News Stories

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

But as I said before, there is nothing actually stopping them. Criticisms are just words, no one is going to economically sanction China. One can argue that since Tiananmen got blown over, why wouldn't it blow over as if nothing happened a second time? It's only the lives of civilians, it's not like they are worth very much in China.

Well, another reason would be that HK's economy would be screwed if it happened.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Well, another reason would be that HK's economy would be screwed if it happened.

It is the choice between having a strong economy in Hongkong and having actual control over Hongkong.

HongKong have the rule of law, China doesn't. China kept up with appearances for as long as it is convenient, but at some point the Rule OF Law would mean they have to start killing people to keep others in line. It is the limits of China's growth, that they are bumping into.

[Fireminer]

Another question: Has anyone try to make a poll of the foreign investors' altitude toward the situation?

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

It is the choice between having a strong economy in Hongkong and having actual control over Hongkong.

For the most part, HK's only worth it with its strong econ, if its econ's screwed, it would be much less valuable to control.

I hope PRC would be a bit smarter this time around...

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

For the most part, HK's only worth it with its strong econ, if its econ's screwed, it would be much less valuable to control.

I hope PRC would be a bit smarter this time around...

You are forgetting that if they can't control HongKong, they would lose control of other separatist groups.

Rule of Law means Law is King. China doesn't do that. What HongKong is demanding is essentially not acceptable.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

But as I said before, there is nothing actually stopping them. Criticisms are just words, no one is going to economically sanction China. One can argue that since Tiananmen got blown over, why wouldn't it blow over as if nothing happened a second time? It's only the lives of civilians, it's not like they are worth very much in China.

It'll be much much worse for HK if sanctions happen, since it is part of China, the sanctions would hit HK as well. Plus, even if HK loses it's shine, China has Shanghai and Beijing to be it's finance capital (among others)

The main thing is, HK is held up as a shining example of one country two systems that China is using to court Taiwan and to a lesser extent the separatist regions. If it losses control then this showcase is gone.

Just a question, does the WTO treaty have any clauses on the imposing of sanctions for any reason on a member country by another member country?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by JokerD

The main thing is, HK is held up as a shining example of one country two systems that China is using to court Taiwan and to a lesser extent the separatist regions. If it losses control then this showcase is gone.

Just a question, does the WTO treaty have any clauses on the imposing of sanctions for any reason on a member country by another member country?

"Two Systems" is a lie thought. That was what the protests are about, to try to enforce a separate system in HongKong. China can't actually allow two systems, it is just talk, not reality.

[Ithekro]

Last report I heard was that the government was lessening its response in HK, but that was several hours ago on ABC news.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

You know, the whole thing with the Rule of Law is really quite accidental. The British Empire ended up with the Rule of Law because they kept their Monarchy. The entire point of RoL is to make sure the king/queen is never above the law, so the aristocrats can keep power. The aristocrats became more inclusive over time until they become "everybody".

In China, they destroyed their Monarchy. But because of that the absolute power of the Emperor just get transferred to the Absolute Power of the RoC government, and after the civil war the Communist Party. China doesn't have the Rule of Law because there is no incentive to keep the rulers in check. Had the Emperor be left on the throne with reduced powers, this might not have happened.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

But as I said before, there is nothing actually stopping them. Criticisms are just words, no one is going to economically sanction China. One can argue that since Tiananmen got blown over, why wouldn't it blow over as if nothing happened a second time? It's only the lives of civilians, it's not like they are worth very much in China.

This time, I think things will be different. The people of Hong Kong, unlike those of Beijing in 1989, are already used to standing off against the CCP. They aren't a people scared of demonstrating. What they ought to do is remain on the streets in huge numbers while making very bold demands. The local police will likely prove powerless or even come to support the protesters. The protesters can also crowd the entrances from the mainland, making the insertion of PLA forces difficult. Even should the PLA act, the amount of force needed to pacify Hong Kong would ruin the city as an international financial center and place a massive dent in China's economy as well as her reputation.

I'm not confident in the CCP's willingness to send in troops when there are still hundreds of thousands of demonstrators active. Remember that at Tiananmen they waited until like 90% of the original crowd was gone. Here, much of the crowd may stay around for a long time until they get what they want (or take what they want). If the CCP does not act in such a situation, it risks allowing a precedent of resistance to be set, which could well spread to the mainland. If it does commit the resources needed to pacify Hong Kong, it would cause the Chinese economy to take a hit and given the priorities of the CCP in the last two decades, that is NOT a good outcome for them at all.

At the very least, the people of Hong Kong need to keep standing up for what is theirs. If they stay there long enough, they can get what they want even if the CCP does not allow it officially.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

In China, they destroyed their Monarchy. But because of that the absolute power of the Emperor just get transferred to the Absolute Power of the RoC government, and after the civil war the Communist Party. China doesn't have the Rule of Law because there is no incentive to keep the rulers in check. Had the Emperor be left on the throne with reduced powers, this might not have happened.

But that doesn't make sense because plenty of countries, such as Germany, the US, or South Korea have RoL despite having no monarch.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

But that doesn't make sense because plenty of countries, such as Germany, the US, or South Korea have RoL despite having no monarch.

The USA exists to rebel against the British monarch. Germany is linked to the British Monarchy and the monarch was de-powered over generations. (Queen Elizabeth II is from the House of Wettin. , this isn't news.)

South Korea? The first ruler copied the Japanese system. He was trained by the Japanese. And Japan of course, de-powered their own Monarchy too.

The main thing is the difference between replacing a monarch, taking the power for yourself, and keeping the Monarch but making sure he can't hurt you, which ended up leading to the rule of law unintentionally.

[Ithekro]

Germany had the Kaiser, who lost his rule at the end of the First World War.

The United States system is an offshoot of the English/British system following a revolution in the late 18th century.

South Korea has its own old kingdom from before the Japanese annexed the place, plus the Emperor of Japan until the end of the Second World War.

[Irenicus]

Uh, guys, the Rule of Law thing is a pretty prominent theme for the liberal philosophers that moved away from the Enlightenment "enlightened monarch" concept. It's not an accident of history. It's pretty deeply theorized by the time some pesky rebels implemented it for real in the New World. Just because Britain's a mess doesn't mean the concept is inherently some bastard child of the Hanoverians.

Chinese political traditions followed a different evolution for most of its history, sure, but they imported plenty during the revolution that toppled the Qing, and it's not like communism is some native Chinese thing that Mao built from the ground up. They may "speak a different language" but popular sovereignty isn't exactly quantum physics.

There's really no need to push that "accident" notion too far.

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

This time, I think things will be different. The people of Hong Kong, unlike those of Beijing in 1989, are already used to standing off against the CCP. They aren't a people scared of demonstrating. What they ought to do is remain on the streets in huge numbers while making very bold demands. The local police will likely prove powerless or even come to support the protesters. The protesters can also crowd the entrances from the mainland, making the insertion of PLA forces difficult. Even should the PLA act, the amount of force needed to pacify Hong Kong would ruin the city as an international financial center and place a massive dent in China's economy as well as her reputation.

The CCP might be betting on the protests fizzling out by infighting and inertia if they keep their leashes back long enough. Then unleash the state apparatus upon the remnants, making examples of the few remainders.

If they start gunning the masses down like it's 1989, it would likely provoke massive sanctions or even dramatic realignment of many Asian countries away from China -- not to mention destroying Hong Kong's economic worth effectively overnight. It's a different matter if a few dissident leaders get arrested or even murdered. The stakes, sadly, won't be high enough.

I do wish for democracy in Hong Kong to triumph. I doubt I would have the courage to go out there and stand up for myself, my people and my future the way tens if not hundreds of thousands of the people of Hong Kong are doing, against the unpredictable wrath of the mightiest oppressive regime in the world, all for rather conservative demands and almost timid desires for Beijing to fulfill its promises.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You are forgetting that if they can't control HongKong, they would lose control of other separatist groups.

I was not saying PRC would comply (genuinely). I was mainly saying that a bloody massacre would be a dumb move. All the criticism that would follow from both outside and inside would also give the separatists a chance to sway the people and take shots at PRC. Your point is indeed a valid one as PRC's been putting heavy media censorship regarding the protest.

But all things considered, I would not expect a bloody massacre to happen, not in HK.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

This time, I think things will be different. The people of Hong Kong, unlike those of Beijing in 1989, are already used to standing off against the CCP. They aren't a people scared of demonstrating. What they ought to do is remain on the streets in huge numbers while making very bold demands. The local police will likely prove powerless or even come to support the protesters. The protesters can also crowd the entrances from the mainland, making the insertion of PLA forces difficult. Even should the PLA act, the amount of force needed to pacify Hong Kong would ruin the city as an international financial center and place a massive dent in China's economy as well as her reputation.

I'm not confident in the CCP's willingness to send in troops when there are still hundreds of thousands of demonstrators active. Remember that at Tiananmen they waited until like 90% of the original crowd was gone. Here, much of the crowd may stay around for a long time until they get what they want (or take what they want). If the CCP does not act in such a situation, it risks allowing a precedent of resistance to be set, which could well spread to the mainland. If it does commit the resources needed to pacify Hong Kong, it would cause the Chinese economy to take a hit and given the priorities of the CCP in the last two decades, that is NOT a good outcome for them at all.

At the very least, the people of Hong Kong need to keep standing up for what is theirs. If they stay there long enough, they can get what they want even if the CCP does not allow it officially.

are you willing to go to HK and join the protest? Are you willing to come face to face with a tank if the Central government decide to sent in the troops? Are you willing to put your life on the line?

[LoveYouSaber]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Hong Kong democracy protests: Live Report



Who knows how one can buy a position in Norinco? [/sarcasm]

@ LoveYouSaber : Please stay off the streets. Teargas is not pleasant. Firsthand experience here.

Thanks for the concern. I did get a taste of the tear gas when I went to the streets on Sunday, but I was quite far away (I admit, I'm not one of those brave people who stood at the very front facing the police and receiving the full force of the tear gas). When I went around the streets after the tear gas had been deployed, I felt I wanted to shed some tears, but I really couldn't differentiate whether it was because of the tear gas, or because I was feeling very sad about seeing tear gas used on us.

Anyway, currently, the streets are peaceful, the protesters take over the streets in the afternoons and nights, and leave in the morning to get sleep, and then regroup again in the afternoon.

I believe the current strategy of the HK government is to let protesters take the streets and try to highlight the protests as disturbing the normal lives of citizens, while letting the protester number dwindle down as time passes. Eventually, the protest could break up or disperse due to the common people turning against the protesters and the small amount of numbers. And I admit, no one can afford to spend energy and time to occupy the streets for an indefinite amount of time. I'll take this week as a maximum.

A turning point could be tomorrow, which is a public holiday. Hopefully there will be an extraordinary amount of people going out to protest, which would put extreme pressure on the government to respond immediately, instead of trying to play delay tactics. The organisers of the movement will also announce the plans for the next stage of protest, because they also know they can't afford to carry on the occupation movement indefinitely. Whether the students are going to heed their advice is a different story though.

[justavisitor]

@LoveYouSaber

Best of luck!! and look after yourself! You never know how will China respond from this incident, because China, unfortunately, is still ruled by dictatorship, and the new chairman from China seems like a tough customer....

I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I pray for the democracy to triumph....at the very least, get "689" to step down (by the way, for those who don't know the code "689", it is meant for the chief executive in hk, because he got elected by receiving 689 votes from the pro-beijing committee, in hk, most ppl who don't like the chief executive would rather label him as "689")

[SaintessHeart]

Protestors In Hong Kong Clean Up After Protest

Someone should just say that this is a "Japanese style protest" on Weibo for the sake of trolling Beijing.

[GuZidi]

It's highly doubtful that the recent protests in Hong Kong are ones for so-called independence. HongKongers know better than anyone else that a clean break from the mainland in terms of business or political ties would bring about far more severe consequences for their economic wellbeing and possibly political status quo. This movement isn't about autonomy or self-governance either as there hasn't been any major protests like this one under Britain's rule and Hong Kong is the Chinese city with the greatest power to itself.

The quagmire on Hong Kong's political stage is likely a precipitate of the clash between two counteracting forces: the desire of Hong Kong citizens to be free of Beijing's influence and the decreasing role that Hong Kong has on China's political and economic realms. Hong Kong citizens have, perhaps understandably, a morbid fear of being affected by Beijing's political and socioeconomical clout. This is quite readily catalyzed by frequent cases of intrusion and unlawful activities conducted by mainlanders and the general discontent extended against Chinese mainlanders. However, both sides of the dispute know that Hong Kong is unlikely ever going to be completely autonomous or self-sufficient without a third party. Hence, protests are in a way the most effective method to get support from international observers without being brushed aside for being illegitimate. The fact that the protesters have been relatively "violent" in their work have attested to their increasing desperation. On the other hand, China sees Hong Kong as less of a burden and more of a side issue, and hence the rather muted response from Chinese officials. Mix the two together, and out comes an increasingly-violent protest that is expansive on the surface but ultimately feeble at the core. Of course, that doesn't preclude the fact that Beijing should do its best to at least hold talks with the organizers of the movement.

[LoveYouSaber]

Originally Posted by GuZidi

It's highly doubtful that the recent protests in Hong Kong are ones for so-called independence. HongKongers know better than anyone else that a clean break from the mainland in terms of business or political ties would bring about far more severe consequences for their economic wellbeing and possibly political status quo. This movement isn't about autonomy or self-governance either as there hasn't been any major protests like this one under Britain's rule and Hong Kong is the Chinese city with the greatest power to itself.

The quagmire on Hong Kong's political stage is likely a precipitate of the clash between two counteracting forces: the desire of Hong Kong citizens to be free of Beijing's influence and the decreasing role that Hong Kong has on China's political and economic realms. Hong Kong citizens have, perhaps understandably, a morbid fear of being affected by Beijing's political and socioeconomical clout. This is quite readily catalyzed by frequent cases of intrusion and unlawful activities conducted by mainlanders and the general discontent extended against Chinese mainlanders. However, both sides of the dispute know that Hong Kong is unlikely ever going to be completely autonomous or self-sufficient without a third party. Hence, protests are in a way the most effective method to get support from international observers without being brushed aside for being illegitimate. The fact that the protesters have been relatively "violent" in their work have attested to their increasing desperation. On the other hand, China sees Hong Kong as less of a burden and more of a side issue, and hence the rather muted response from Chinese officials. Mix the two together, and out comes an increasingly-violent protest that is expansive on the surface but ultimately feeble at the core. Of course, that doesn't preclude the fact that Beijing should do its best to at least hold talks with the organizers of the movement.

I largely agree with what you said, though I presume what you mean by "violent" means more "desperate" or "civil-disobedient" measures. And I don't think it's ultimately feeble at the core - if anything, it has grown stronger by attracting more people to join in. Because the police failed to disperse the crowd, and has let the protest go on for several days, more and more people are at least visiting the site of the protests and increasingly, no one cares anymore that it is ultimately an "illegal gathering". I might be biased in my observation, but I feel it has become a "trend" in Hong Kong to at least go visit the protest sites. Hopefully neutrals will have been drawn to our cause and at least support the aim, if not the method, of the protesters.

Having said that, I think the movement is coming to its next important juncture, as student leaders have said if demands are not met, they would have to consider occupying or surrounding government buildings. I fear some people might not be comfortable with this course of action and this could alienate supporters or potential supporters or international observers. On the other hand, I think escalation is the only way to force the government's hand and avoid their delay tactics, so really it's a dilemma...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29448338