But the law is even more insane. A North Korea-like totalitarian state that puts people in camps can just snatch any lawyer, businessman our journalist and take them away without trial and without revealing their location.
Imagine people at startups working in sensitive areas like DNA testing, biotech, finance or data mining can be taken away and forced to reveal data, trade secrets, or forced to collaborate, under threat to their families or themselves.
(Perspective of an American who lives in a US Chinatown and speaks to many HKers, also went there last year)
Hong Kong is over.
Historically, it benefited from being one of the only open ports, proximate to China, but not in it. Good governance and rule of law (very important for mercantile activity, given how much finance, insurance, and complex legal codes around ownership / title / possession), nice real estate, etc.
Today, it feels like the PRC is playing the long game, and they're going to win -- they'll just hang up their hats and wait 50 years, only a generation or two, until they eventually take complete control of Hong Kong, maybe going as far as outright annexation. They're patient, determined, and focused in a way only a place ruled by a powerful, long-term oriented elite oligopoly can be (vs in the US, where we still can't fix Social Security, even though everyone knows it's a train wreck in the making, or build anything remotely resembling China's current high-speed rail network).
The real question I have is, what's going to happen in China when Xi Jinping (dictator for life) can no longer rule effectively? Will he willingly stop aside or is there going to be some kind of coup / violent overthrow if the CCP splits and can't decide whether or not it's time to replace him? That's what's got me thinking these days.
> They're patient, determined, and focused in a way only a place ruled by a powerful, long-term oriented elite oligopoly can be
You’re modelling China circa 2005. Xi Jinping is now a ruler for life. Dictatorship predicts Beijing better than long-term oligopoly.
For example, he’s been impatient with Hong Kong. If Xi respected Hong Kong’s independence, the fraction of Hong Kongese identifying as Chinese would have stayed high (or risen); integration in ‘47 would have proceeded seamlessly. Instead, he got impatient. He’s impulsively abducting bookstore owners and ramming through measures. That is stoking dissent and economic corrosion in a totally unnecessary way.
> what's going to happen in China when Xi Jinping (dictator for life) can no longer rule effectively?
We’ve passed the point where Xi can peacefully cede power without fearing for his and his family’s lives.
There may be a few more peaceful transitions of power in China’s future. And there’s a lot of political capital to burn, which gives the process time. But any course correction will be effected by force.
Same here, I am a Hong Konger. There are more 1 million people in this protest. The protest started at 2:30 pm in Victoria Park and ended at 10:00 pm in the Central Government Offices.
Personally, I think the Chinese Central Government won't recall the Extradition Law. But as a Hong Konger, I can proudly say that: We do our best to show the world, showing the Hong Kong spirit.
> Do people think they'll be able to change things?
An unpopular chief executive resigned in 2004 to protests half as large [1]. Beijing is at least somewhat constrained with respect to what it can openly do.
For anyone like me who was looking for some background on this, on Reddit, someone linked to a Vox video entitled "China is erasing its border with Hong Kong" [0]. At 15 minutes, it's a captivating introduction to the conflict.
Another video (6 minutes) you might be interested in by Vox is "China's trillion dollar plan to dominate global trade" [1], which is on China Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Edit: One great passage from the first video [0] at 11:29 says:
"The [umbrella movement] protest didn't change the government's mind and it didn't immediately change anything in Hong Kong.
But this spectacle of young people rising up to defend their rights from the central government of China did spark a political awakening among the many in the city who had never before paid attention.
'I think post-umbrella movement was the first time that the middle class came out and voted in droves, and voted for the opposition force.' - HK Resident"
World bank analysis of BRI which shows that BRI is a net positive to the world:
"
BRI will potentially have a large effect on trade and welfare for many countries
▪ All countries in the world experience a decrease in trade costs
▪ Not all sectors/countries will gain but potential aggregate effect is largely positive
But many policy barriers still remain in place. Potential gains of BRI would be enlarged by complementary reforms
▪ Need to reduce border delays, trade barriers and FDI restrictions
▪ But also boost investor protection, open public procurement, ensure private sector participation
Economic and non-economic risks associated to BRI projects need to be managed
▪ Public debt sustainability, governance, environmental and social concerns
▪ Coordination problems, lack of data, poor transparency magnify these challenges"
The vox video paints the Belt and Road Initiative in a negative light - which i feel is wrong. Why shouldn't China be allowed to invest and gain soft power? Why shouldn't they be allowed to make deals with countries the US deems 'undemocratic'?
If you're making deals with a government that is undemocratic, you're making a deal with the government, but not with the people. At that point, the deal is probably going to be one that benefits the government, but not the people. Countries do that, when it is in their best interest to do so.
But the US (rightly) gets criticism for doing such things. If it's right to criticize the US for such actions, it's also right to criticize China for them.
This article is published in the SCMP. The SCMP was purchased some time ago by Jack Ma. There were fears from various corners that Jack Ma, being friendly with the mainland Chinese government, would influence the SCMP to have coverage that was less independent than before. So it's interesting to see this published by SCMP.
The SCMP seems to have been fairly vocal. There doesn’t seem to be anything that would stop the removal of all the critical journalists though, so I am somewhat confused.
The SCMP wants to be seen as an authoritative regional news source, so it avoids blatantly biased coverage on the news side. It's generally pretty neutral.
The opinion and longform side of the paper are another matter, though. Almost all the columnists are pro-Beijing hacks at this point. It's kind of like how there's a divide at Fox between the "news" side, which is relatively reasonable (e.g. with Chris Wallace), and the "opinion" side (e.g. Bill O'Reilly an his ilk). While the news folk at these kinds of places might be principled journalists, their ultimate purpose is to legitimize the propagandists on the opinion side.
I was just starting high school when the handover of Hong Kong to China happened. Being pretty politically engaged at the time, I remember being surprised that everyone (in the US) was so blasé about it. This was the Clinton era, during the first tech boom. It was an optimistic, post Red Scare time. Everyone (here in the US) assumed the arrow of history pointed in the direction of progress, and that Hong Kong would retain the freedoms it had previously enjoyed.
The English and Chinese versions looks pretty different in tone, especially in the last sentence: 'Noting that the Second Reading debate on the bill will resume on June 12, the Government urged the Legislative Council to scrutinise the bill in a calm, reasonable and respectful manner to help ensure Hong Kong remains a safe city for residents and business.'
Understandable when this is for foreign press. Directly translated, the Chinese version says: 'The Second Reading debate on the bill will resume on June 12. End. '. Obnoxious if you understand Chinese.
Since Hong Kong is a former British colony, English is co-official with written Chinese there, and you can read the official brief and the text of the bill in English on the Legislative Council website: https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/bc/bc56/general/bc5...
>English is co-official with written Chinese there,
That is not strictly true, while both Chinese and English are the official languages, In writing, especially with any legals documents, in case of any discrepancy between the English version and the Chinese version, the English version shall prevail.
It was interesting to see the photos of the Union Jacks marching around. Anyone with first hand experience in Hong Kong, are there many people who wish for a return to the commonwealth, or is that a tiny minority?
I would say that most HK ppl just want a stable environment to live and happy to have a status quo. But recently, given the circumstance, more ppl do think UK can take more measures, say, in some way, to allow BNO holder to work and settle easier in UK, given that these holders are willing to and capable to do so.
And ppl might miss the last decades of British rules too, in an emotional way, as Economically and culturally HK was in a very good shape. Though most ppl won’t express it with a union flag in a public setting.
While many may miss the colonial rule for various reasons, most HK people who grew up under the British rule are realistic and understand a return to the commonwealth is nigh impossible under the current situation.
I'd venture to say it's overall a tiny minority, mostly youth.
Many more are those who'd or are considering (re-) emigration.
Could someone explain to me what the plan is for the end of the 50 year transition period? From my extremely uninformed point of view, this feels like delaying the inevitable. Is there a different outcome than Hong Kong eventually being entirely under the Chinese government?
Am not sure there was any solid plans. People have, or had, different aspirations.
It, more than anything, IMO, was said to appease the fear of the HK people who had a deep mistrust of the PRC government. Still, a lot of people emigrated before 1997.
Note that the saying is kind of vague anyway, it just says that the capitalist system and "ways of living" will not change.
Readit News
But the law is even more insane. A North Korea-like totalitarian state that puts people in camps can just snatch any lawyer, businessman our journalist and take them away without trial and without revealing their location.
Imagine people at startups working in sensitive areas like DNA testing, biotech, finance or data mining can be taken away and forced to reveal data, trade secrets, or forced to collaborate, under threat to their families or themselves.
Hong Kong is over.
Historically, it benefited from being one of the only open ports, proximate to China, but not in it. Good governance and rule of law (very important for mercantile activity, given how much finance, insurance, and complex legal codes around ownership / title / possession), nice real estate, etc.
Today, it feels like the PRC is playing the long game, and they're going to win -- they'll just hang up their hats and wait 50 years, only a generation or two, until they eventually take complete control of Hong Kong, maybe going as far as outright annexation. They're patient, determined, and focused in a way only a place ruled by a powerful, long-term oriented elite oligopoly can be (vs in the US, where we still can't fix Social Security, even though everyone knows it's a train wreck in the making, or build anything remotely resembling China's current high-speed rail network).
The real question I have is, what's going to happen in China when Xi Jinping (dictator for life) can no longer rule effectively? Will he willingly stop aside or is there going to be some kind of coup / violent overthrow if the CCP splits and can't decide whether or not it's time to replace him? That's what's got me thinking these days.
You’re modelling China circa 2005. Xi Jinping is now a ruler for life. Dictatorship predicts Beijing better than long-term oligopoly.
For example, he’s been impatient with Hong Kong. If Xi respected Hong Kong’s independence, the fraction of Hong Kongese identifying as Chinese would have stayed high (or risen); integration in ‘47 would have proceeded seamlessly. Instead, he got impatient. He’s impulsively abducting bookstore owners and ramming through measures. That is stoking dissent and economic corrosion in a totally unnecessary way.
> what's going to happen in China when Xi Jinping (dictator for life) can no longer rule effectively?
We’ve passed the point where Xi can peacefully cede power without fearing for his and his family’s lives.
There may be a few more peaceful transitions of power in China’s future. And there’s a lot of political capital to burn, which gives the process time. But any course correction will be effected by force.
Personally, I think the Chinese Central Government won't recall the Extradition Law. But as a Hong Konger, I can proudly say that: We do our best to show the world, showing the Hong Kong spirit.
An unpopular chief executive resigned in 2004 to protests half as large [1]. Beijing is at least somewhat constrained with respect to what it can openly do.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tung_Chee-hwa
Another video (6 minutes) you might be interested in by Vox is "China's trillion dollar plan to dominate global trade" [1], which is on China Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvXROXiIpvQ
Edit: One great passage from the first video [0] at 11:29 says:
"The [umbrella movement] protest didn't change the government's mind and it didn't immediately change anything in Hong Kong.
But this spectacle of young people rising up to defend their rights from the central government of China did spark a political awakening among the many in the city who had never before paid attention.
'I think post-umbrella movement was the first time that the middle class came out and voted in droves, and voted for the opposition force.' - HK Resident"
" BRI will potentially have a large effect on trade and welfare for many countries ▪ All countries in the world experience a decrease in trade costs ▪ Not all sectors/countries will gain but potential aggregate effect is largely positive
But many policy barriers still remain in place. Potential gains of BRI would be enlarged by complementary reforms ▪ Need to reduce border delays, trade barriers and FDI restrictions ▪ But also boost investor protection, open public procurement, ensure private sector participation
Economic and non-economic risks associated to BRI projects need to be managed ▪ Public debt sustainability, governance, environmental and social concerns ▪ Coordination problems, lack of data, poor transparency magnify these challenges"
[1]http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/501961539875310440/Michele-B...
China’s Trojan horse: Hong Kong’s new extradition arrangement puts foreigners at risk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUl-J0oh3k0
Here's a piece from last month reporting that a raft of countries including Turkey have refused to attend latest summit.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/25/belt-and-road-...
But the US (rightly) gets criticism for doing such things. If it's right to criticize the US for such actions, it's also right to criticize China for them.
Business people want to make money, foreign companies have started to divest from China, perhaps Hong Kong would be next?
Passing this law may akin to killing the goose for the golden eggs.
The opinion and longform side of the paper are another matter, though. Almost all the columnists are pro-Beijing hacks at this point. It's kind of like how there's a divide at Fox between the "news" side, which is relatively reasonable (e.g. with Chris Wallace), and the "opinion" side (e.g. Bill O'Reilly an his ilk). While the news folk at these kinds of places might be principled journalists, their ultimate purpose is to legitimize the propagandists on the opinion side.
Dead Comment
The English and Chinese versions looks pretty different in tone, especially in the last sentence: 'Noting that the Second Reading debate on the bill will resume on June 12, the Government urged the Legislative Council to scrutinise the bill in a calm, reasonable and respectful manner to help ensure Hong Kong remains a safe city for residents and business.'
Understandable when this is for foreign press. Directly translated, the Chinese version says: 'The Second Reading debate on the bill will resume on June 12. End. '. Obnoxious if you understand Chinese.
That is not strictly true, while both Chinese and English are the official languages, In writing, especially with any legals documents, in case of any discrepancy between the English version and the Chinese version, the English version shall prevail.
And ppl might miss the last decades of British rules too, in an emotional way, as Economically and culturally HK was in a very good shape. Though most ppl won’t express it with a union flag in a public setting.
I'd venture to say it's overall a tiny minority, mostly youth.
Many more are those who'd or are considering (re-) emigration.
It, more than anything, IMO, was said to appease the fear of the HK people who had a deep mistrust of the PRC government. Still, a lot of people emigrated before 1997.
Note that the saying is kind of vague anyway, it just says that the capitalist system and "ways of living" will not change.