolving of the British Empire and USSR, but the more powerful actor did eventually give up, vs. simply saying “we have the bigger army, we’re gonna crush you.”
It's quite possible for the larger power to be defeated by having to fight multiple smaller powers. Bigger army doesn't mean it's a fight you can win.
On a somewhat-related note, I read of an interesting case in Indian history involving a minor state that existed between two major powers. The situation was stable.
One of those major powers, feeling especially strong, conquered that minor state. It could do that -- it was much bigger! But this ended up directly exposing its (new) border to the other major power, which invaded. The first power fell apart.
It's quite possible for the larger power to be defeated by having to fight multiple smaller powers. Bigger army doesn't mean it's a fight you can win.
On a somewhat-related note, I read of an interesting case in Indian history involving a minor state that existed between two major powers. The situation was stable.
One of those major powers, feeling especially strong, conquered that minor state. It could do that -- it was much bigger! But this ended up directly exposing its (new) border to the other major power, which invaded. The first power fell apart.
British empire was over-extended over the whole of the world.
This is a small area bordering close a billion people area.
This is a small area bordering close a billion people area.
HK doesn't pay tax to central government, and is too close and too small to secede as long as mainland has some semblance of cohesive power, UK admitted China could roll over HK in the mid 80s if they wanted to + the lesson politburo learned from USSR's collapse is to not fragment at any cost. To the mainland, HK is not a unwieldy, far flung holding that takes commiserate projection to tame. It's a small city of 7million located less than 100km of Southern Theater Command.
Hong Kong will be paying an unrestricted amount as national security fee to central government (Chinese [1] Google translate [2]), and as an estimate, China is spending more on domestic security than military [3]--they perceive a greater threat from inside than from outside.
[1]: https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1535055-20200701.h...
[2]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
[3]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/China-People-s-Congress-20...
[1]: https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1535055-20200701.h...
[2]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
[3]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/China-People-s-Congress-20...
That's not a tax to the mainland, but new operation cost per national security commitments. Though technicalities aside, it could totally be exploited as a new tax that could be as onerous as politburo decides. HK autonomy is definitely over, though I surmise it's future is still indeterminate. There's good case to cultivate the city for another 1C2S model closer to Singapore, but it will take time, and indoctrination via patriotic education of new youth cohorts to produce a society that's more compatible with CCP 20 years from now. It's the last peaceful 1C2S gambit within reunification time frame.
I don't know how the article about PAP relates, though I was going to mention in the original comment that HK wouldn't take more few PAP detachments to tame even without "military" intervention. The key point, being that it's not a "frontier" territory and surrounded by so much CCP para/military/security that secession is not possible.
I don't know how the article about PAP relates, though I was going to mention in the original comment that HK wouldn't take more few PAP detachments to tame even without "military" intervention. The key point, being that it's not a "frontier" territory and surrounded by so much CCP para/military/security that secession is not possible.
I'm not sure if you've seen a map of the region? I don't understand how you can have an understanding of the geography and claim HK independence is feasible. Even in this impossible scenario, economically it would be ruined beyond repair.
I’m not saying it’s LIKELY, or at all feasible in the short term. Just that, for those HKers who do want independence, they’re probably not envisioning gaining independence through military conflict, but more by shifting public opinion and causing annoyance/costs over a very long term, to the point where China eventually gives up.
It’s a long shot, but I imagine this is a more common dream among HKers who want independence than winning it in a war. Obviously they’ll never match China’s might.
It’s a long shot, but I imagine this is a more common dream among HKers who want independence than winning it in a war. Obviously they’ll never match China’s might.
From what I heard, they intend to win the way France (de Gaulle really) won the World War II – by losing on the ground but siding with the victorious.
Many of the secessionists hope for or expect an immediate collapse of the Chinese central government, either due to internal economic, political, or ethnic problems, or to external pressures applied especially by US, at which point, with support from the Anglosphere, they could obtain and sustain sovereignty.
Many of the secessionists hope for or expect an immediate collapse of the Chinese central government, either due to internal economic, political, or ethnic problems, or to external pressures applied especially by US, at which point, with support from the Anglosphere, they could obtain and sustain sovereignty.
The Northern Ireland approach would work if China had any sense of shame. The UK rules of engagement were tied to the idea that some atrocities would be embarrassing if they were in the morning paper the next day.
It helps if the area to be governed is full of sympathetic, English-speaking westerners with a lot of family ties back to the oppressing nation. That’s why this would never work in Xinjiang. It’s slightly less unlikely in HK.
It helps if the area to be governed is full of sympathetic, English-speaking westerners with a lot of family ties back to the oppressing nation. That’s why this would never work in Xinjiang. It’s slightly less unlikely in HK.
I don't think they plan to win militarily. I think either they don't have a plan, but their desperate. Or they hope to stir up enough diplomatic pressure/embarrassment to make China back down (they did before I think).
Honestly- best case scenerio as measured by reduction of humor life loss, a great urban flight similar to what happened to Detroit is the best option.
Exhile
By doing so, the value of hk is lost (economic powerhouse loss and brain drain)
And the hk people can retain their freedom.
Along that train of thought, the UK offer for naturalization makes sense, and the US would greatly benefit from such a process.
Exhile
By doing so, the value of hk is lost (economic powerhouse loss and brain drain)
And the hk people can retain their freedom.
Along that train of thought, the UK offer for naturalization makes sense, and the US would greatly benefit from such a process.
Well, the US isn't interested in taking anyone from anywhere, so that's kinda definitely not going to happen.
It's much more likely they'll end up in the other four of the Five Eyes (The UK, CA, AU and NZ in rough order of how many people will land in each).
It's much more likely they'll end up in the other four of the Five Eyes (The UK, CA, AU and NZ in rough order of how many people will land in each).
"I feel like their only hope would be if America deployed troops to HK and kept the city fed via air supply like with Berlin."
I think positioning 100,000 American troops would deter the CCP. Given the New Territories is connected to the mainland, I would position them all on Hong Kong Island to defend against any potential naval invasion.
When the invasion occurs, America would then mobilize its naval assets closer to Hong Kong and bombard any amphibious landings.
Given America's naval superiority, China would not want to engage in a decisive naval battle.
I think positioning 100,000 American troops would deter the CCP. Given the New Territories is connected to the mainland, I would position them all on Hong Kong Island to defend against any potential naval invasion.
When the invasion occurs, America would then mobilize its naval assets closer to Hong Kong and bombard any amphibious landings.
Given America's naval superiority, China would not want to engage in a decisive naval battle.
> I think positioning 100,000 American troops would deter the CCP. Given the New Territories is connected to the mainland, I would position them all on Hong Kong Island to defend against any potential naval invasion.
That's not positioning, that's an outright invasion and occupation of China. Now that they've become such a global power they'd never back down from that fight.
That's not positioning, that's an outright invasion and occupation of China. Now that they've become such a global power they'd never back down from that fight.
The bigger question here is what about China? We all (those of us over 35) assumed that as they industrialised, they would gradually become democratic (in the sense of elections but also of human rights and rule of law). That's clearly not the case. The CCP seem to be more firmly in place than ever...
> We all (those of us over 35) assumed that as they industrialised, they would gradually become democratic (in the sense of elections but also of human rights and rule of law).
I think this was more like a willful delusion on the part of the supporters of such a theory. Either knowingly--so they exploit China's labor force and resources--or unknowingly--because they'd drank the cool aid offered by those trying to profit off of China.
I think we should flip the whole thing. Why would China democratize? If the rest of the world is okay with China's authoritarianism and continues to engage with China economically, why exactly shouldn't they just continue acting as they do. How much longer would apartheid have continued in South Africa, if international pressure didn't mount against it? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but it's not some guarantee that it would have gone away, just as it's no guarantee that China will democratize. If we truly want China to democratize, we should engage with them economically with that as a _stipulation_ in some form or another. If we don't make such a stipulation, we should stop acting surprised that China does not change its system and instead accept that we are just there to economically exploit the country and that these dreams only exist to convince the rest of the world that it's acting morally even if it clearly is not.
I think this was more like a willful delusion on the part of the supporters of such a theory. Either knowingly--so they exploit China's labor force and resources--or unknowingly--because they'd drank the cool aid offered by those trying to profit off of China.
I think we should flip the whole thing. Why would China democratize? If the rest of the world is okay with China's authoritarianism and continues to engage with China economically, why exactly shouldn't they just continue acting as they do. How much longer would apartheid have continued in South Africa, if international pressure didn't mount against it? I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but it's not some guarantee that it would have gone away, just as it's no guarantee that China will democratize. If we truly want China to democratize, we should engage with them economically with that as a _stipulation_ in some form or another. If we don't make such a stipulation, we should stop acting surprised that China does not change its system and instead accept that we are just there to economically exploit the country and that these dreams only exist to convince the rest of the world that it's acting morally even if it clearly is not.
I actually disagree about South Africa. I think the regime itself there would have been toppled eventually but they made an active choice to go peacefully rather than for it to turn into a bloodbath 20 years later. I think this is a very interesting example because most regimes fail at that sort of pragmatism. But that's an aside, we will never know and it's just my opinion! :)
Initially we got into bed with China (I am a brit, so by we I mean Europe as well as the US) to get them out of bed with the Russians because communism. That's why there were no stipulations around democracy etc, the stipulation was basically "fuck the USSR" and they stuck to that. They should have been added when the USSR feel, but most countries were too busy dealing with their internal politics (and cheap Chinese imports supported them there).
The excuse there is that by making them richer (and getting richer ourselves, whoops) we were assisting them towards a bloodless transition. That's clearly not working. Instead, china over the last 5 years at least has regressed politically. I would 100% support action on China (and I am an internationalist and until recently quite pro china). But this is hard, we would need most of the west to work together at exactly the time it's "every man for himself" (brexit, trump).
To be honest, I am actually quite worried right now. The total refusal of countries to work together on this and climate change mean the rest of this century is very uncertain. I am 36, quite old really but I won't be dead before most of the shit has hit the fan. Yet everyone both individually and nationally are basically ignoring the oncoming train to pickup pennies from the tracks...
Initially we got into bed with China (I am a brit, so by we I mean Europe as well as the US) to get them out of bed with the Russians because communism. That's why there were no stipulations around democracy etc, the stipulation was basically "fuck the USSR" and they stuck to that. They should have been added when the USSR feel, but most countries were too busy dealing with their internal politics (and cheap Chinese imports supported them there).
The excuse there is that by making them richer (and getting richer ourselves, whoops) we were assisting them towards a bloodless transition. That's clearly not working. Instead, china over the last 5 years at least has regressed politically. I would 100% support action on China (and I am an internationalist and until recently quite pro china). But this is hard, we would need most of the west to work together at exactly the time it's "every man for himself" (brexit, trump).
To be honest, I am actually quite worried right now. The total refusal of countries to work together on this and climate change mean the rest of this century is very uncertain. I am 36, quite old really but I won't be dead before most of the shit has hit the fan. Yet everyone both individually and nationally are basically ignoring the oncoming train to pickup pennies from the tracks...
The secession is forced to hkers. And then start the hammering. Just like u and t people that they are x whatever x is as an excluse to thumb is down.
The best scenario if that is the path is Switzerland model as a neutral ground. In fact that is what 1c2s model is. but that is unlikely now. You have that option if some acceptance of similarity (languages - French, Germany etc as English is the business and government internal language). Hk play a different game due to its proximity and multiple strong countries around (in influence, history and trade).
Unfortunately, China traditional cultural view That the world is one and no coexistence in heart. Its stands is really Hans or barbarian does not help. It got an economic of scale that is hard to beat. And once back on world stage it is a force that fit dominance more. Unless that change Hk fight, our fight here, is hard.
The china does not understand and take this. At least not for long. Dang ... No way out yet. But fight on. Cathedral vs bazaar. One vs many.
The best scenario if that is the path is Switzerland model as a neutral ground. In fact that is what 1c2s model is. but that is unlikely now. You have that option if some acceptance of similarity (languages - French, Germany etc as English is the business and government internal language). Hk play a different game due to its proximity and multiple strong countries around (in influence, history and trade).
Unfortunately, China traditional cultural view That the world is one and no coexistence in heart. Its stands is really Hans or barbarian does not help. It got an economic of scale that is hard to beat. And once back on world stage it is a force that fit dominance more. Unless that change Hk fight, our fight here, is hard.
The china does not understand and take this. At least not for long. Dang ... No way out yet. But fight on. Cathedral vs bazaar. One vs many.
This is far less tyrannical than what people live under in the rest of China. Imagine it
Pure political news. Get this off HN.
When the Hong Kong stock exchange listed a Chinese tech index the other day I realised Hong Kong had completely fallen. The CCP rules Hong Kong in totality now as far as I'm concerned.
As most of the counterarguments make the same point I will make a blanket reply:
China among other nations have been playing a game for a while. I call it "can we get away with it" (all states play this game to some extent).
This listing of Chinese tech companies that are taking a hammering from Western policy as China becomes near peer (this is just the start) isn't subtle enough to be part of this game IMO. To me this listing was a statement - they are fully aware it's going to make the West double down on ending any outstanding preferential treatment. What they are saying is: "we don't care if we can get away with it. It's ours.".
China among other nations have been playing a game for a while. I call it "can we get away with it" (all states play this game to some extent).
This listing of Chinese tech companies that are taking a hammering from Western policy as China becomes near peer (this is just the start) isn't subtle enough to be part of this game IMO. To me this listing was a statement - they are fully aware it's going to make the West double down on ending any outstanding preferential treatment. What they are saying is: "we don't care if we can get away with it. It's ours.".
Internally, they sold the operation to the public as "restoring law and order" to Hong Kong and endlessly showed videos of protesters attacking police officers.
Great observation, I didn't even notice.
Hang Seng Index,
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/asia-markets-hong-kongs-new-...
Wow.
Hang Seng Index,
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/asia-markets-hong-kongs-new-...
Wow.
The Hang Seng Index isn't new. The Hang Seng Tech Index is, but I don't think it contains any companies not part of the broader Hang Seng Index. I have no idea how that is supposed to demonstrate the power of the CCP.
The Hong Kong Stock Exchange has been promoting tech listings for years. Recently they have a range of policies such as easier routes to listing for tech companies than for traditional firms. I would not consider a tech index an artifact of Beijing influence, which has its own domestic tech stocks in Shanghai, Shenzhen, etc.
Hang Seng itself is an HK company, has been ever since its inception. HSBC has owned a large part of it for a long time, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_Seng_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_Seng_Bank
[deleted]
Mainland Chinese stocks have been listed on HKEX and even been components of the Hang Seng Index (kind of like our SP500) for a long time. The main reason that there aren't more HK stocks in the tech index is that there aren't really any HK based tech companies listed on our exchange.
...are there any HK tech companies?
Slightly facetious but HK really dropped the ball in not chasing tech IMO
Slightly facetious but HK really dropped the ball in not chasing tech IMO
well, there are small start ups and engineering firms, back when things were considered "open" and the taxes were fairly low...a lot were doing under the radar type stuff and using the HK-Shenzhen connection to get rapid prototyping done and so forth. I know of a few companies doing LCD panels for stadiums, a few fabless chip design firms going for embedded markets, etc. But no "unicorns" in the American sense.
This was always an inevitability. China could ostensibly take territory from any of its neighbors except Russia. The idea that a small island would be able to stay independent was temporary.
Nothing is obvious in geopolitics. See US-Cuba, India-Sri Lanka-LTTE, Iraq-Kuwait etc. Being larger just means you can make risky moves. But those moves can blow up in spectacular unpredictable ways.
paulcarroty(2)
HK may be falling, but the listing of Chinese equities has been around for awhile and probably unrelated. H shares [1] are established enough as an asset class that there’s even an AH Premium Index [2] for price differences between listings in Shanghai vs. Hong Kong.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_share
[2]: https://markets.ft.com/data/indices/tearsheet/summary?s=HSCA...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_share
[2]: https://markets.ft.com/data/indices/tearsheet/summary?s=HSCA...
It is interesting that there was recently a petition asking for people to support the national security law, and that it managed to gather 3 million signatures. For comparison, high estimations on the number of people who went on the streets to protest, was about 2 million. Both numbers are likely to be overestimations, but it seems to show that the Hong Kong people are divided about whether China is good for them, and whether they should support the protests or not. It is unfortunate that the mainstream media only reports Hong Kong events on the surface level, and does not analyze the issue more deeply.
To those that wish to learn more deeply about the Hong Kong events, I recommend browsing Quora. There are quite some people there who say they live in Hong Kong.
To those that wish to learn more deeply about the Hong Kong events, I recommend browsing Quora. There are quite some people there who say they live in Hong Kong.
Reuters conducted an opinion poll on the law in June.
49% strongly opposed it.
7% somewhat opposed it.
27% strongly supported it.
7% somewhat supported it. [1]
[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-poll-ex...
49% strongly opposed it.
7% somewhat opposed it.
27% strongly supported it.
7% somewhat supported it. [1]
[1]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-poll-ex...
...or the signatures are fake? Petition fraud. Happens in US too, see net neutrality.
Or coerced.
Note that the coercion doesn't have to be blatant or explicit. China said some fairly threatening things about Hong Kong, and some number of residents may have decided that, for their own safety, they needed to signal that they were in support. What they actually feel or think may be different.
Note that the coercion doesn't have to be blatant or explicit. China said some fairly threatening things about Hong Kong, and some number of residents may have decided that, for their own safety, they needed to signal that they were in support. What they actually feel or think may be different.
Yes, big businesses as well: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/06/03/hsbc-backs-c...
>> Last Friday Leung Chun-ying, Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing former leader, demanded that HSBC state its position after enjoying privileges in the territory that “should not be taken for granted”.
He also warned that it could “be replaced by banks from China or other countries overnight”.
In a Facebook post he wrote: “We need to let … British companies such as HSBC know which side of the bread is buttered.”
>> Last Friday Leung Chun-ying, Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing former leader, demanded that HSBC state its position after enjoying privileges in the territory that “should not be taken for granted”.
He also warned that it could “be replaced by banks from China or other countries overnight”.
In a Facebook post he wrote: “We need to let … British companies such as HSBC know which side of the bread is buttered.”
[deleted]
Well I did say that 3M is likely to be an overestimation. How many do you believe are fake? Let's say 40% are fake. That puts the number of legit signatures at 1.6M: still in the same ballpark as the number of protesters, which shows that society is divided.
If you disagree with this analysis, I would love to hear why.
If you disagree with this analysis, I would love to hear why.
A petition is a much lower effort action than a protest. People motivated enough to protest in person probably represent a stronger opinion base than people merely motivated enough to sign a petition.
That's generally true. In this case, it's a petition about a national security law, so does that still hold? I would say that anybody signing support for a national security law has to be mad (under normal circumstances), no matter how easy it is to put down a signature.
I was offered a bag ~10 surgical masks or a hand sanitizer a few months ago in return for signing that petition by people waiting at the entrance to my apartment building. At this time there was a huge scramble for masks which were in short supply. I'm not disputing the law or the level of support but I feel there were some flaws in the signature collection process.
40% is the conservative estimate number the the US government faked for the net neutrality thing and that's with transparency in the comments. Let's go with 99% for China?
There was a local district election in November, in which the pro-Democracy party won. Do you believe that those election results are real or not?
Does anyone know why my post gets downvoted? Is it not neutral and balanced enough?
I think people are assuming that it's relying on questionable sources.
ciarannolan(1)
It’s an uncomfortable truth, so they would rather downvote and not allow others to see.
3million signatures.. they would never fake that now would they?
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/420764-chicago-alderman-ca...
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/420764-chicago-alderman-ca...
Half of them were faked, half of them were forced to sign when their Job or bonus were dependent on it.
And that is about as civilised and as polite as I could put it.
And that is about as civilised and as polite as I could put it.
How many do you believe are fake?
According to the news sources behind the great firewall they're all legitimate.
But Hong Kong has never had a great firewall?
approximately three million?
> I recommend browsing Quora. There are quite some people there who say they live in Hong Kong.
I live in Hong Kong–those people on Quora are wrong. Actually, I don't, but there's really no way to verify that; take online comments by people who supposedly live in a region with a grain of salt.
I live in Hong Kong–those people on Quora are wrong. Actually, I don't, but there's really no way to verify that; take online comments by people who supposedly live in a region with a grain of salt.
What do you believe they are wrong about?
That's not the point. He's saying that there's no possible way to decisively figure out who does and doesn't live in Hong Kong on Quora; there are a lot of nations interested in influencing what's going on there right now (including US, I might add), and Chinese disinformation campaigns (especially ones where they pretend to be from elsewhere) aren't a new phenomenon.
Petitions are bullshit, Quora is bullshit. Look for bodies, anything else is easy to fake.
Petitions are bullshit, Quora is bullshit. Look for bodies, anything else is easy to fake.
I wonder what you consider valid opinions then.
Suppose a foreigner posts a video on Youtube, showing that he's on the street in China, speaking about Hong Kong. Would you say that that is a valid opinion?
Also, if we're so skeptical about all sorts of online comments, do you believe I should consider all HN comments about anything political, to be invalid too because they might be disinformation campaigns?
Suppose a foreigner posts a video on Youtube, showing that he's on the street in China, speaking about Hong Kong. Would you say that that is a valid opinion?
Also, if we're so skeptical about all sorts of online comments, do you believe I should consider all HN comments about anything political, to be invalid too because they might be disinformation campaigns?
Notice that walking on the streets of China or Hong Kong is still a world different from posting an internet comment or incrementing a mysql column.
Also, yes, we generally are skeptical of political claims online. See this thread and any political discussion on HN. It's why political submissions are usually clusterfucks like this one where every top-level comment is greyed-out and making a strong claim. Or made by someone who registered an account just to post it.
Either way, you are here bringing Quora posts and a petition in into a superhot discussion that demands more. Linking to published opinion pieces from people at ground zero would definitely be more compelling than pointing us to an internet forum where you write your own byline credentials.
Also, yes, we generally are skeptical of political claims online. See this thread and any political discussion on HN. It's why political submissions are usually clusterfucks like this one where every top-level comment is greyed-out and making a strong claim. Or made by someone who registered an account just to post it.
Either way, you are here bringing Quora posts and a petition in into a superhot discussion that demands more. Linking to published opinion pieces from people at ground zero would definitely be more compelling than pointing us to an internet forum where you write your own byline credentials.
Here is an actual person, living in China, commenting on Hong Kong. Do you believe this video deserves skepticism? If so, can you tell me why? https://youtu.be/h64hTb4on78
-
The Chinese government allows dissent to some degree; "disappearing" of critics isn't universal and shouldn't be seen as such. Criticize it for things it actually does, of which there are many.
I don't know why your other post was flagged. I just want to say two things in reply.
You read too much into why I mentioned "foreigner". I actually wanted to ask whether people consider the video that I posted above, which is made by an actual foreigner (as a fact, not as an insinuation of anything more) can be considered an honest opinion.
I also used the word "valid" as a shorthand for "an opinion that deserves to be heard and considered, rather than downvoted or dismissed", for the lack of a better term.
You read too much into why I mentioned "foreigner". I actually wanted to ask whether people consider the video that I posted above, which is made by an actual foreigner (as a fact, not as an insinuation of anything more) can be considered an honest opinion.
I also used the word "valid" as a shorthand for "an opinion that deserves to be heard and considered, rather than downvoted or dismissed", for the lack of a better term.
If he's representing his affiliations honestly, why wouldn't it be? Faking video is harder than lying about who you are on the internet.
To point back to that comment, Chinese living in China have just as much a right to have opinions on it, and so do Americans living in America, but neither of their opinions are worth half as much as people living in Hong Kong. As long as they're representing themselves honestly (as Chinese or Americans, living in their respective countries), they've still got honest opinions, even if their opinions don't matter as much as the ones of people living in Hong Kong.
To point back to that comment, Chinese living in China have just as much a right to have opinions on it, and so do Americans living in America, but neither of their opinions are worth half as much as people living in Hong Kong. As long as they're representing themselves honestly (as Chinese or Americans, living in their respective countries), they've still got honest opinions, even if their opinions don't matter as much as the ones of people living in Hong Kong.
I wonder what you consider valid opinions then.
You're redirecting the conversation. Is this intentional? I didn't claim any which way as to the "validity" of opinion: I agreed with Saagar, saying that the fact of where you live is easy to obscure or lie about on the internet, and opinions that were possibly deceptively broadcasted should be taken with a grain of salt.
Suppose a foreigner posts a video on Youtube, showing that he's on the street in China, speaking about Hong Kong. Would you say that that is a valid opinion?
This is a fun question, because there are four or five layers to it! I'll try to answer it and the rest of your questions the best I can, because I don't think we're that far off from ideological alignment here.
First, I'll start off again by pointing out your usage of "valid opinion" isn't here nor there (all opinions are valid, even if some are deceiving and many are wrong): my statement wasn't on the validity of opinions, but on whether or not the opinions were coming from people who were being honest about where they were from. But I still like this question, so I'm going to answer.
You word this like it's a "gotcha," as if for some reason expats are primarily on the side against CCP (or China, because let's be honest, a lot of the hate directed in the CCP's direction is anti-Chinese xenophobia, despite there being a lot of valid reasons to hate the CCP and detest its actions), but most foreigners who'd be willing to film themselves talking in China and publicly broadcast it are pro-Chinese government. I don't think this is inherently a bad thing, and it's completely natural given that the Chinese government has some absolutely fantastic scholarships and has relatively accepting immigration policies.
But then, Hong Kong isn't China. I wouldn't trust an American living in France to tell me about Venezuela, even if their opinions are "valid" as long as they're representing themselves as an American living in France telling me about Venezuela. I'd trust a foreigner living in Hong Kong to tell me about Hong Kong, I'd trust a foreigner living in China to tell me about whichever part of China they're in (I'm not going to claim someone living in Chongqing could tell me much about Huangshan; people don't accept that China is more like USA than a tiny country like France, but I wouldn't trust a Californian to deliver a good summary of what Wisconsin is like, either).
It then follows that Chinese living in China and Americans living in the USA have opinions that are worth less than anyone living in Hong Kong, which I'd say is true if you think people should have a right to self-determination. Most online opinions claiming to be from Hong Kong online should probably be discounted then, solely because given the volume of people from both countries with an interest in interfering in Hong Kong's affairs (let's be honest, CIA is assuredly interfering too given the obvious benefits of an independent Hong Kong to US intelligence).
Also, if we're so skeptical about all sorts of online comments, do you believe I should consider all HN comments about anything political, to be invalid too because they might be disinformation campaigns?
Again, you're using "invalid" in a sense that I don't think is useful. Nonetheless, anyone claiming to be from anywhere online has a pretty strong chance of not being from there. Any dog can log on. So yeah, definitely discount HN pretty heavily. Even if HN isn't subject to any disinformation campaigns (ignoring that Amazon's been caught paying people to comment on here and some Amazon accounts have been banned for that), it's still primarily well-off people circlejerking about the dangers of economic systems they've only read the Wikipedia articles about; yes, absolutely throw the opinions away. Most importantly, do so when sides not directly involved (meaning not Hong Kong in this case, despite that China is 'directly' involved; China is 'directly' involved in the sense that USA was during Vietnam) have vested interests in making things go their way.
You're redirecting the conversation. Is this intentional? I didn't claim any which way as to the "validity" of opinion: I agreed with Saagar, saying that the fact of where you live is easy to obscure or lie about on the internet, and opinions that were possibly deceptively broadcasted should be taken with a grain of salt.
Suppose a foreigner posts a video on Youtube, showing that he's on the street in China, speaking about Hong Kong. Would you say that that is a valid opinion?
This is a fun question, because there are four or five layers to it! I'll try to answer it and the rest of your questions the best I can, because I don't think we're that far off from ideological alignment here.
First, I'll start off again by pointing out your usage of "valid opinion" isn't here nor there (all opinions are valid, even if some are deceiving and many are wrong): my statement wasn't on the validity of opinions, but on whether or not the opinions were coming from people who were being honest about where they were from. But I still like this question, so I'm going to answer.
You word this like it's a "gotcha," as if for some reason expats are primarily on the side against CCP (or China, because let's be honest, a lot of the hate directed in the CCP's direction is anti-Chinese xenophobia, despite there being a lot of valid reasons to hate the CCP and detest its actions), but most foreigners who'd be willing to film themselves talking in China and publicly broadcast it are pro-Chinese government. I don't think this is inherently a bad thing, and it's completely natural given that the Chinese government has some absolutely fantastic scholarships and has relatively accepting immigration policies.
But then, Hong Kong isn't China. I wouldn't trust an American living in France to tell me about Venezuela, even if their opinions are "valid" as long as they're representing themselves as an American living in France telling me about Venezuela. I'd trust a foreigner living in Hong Kong to tell me about Hong Kong, I'd trust a foreigner living in China to tell me about whichever part of China they're in (I'm not going to claim someone living in Chongqing could tell me much about Huangshan; people don't accept that China is more like USA than a tiny country like France, but I wouldn't trust a Californian to deliver a good summary of what Wisconsin is like, either).
It then follows that Chinese living in China and Americans living in the USA have opinions that are worth less than anyone living in Hong Kong, which I'd say is true if you think people should have a right to self-determination. Most online opinions claiming to be from Hong Kong online should probably be discounted then, solely because given the volume of people from both countries with an interest in interfering in Hong Kong's affairs (let's be honest, CIA is assuredly interfering too given the obvious benefits of an independent Hong Kong to US intelligence).
Also, if we're so skeptical about all sorts of online comments, do you believe I should consider all HN comments about anything political, to be invalid too because they might be disinformation campaigns?
Again, you're using "invalid" in a sense that I don't think is useful. Nonetheless, anyone claiming to be from anywhere online has a pretty strong chance of not being from there. Any dog can log on. So yeah, definitely discount HN pretty heavily. Even if HN isn't subject to any disinformation campaigns (ignoring that Amazon's been caught paying people to comment on here and some Amazon accounts have been banned for that), it's still primarily well-off people circlejerking about the dangers of economic systems they've only read the Wikipedia articles about; yes, absolutely throw the opinions away. Most importantly, do so when sides not directly involved (meaning not Hong Kong in this case, despite that China is 'directly' involved; China is 'directly' involved in the sense that USA was during Vietnam) have vested interests in making things go their way.
If you go on journalist twitter, the “mainstream media” is full of very enterprising journalists who have done deep dives into the security law (as much as released by the CCP...) and is uniformly critical.
Also rather than “online polls”, the more damning feature are the local elections, or remnants thereof, where the Beijing faction is routinely getting crushed with pro-democracy candidates getting 70-80% Of the vote
Also rather than “online polls”, the more damning feature are the local elections, or remnants thereof, where the Beijing faction is routinely getting crushed with pro-democracy candidates getting 70-80% Of the vote
In the last local council elections, pro-Beijing candidates got 42% of all votes, while pro-democracy candidates got 57%. That the pro-democracy candidates won almost 90% of the seats is an artifact of the election system, which doesn't guarantee proportional representation.
You believe that 3 million 'petition signatures' is even remotely equivalent to 2 million actual protesters marching the street?
I'm really curious how exponential the amount of signatures you'd get for a protest that brought 2 million people together would be. I'd bet it'd be 30m+ easy but I'm doing completely baseless twitter retweet math.
edit: I worded this strangely and tried to recover it, hopefully it makes sense.
edit: I worded this strangely and tried to recover it, hopefully it makes sense.
RockmanZero(4)
I recently purchased Unfree Speech by Joshua Wong, a prominent Hong Kong activist who was imprisoned for 6 months (at the age of 20) for his political activity. I recommend it, as it is a pretty informal, quick read. It felt...odd...reading a contemporary story about political imprisonment. Somehow the term itself feels antiquated, but alas here we are.
Careful... under the new HK security laws, you might be at risk for financially supporting or abetting someone involved in secessionist activities!
(kidding, but not completely -- read Article 21: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Law_of_the_People%27s_Republi...)
(kidding, but not completely -- read Article 21: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Law_of_the_People%27s_Republi...)
Yes and probably anything they thought is wrong is subject to their law. Self censorship and afraid of them is what they want. Gradually one may even internalise that and report one’s neigbhour even.
From free to slave, from Hk to mainland, from anti- to love of your master. That is how they want Hk becomes.
It is not because we see any hope we fight. Be water, my friend.
From free to slave, from Hk to mainland, from anti- to love of your master. That is how they want Hk becomes.
It is not because we see any hope we fight. Be water, my friend.
Wong actually explicitly says he is against secession in the book, but I doubt that detail is relevant for a motivated prosecutor.
What is his plan for Hong Kong moving forward? I'd be interested to see what a local activist thinks could be a solution to their "China problem", especially considering that a country as big and powerful isn't going to simply back off. His fight is a tough one and I have great respect for a person so young to commit to it so fully.
The book came out in February but at the moment he seems to be running for the legislature. His overall strategy seems to be to drum up international support for HK democracy, which will then (in theory) pressure the CCP.
He intends to run in a primary for the pro-democracy camp that will choose candidates for the Legislative Council vote on Sept. 6.
"If more people vote for us ... it could generate more pressure and more hesitation for Beijing," Wong said, in front of campaign posters with the slogan "Ballot, or bullet."
Wong has said he supports the idea of a non-binding referendum for people to have a say over Hong Kong’s future but that he is against independence.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-joshua-...
He intends to run in a primary for the pro-democracy camp that will choose candidates for the Legislative Council vote on Sept. 6.
"If more people vote for us ... it could generate more pressure and more hesitation for Beijing," Wong said, in front of campaign posters with the slogan "Ballot, or bullet."
Wong has said he supports the idea of a non-binding referendum for people to have a say over Hong Kong’s future but that he is against independence.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-joshua-...
I am so impressed by these activists but at the same time feel so demoralized.
The CCP has consistently acted with great hostility and any attempt to change the system through existing political mechanisms, protests, and civil disobedience. And our global institutions have been seriously weakened by the election of various far-right, nationalist politicians who have no interest in, or are actively hostile towards promoting civil liberties and liberalism.
What other options do these activists have? Violence?
The CCP has consistently acted with great hostility and any attempt to change the system through existing political mechanisms, protests, and civil disobedience. And our global institutions have been seriously weakened by the election of various far-right, nationalist politicians who have no interest in, or are actively hostile towards promoting civil liberties and liberalism.
What other options do these activists have? Violence?
But let me play a moderate and ask you:
Are you an HK secessionist or merely seeking to delay / live out what was promised?
I.e., are you merely advocating for Hong Kong to peacefully continue the rest of its 20 years before full handover to China, under the system they've been used to? This is what was promised -- and you don't want China to prematurely erode HK's civil liberties?
Or are you seeking Hong Kong's independence, and a nullification of the treaty that was agreed to?
Because if you agree that the territory belongs to China, then we're just unhappy about it coming sooner than expected, right? It eventually would revert to China and have all the infringement of rights, which are now just being experienced sooner.
Are you an HK secessionist or merely seeking to delay / live out what was promised?
I.e., are you merely advocating for Hong Kong to peacefully continue the rest of its 20 years before full handover to China, under the system they've been used to? This is what was promised -- and you don't want China to prematurely erode HK's civil liberties?
Or are you seeking Hong Kong's independence, and a nullification of the treaty that was agreed to?
Because if you agree that the territory belongs to China, then we're just unhappy about it coming sooner than expected, right? It eventually would revert to China and have all the infringement of rights, which are now just being experienced sooner.
> Or are you seeking Hong Kong's independence, and a nullification of the treaty that was agreed to?
> Because if you agree that the territory belongs to China, then we're just unhappy about it coming sooner than expected, right?
By not living out the terms of the treaty until 2047, it is _China_ that is already nullifying the treaty. The whole point of the treaty was that changes to the basic law would not occur until at earliest 2047 so being "unhappy about it coming sooner than expected" is the same as being "unhappy that China is breaking the treaty". To me it is crazy to expect Hong Kongers not to be protesting such duplicitous actions by China.
> It eventually would revert to China and have all the infringement of rights, which are now just being experienced sooner.
As arcticbull pointed out ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23992800 ), it is absolutely _not_ a foregone conclusion that they would lose their current rights in 2047. The CCP might not even be able to hold out in its current form until then (ignoring currently trade and military tensions in the area, China's aging workforce is basically a population bomb). If Hong Kongers' want to stay quasi-independent, holding to the terms of the treaty is actually quite crucial. My suspicion is that the CCP sees exactly the same thing and hence why they have chosen to break the terms of the treaty to avoid having Hong Kong causing them trouble if they were to enter rough times in the future.
> Because if you agree that the territory belongs to China, then we're just unhappy about it coming sooner than expected, right?
By not living out the terms of the treaty until 2047, it is _China_ that is already nullifying the treaty. The whole point of the treaty was that changes to the basic law would not occur until at earliest 2047 so being "unhappy about it coming sooner than expected" is the same as being "unhappy that China is breaking the treaty". To me it is crazy to expect Hong Kongers not to be protesting such duplicitous actions by China.
> It eventually would revert to China and have all the infringement of rights, which are now just being experienced sooner.
As arcticbull pointed out ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23992800 ), it is absolutely _not_ a foregone conclusion that they would lose their current rights in 2047. The CCP might not even be able to hold out in its current form until then (ignoring currently trade and military tensions in the area, China's aging workforce is basically a population bomb). If Hong Kongers' want to stay quasi-independent, holding to the terms of the treaty is actually quite crucial. My suspicion is that the CCP sees exactly the same thing and hence why they have chosen to break the terms of the treaty to avoid having Hong Kong causing them trouble if they were to enter rough times in the future.
The handover treaty did not promise "an erosion of civil liberties in 2047." What it promised was that the territory would retain its basic law, constitution and freedoms until at least 2047. What was to happen next was to be up to the CCP and HK. You seem to think that moving to authoritarian control of HK was a foregone conclusion in 2047, but the past and present have shown great benefit to both of retaining 1C2S. Domestic peace, and an sort of a no-mans land where the rest of the world can meet the (relatively) insular CCP and do business.
The future, indefinitely, could have been 1C2S. In theory, it could still be.
It's really the CCP that's choosing to impose its will on the people of Hong Kong -- to your point, prematurely, but also objectively as a belligerent in this conflict. I suspect that most of the people of Hong Kong would have happily continued to live their lives on the island as they have for 50+ years, an enclave with a different way of life.
The future, indefinitely, could have been 1C2S. In theory, it could still be.
It's really the CCP that's choosing to impose its will on the people of Hong Kong -- to your point, prematurely, but also objectively as a belligerent in this conflict. I suspect that most of the people of Hong Kong would have happily continued to live their lives on the island as they have for 50+ years, an enclave with a different way of life.
This is a good point. I feel like I have a somewhat unsatisfying answer to this, which is that I am approaching this from a first-principles reasoning of ethical value, which logically leads to the arguing for secession.
Specifically, since I consider the preservation of civil liberties as a foundational ethical value, I consider the broad infringement of it, whether now or in the future is fundamentally unethical. From that perspective I consider both cases unethical, and that places me as in the secessionist category, even though that would mean violating the treaty.
One could argue that from a utilitarian perspective, (that places overall societal utility over individual liberty), that China is acting consistently within it's own interpretation of utilitarian ethics. The CCP could argue that maximizing ethical value necessitates both infringing on civil liberties, and violating the treaty. They could even plausibly point towards their radical success in reducing poverty, and leadership on climate change as an example of the superiority of their system. However, the (ongoing) genocide of Uighurs should clearly illustrate the flaws in this system.
Specifically, since I consider the preservation of civil liberties as a foundational ethical value, I consider the broad infringement of it, whether now or in the future is fundamentally unethical. From that perspective I consider both cases unethical, and that places me as in the secessionist category, even though that would mean violating the treaty.
One could argue that from a utilitarian perspective, (that places overall societal utility over individual liberty), that China is acting consistently within it's own interpretation of utilitarian ethics. The CCP could argue that maximizing ethical value necessitates both infringing on civil liberties, and violating the treaty. They could even plausibly point towards their radical success in reducing poverty, and leadership on climate change as an example of the superiority of their system. However, the (ongoing) genocide of Uighurs should clearly illustrate the flaws in this system.
He's now been barred from standing for election by China. The message is clear: there is no reform possible from within the system, no way for Hong Kong to retain its values whilst part of China, and any promises from the Chinese government are worthless the moment it's convenient to abandon them.
A HK friend of mine who's strongly opposing CCP told me independence isn't what most HK citizens want (a hoax even quoting his words). It was a merely a weaponised piece of propaganda by the CCP mouthpieces. By now I can't tell whether he's right or not only from reading main stream media articles. Also curious to learn what will be the ultimate goal.
It started as a hoax, because people naively believe the sanity of CCP or HK Government to even act with any decency.
The sentiment gradually shifted, because they lost whatever hope or trust that is left with the government.
It is still not a mainstream view, but it isn't so much a "hoax" like it was same time last year.
The sentiment gradually shifted, because they lost whatever hope or trust that is left with the government.
It is still not a mainstream view, but it isn't so much a "hoax" like it was same time last year.
Any links to the origin of these movements? Personally it seems a very bizarre strategy to use independence to bargain (it will for sure provoke rather than evoking 'decency'). Any chinese would agree I think. I lived in Ireland for nearly a decade and the wounds of the Trouble never heal between the very Irish people. And Ireland is way more democratic and tolerant than China.
The problem is the protesters were waving UK flags.
Can you imagine if the protesters in Kashmir were waving UK flags?
Can you imagine if the protesters in Kashmir were waving UK flags?
People are emotional and ideological with these matters. I don't think it's HK people's fault. However I do think understanding and communication is the key. Waging wars on ideological differences is toxic and hiding real issues. E.g a lot of sensible conversation has been drowned in the noise of social media.
TBH Wong's never going to get a chance to run, I doubt he's even allowed to leave the country after the security laws. The dude testified on the US congress to advocate against Chinese interests - aka treason - he's going to be the first on the chopping block when opportunity arises.
The state is small and a shares border with China, so it's not some situation where it will be easy to repeal invaders. And the people are at a severe military disadvantage. Even if every Hong Konger was armed, trained, and well lead, China could wage a war of attrition and win without a single shot fired.
I feel like their only hope would be if America deployed troops to HK and kept the city fed via air supply like with Berlin. And I can't imagine this having much, if any support within the US government or military.
Maybe these people just assume that protests and pressure from foreign governments will be enough to secure their freedom? I can't imagine China giving up on reintegrating HK and will do so by force, if required.