Hong Kong Current Events

[Infinite Zenith]

Apple Daily's shutdown resulted from a lack of journalistic integrity: other publications aren't being ordered to to the same (e.g. Hong Kong Free Press is still up, for instance).

Of course, without more context behind our stances (the forum-goers here at AnimeSuki), it does leave things open for misinterpretation. This leads to a pair of questions for you, Ominae:

1. What are your thoughts on the violence in Hong Kong (specifically, referring to the people who were tearing bricks out and throwing them, using Molotov cockails and bow and arrows)? Are their actions justifiable?
2. Regarding parties like the Demosisto, did their leaders (e.g. Joshua Wong, Nathan Law) have a satisfactory plan for Hong Kong's future had they achieved their goals and became leaders? Did they possess any experiences or qualifications that would allow them to better Hong Kong more effectively than other candidates?

[Infinite Zenith]

It's been five years since this thread was created, and things are now quite different in Hong Kong. According to residents, aspects of everyday life at the surface (taking mass transit, eating out at restaurants, watching sporting events and entertainment) has returned to where it was previously, although the atmosphere is notably subdued. This thread's also been quiet for some time, but one topic that recently came to light was the so-called "Dragon Slaying Brigade", which became known for their actions and plots which would be considered as domestic terrorism. Heading this group was one Wong Chun-keung, who had been encouraged by the effects of violent action and determined it was feasible to escalate. To this end, Chun-keung created a Telegram group and discussed how to maximise casualties by means of homemade bombs. At one point, Chun-keung even managed to procure the materials needed to fashion IEDs. Fortunately, before this plot could materialise, the Hong Kong law enforcement was able to move in and thwart the attempt: unchecked, Chun-keung intended to detonate these devices on December 8, 2019, during the Human Rights Day march, and this would have caused untold casualties to all present, law enforcement and pro-Democracy alike.

The trial for Wong Chun-keung began earlier this year, and in court, prosecutors heard that Chun-keung had solicited donations from a range of people, totalling about 1.12 million HKD. Chun-keung admitted to appropriating the money for his own ends, depositing the money into his Jockey Club account and spending almost a quarter on it on betting. Later, when the courts questioned Chun-keung about his personal life, Chun-keung "collapsed on the ground and cried" after he detailed a relationship with another member of the "Dragon Slaying Brigade" (known only as "Kristy") despite having a girlfriend at the time. Combined with testimony from other "Dragon Slaying Brigade" members, who were horrified at the violence Chun-keung dreamt of, and Chun-keung's own statements, it was clear that Chun-keung was fighting for nothing other than himself, hoping to use the unrest and grandiose plans of domestic terrorism to enrich his own pocketbooks, in turn enabling him to fuel his hedonistic lifestyle of chasing girls and gambling. The trial of Wong Chun-keung provides an interesting profile of one radical extremist and his motivations – it is clear that Chun-keung certainly wasn't acting in the interest of Hong Kong or democracy. This individual's actions does not speak to the intentions and motives of other protestors, but it does act as an example of where it is wrong to broadly paint all of the protestors with one brush and heap praise towards even the rioters for being "brave" or "valiant": Chun-keung was neither, and considering his intent to cause death, a life sentence would not be an unreasonable outcome to hope for.

[Yu Ominae]

Been a while since this got quiet...

Originally Posted by Infinite Zenith

Apple Daily's shutdown resulted from a lack of journalistic integrity: other publications aren't being ordered to to the same (e.g. Hong Kong Free Press is still up, for instance).

Funny that AD is long closed because of journalistic integrity. Using the NSL for that is overkill. The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) can just condemn AD for that. That's one avenue to consider if the HKSAR government/someone doesn't like AD for its journalistic standards.

But since 2020, there's been a few outlets that are closed due to NSL/NSL aftereffects. As for HKFP, I remember Tom Grundy being asked if he's got a backup plan just in case...

Originally Posted by Infinite Zenith

1. What are your thoughts on the violence in Hong Kong (specifically, referring to the people who were tearing bricks out and throwing them, using Molotov cockails and bow and arrows)? Are their actions justifiable?
2. Regarding parties like the Demosisto, did their leaders (e.g. Joshua Wong, Nathan Law) have a satisfactory plan for Hong Kong's future had they achieved their goals and became leaders? Did they possess any experiences or qualifications that would allow them to better Hong Kong more effectively than other candidates?

1. While most violence acts shouldn't be done, the protests that started were peaceful and ended (mostly) after the HKPF used force beyond what can be justified. I even remember them arresting someone who's under 18 despite the fact that she's not involved in the protest and the HKPF had to dig their way out of that problem. I think some of the tactics used by the police to restrain protestors who didn't do anything is also overkill.

2. You can't ask that anymore since they were only around for a while before they left after the oath taking incident was used as the basis for kicking Law and the others out. You're treating them as if newbies can't do better than seasoned veterans in the Legco.

[Infinite Zenith]

Originally Posted by Yu Ominae

1. While most violence acts shouldn't be done, the protests that started were peaceful and ended (mostly) after the HKPF used force beyond what can be justified. I even remember them arresting someone who's under 18 despite the fact that she's not involved in the protest and the HKPF had to dig their way out of that problem. I think some of the tactics used by the police to restrain protestors who didn't do anything is also overkill.

The police response is what everyone tends to focus on, but the oft-used argument that the police started the violence is an unconvincing one. Given the original protests and gatherings that started March were peaceful and lawful, and the police response was minimal at that time, it does lead to the question: if the protestors had kept up those particular tactics, would the police have then escalated as we observed? This isn't something I expect an answer for because it's a hypothetical, and we'd be here all night arguing over semantics. You say that "most violent acts shouldn't be done". Note the choice of wording here: not "all", but "most". I'm hoping I'm wrong, but reading between the lines, that implies that "some" violent acts are justified (in this context, the black-clad "valiants" who threw molotovs, created makeshift barriers with bricks and shot arrows at others).

There is an article from Hong Kong Free Post that makes a very valid point about what transpired:

Every protest movement must decide which “weapons” it will use and how to use them effectively. If it chooses violence, then it must understand that it will be met with violence and the full force of the law so that any moral advantage it might have achieved will be lost – despite, perhaps, the rightness of its cause.

I hold that the original movement opposed to the extradition treaty was legitimate, as were their wishes for a more democratic Hong Kong. However, the problem happens in June when violence erupted. The pro-democracy movement held the moral high ground when the protests began: their concerns were valid, as were their methods. That means the ball was entirely in their court. If, in response to police crackdowns, the pro-democracy movement stuck to strictly peaceful methods and using non-violent approaches (e.g. gathering and dispersing, not bringing any weapons, taking the campaign online), they would show their approach, of soft power, aligns with their aims of a peaceful shift. This is how the pro-democracy movement would've retained my support and willingness to hear them out.

Conversely, by devolving to violence, the pro-democracy movement's more extreme elements, the radical "valiants", illegitimised the movement's original aims because they give the impression of a complete disregard for their method. Taken to its logical conclusion, the "valiants" suggest that if murder was necessary to achieve their aims of getting the treaty withdrawn and democracy introduced, the ends would justify the means. This is an abhorrent way of thinking, and I'm at a complete loss in understanding why destruction of property and assault could contribute to a democratic and liberal society. Some suggest that their intention in escalating is to force a response from the government (e.g. "we tried playing nice and it didn't work"), but that is, quite frankly, a deflection of responsibility. An interview with one of the protest leaders, Joey Siu, has Siu point-blank refusing to condemn the violence or criticize the "valiants'" actions. Siu all but endorses the idea that since it's Big Bad China they're fighting, then anyone who stands in their way can also be subject to violence. Attacking people who disagree with their side is unquestionably undemocratic, and this sets a very dangerous precedence: assuming change is achieved through violence, then there is a chance that the new leaders may also fall to using violence as a means of dealing with perspectives that aren't aligned with their own. As it was, Siu's interview was telling: besides showing that the violent movement was lacking any sort of direction, Siu also gave a clear signal that the "valiants" simply weren't interested in upholding the same democratic ideals they claim to be fighting for, and instead, are engaged in destructive acts for selfish reasons. For this reason, the violence in Hong Kong should be condemned.

Originally Posted by Yu Ominae

2. You can't ask that anymore since they were only around for a while before they left after the oath taking incident was used as the basis for kicking Law and the others out. You're treating them as if newbies can't do better than seasoned veterans in the Legco.

Actually, it's still a valid question because there are some who insist the more recognisable faces of the movement were the best-suited for leading the movement. While I concede that younger politicians with a liberal, democratic mindset could do a satisfactory job, my question was specifically directed at the names that made headlines. Yau Wai-Ching's actions, which precipitated the oath-taking controversy, actually weakens your position: Wai-Ching's decision to mangle the oath showed that she was unfit for the position because she could not act professionally. As it was, while Hong Kong should also have younger people in the Legislative Council, Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow aren't going to be my first or last choice: one interview in The Economist presented Joshua Wong as someone who was more interested in a video games than he was in the interview being conducted, and overall, I've not heard or seen anything from Joshua, as far as platforms go, that instill confidence he is particularly suited for leading Hong Kong. Similarly, Agnes seemed more worried about her legions of Japanese followers than in laying out a clear roadmap for where she'd like Hong Kong to go.