Vast protest in Hong Kong against extradition law - Page 65 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15058277
Patrickov wrote:Come to think of it, apparent evilness often arises from gross incompetence, and it is real evil if the party in concern refuses to bite the bullet and admit the mistake, but uses all means to silence the opposition instead.

IMHO the current administration's refusal to hold a fair trial and hold the police accountable is undoubted evil, (anything after here is added in edit) and the act of opposition of such an entity is undoubtedly good. Whether the advocators in concern will get power or, after that, do good with the said power, is ultimately our responsibility.

Well, I'd say the situation has deteriorated to the point where there is no bullet left to bite, except total collapse of the Hong Kong government - a disaster of their own making, but ultimately, no solution for them except repressing all opposition to the bitter end. What little compromise the government can do led to no material result - It's either that, or permanent subjugation to hostile media and populism.

I'd say "well deserved" if I am not part of said shit storm.
#15058278
benpenguin wrote:I'd say "well deserved" if I am not part of said shit storm.


If objectively it is there is nothing wrong saying it. It doesn't make My Friend hypocritic IMHO.
#15058280
benpenguin wrote:I also refuse to brand this a fight of good vs evil. The Chinese government have their own, justifiable security needs and national interests, that her opponents refuse to recognize. Their brand of governance is imperfect but they have done all they can for Hong Kong, if not more. Foreigners can frame this freedom vs oppression all they want when they have no skin in the game - but for the Chinese, national security and stability is no laughing matter. Even when we cannot find a compromise, I will not demonize them nor assume malicious intent.


National security and stability is being emphasized by every authoritarian regime. Calling protesters "fascist" in the light of the existing reality in China is simply preposterous. Actions speak louder than words.
#15058281
Rugoz wrote:National security and stability is being emphasized by every authoritarian regime.

Your one liner is the exact proof of my quote - national security and stability is important to every nation on earth, democratic or otherwise - it is only unimportant when it applies to regimes that you dislike.
What does it matter to you, if China gets infiltrated by enemies, or when her criminals gets a free rein as soon as they cross the border? Nothing. Because you see them as your enemy, and you think it is better if she gets harassed and destabilized.
It is not nothing to China, and they are every bit as justified to care as any nation on earth. Your country, the United States have done way worse in the name of security - hypocrisy at its finest :lol:
#15058282
Rugoz wrote:National security and stability is being emphasized by every authoritarian regime. Calling protesters "fascist" in the light of the existing reality in China is simply preposterous. Actions speak louder than words.


@benpenguin
Its a pitfall of modern "authoritarianism". If you prioritize stability and security then you usually sacrifice prosperity and the well being of the people on that altar as strange as that sounds. Yes, the country will be stable and secure from large swings but your own people will not live a better life over a long period of time nor will there be an improvement. Modern Russia is an example of this. At some point you need to understand that there is always a certain element of risk in reforms and you need to accept that risk to be able to live a better life or improve something. (I guess this is easier for business oriented people to understand)
#15058289
JohnRawls wrote:@benpenguin
Its a pitfall of modern "authoritarianism". If you prioritize stability and security then you usually sacrifice prosperity and the well being of the people on that altar as strange as that sounds. Yes, the country will be stable and secure from large swings but your own people will not live a better life over a long period of time nor will there be an improvement. Modern Russia is an example of this. At some point you need to understand that there is always a certain element of risk in reforms and you need to accept that risk to be able to live a better life or improve something. (I guess this is easier for business oriented people to understand)

Quite the contrary, modern China is in constant reform. I would even say Authoritarianism is key to safeguarding said reforms, by repressing reactionary elements in society. There are ample examples throughout Chinese history of successful and failed reforms - the common denomination is that they are all bloody. Because in every reform, losers don't go down without a fight. Sometimes that fight, left uncontrolled, become all out civil war.
It is when society is prosperous, and the empire is not under significant threat (e.g. China in the 80s), rule of law become lax, and citizens are allowed to do their own thing - not the other way around - and that will last until the next crisis arrive.
Consistent theme in 5000 years of history.
#15058290
benpenguin wrote:Quite the contrary, modern China is in constant reform. I would even say Authoritarianism is key to safeguarding said reforms, by repressing reactionary elements in society. There are ample examples throughout Chinese history of successful and failed reforms - the common denomination is that they are all bloody. Because in every reform, losers don't go down without a fight. Sometimes that fight, left uncontrolled, become all out civil war.
It is when society is prosperous, and the empire is not under significant threat (e.g. China in the 80s), rule of law become lax, and citizens are allowed to do their own thing - not the other way around - and that will last until the next crisis arrive.
Consistent theme in 5000 years of history.


So how is this reform argument can be applied to HK? I just don't see it. HK is not being reformed but the status quo is being maintained to prevent full collapse of stability and security. At best you can argue that Chinese reform in this regard is to fully crush democracy and integrate HK in to the mainland but that is an argument that i can't accept for obvious reasons that i will consider this a deform of sorts instead of a reform.
#15058301
benpenguin wrote:Your one liner is the exact proof of my quote - national security and stability is important to every nation on earth, democratic or otherwise - it is only unimportant when it applies to regimes that you dislike.


That is different. Stability (aka peace) is not the ideological basis for a democratic form of government.

That's not a value judgment.

benpenguin wrote:What does it matter to you, if China gets infiltrated by enemies, or when her criminals gets a free rein as soon as they cross the border? Nothing. Because you see them as your enemy, and you think it is better if she gets harassed and destabilized.
It is not nothing to China, and they are every bit as justified to care as any nation on earth. Your country, the United States have done way worse in the name of security - hypocrisy at its finest :lol:


I only said calling the protesters 'fascists' is ridiculous, unless China is 'über-fascist'. Also I'm not American.
#15058330
benpenguin wrote:@Random American @skinster
- 60% majority does not mean the movement is not right-wing. It just means the movement is popular.
- I'd say US-endorsed; US-backed is a bit far fetched, or at least lacking solid proof. I did heard from a friend that he knew somebody who has been paid to stir up trouble, but he ended up not having to do much because the government shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun. :lol:
- For me, saying that they are right-wing doesn't mean they are wrong, it simply means the movement finds more strength in the "Hong Kong" identity vs "Chinese", than upholding liberal ideals of freedom and equality - equality being a hallmark of leftist ideals, has been rejected here.
- For the record I voted for the yellows - lesser of two evils, and I believe the Hong Kong government, the police and the establishment must be significantly revamped, replaced and punished for the city to have any sort of future. But I am also disgusted by how the opposition allowed hatred and racism to fester unchecked, and how their hysteria is normalized throughout society, how they work to witch-hunt anything that does not conform to their brand of political correctness.
- I also refuse to brand this a fight of good vs evil. The Chinese government have their own, justifiable security needs and national interests, that her opponents refuse to recognize. Their brand of governance is imperfect but they have done all they can for Hong Kong, if not more. Foreigners can frame this freedom vs oppression all they want when they have no skin in the game - but for the Chinese, national security and stability is no laughing matter. Even when we cannot find a compromise, I will not demonize them nor assume malicious intent.

I'm sure many are right wing. That I'm not denying, and I'm sure overall the movement has some right of center roots. I just deny that they are far-right fascists plunging a city into fear, and intimidating all the good people.

Hell, the pro-democratic protesters don't have a monopoly on perpetrating violent attacks, with that in mind, I find the argument that they are fascist partially because some use violence to be flimsy at best. There is also a difference between being fascist and just being right wing. I doubt they want to destroy HK or victimize HKers as a whole as a previous poster was trying to imply. If they were doing that or trying to, I doubt they would be as popular as they are now.
#15058439
Rugoz wrote:That is different. Stability (aka peace) is not the ideological basis for a democratic form of government.
That's not a value judgment.

So, if the Chinese finds stability a foundation of their ideology which you disagree, their national security concerns are less valid than those of the democratic world? That's some mental gymnastic.

I just love that circular logic:
China is undemocratic > undemocratic = evil > China enemies are good guys > Good guys = democratic > We support good democratic guys > China fights them > China undemocratic evil

I'm not saying Chinese rule is perfect, but what are they supposed to do, throw her hands up and get fucked?

Rugoz wrote:I only said calling the protesters 'fascists' is ridiculous, unless China is 'über-fascist'. Also I'm not American.

For the gazillionth time, I said their ideological basis is right wing in nature, because the deep rooted racism against all things Chinese. This is not a movement championing ideals of equality, but "Hong Kong first". I haven't noticed any Hong Kong gas chambers yet, so I guess you need to be more specific of why you think I am accusing them of "being Facist", as the term is just being used loosely as political bad language.

I also find it quite curious when you say you aren't American, as I recall you standing at the exact same position as the US state department most of the time.
#15058442
JohnRawls wrote:So how is this reform argument can be applied to HK? I just don't see it. HK is not being reformed but the status quo is being maintained to prevent full collapse of stability and security. At best you can argue that Chinese reform in this regard is to fully crush democracy and integrate HK in to the mainland but that is an argument that i can't accept for obvious reasons that i will consider this a deform of sorts instead of a reform.

The aim of China's Hong Kong policy, from their perspective, is to:
1. Integrate Hong Kong's economy with China, erasing barriers.
2. Wrestle power away from property oligarchs, hostile media and other fat old cats that they perceive is causing the deep rooted problems in Hong Kong, and preventing real reform.
3. Amend security breaches in the basic law, that was agreed as a "to-do" item back at 1997.
4. Find a political system where both China govt and Hong Kong citizens have a say, with a bottomline that Chinese interests must be protected.

From the HK opposition's perspective, it looks like this:
1. Destroying Hong Kong's identity.
2. Fully control Hong Kong's economy and political system.
3. Destroy Hong Kong's legal system.
4. China government should not have any say in Hong Kong politics.
Difference in perspective - and in particular no.4 is quite unreasonable but it seems many Hong Kongers nowadays don't accept anything less than that.

Is this reform or deform? That depends on whose perspective you are taking, and how you understand Hong Kong's problems. It is very easy to throw China's perspective out of the window when people just assume they are the devil, but it is not helpful in finding a solution. Of cause, the Hong Kong government abysmal execution doesn't help...
#15058444
Random American wrote:I'm sure many are right wing. That I'm not denying, and I'm sure overall the movement has some right of center roots. I just deny that they are far-right fascists plunging a city into fear, and intimidating all the good people.

They weren't in the beginning, but as I say it is now devolving into the monster they claim they are fighting. As I said, a pity you don't read Chinese, but these guys are writing some really sickening stuff everyday, and getting no criticism whatsoever because the opposition camp considers the other camp "ultimate evil" - anything the extremists do is fair game.
Don't get me wrong, what the Hong Kong police did in the past few months is pretty sickening, so maybe we can say the opposition is justified in their actions - but these action is now increasingly defining the movement and hate is spreading to more targets unchecked. First the establishment, then any supporters, then mainlanders, then anyone neutral, then anyone not extreme enough...
To put it simply - the movement started right wing from day 1, and is quickly marching towards a terrifying direction, dragging the masses with them...
#15058445
benpenguin wrote:From the HK opposition's perspective, it looks like this:
1. Destroying Hong Kong's identity.
2. Fully control Hong Kong's economy and political system.
3. Destroy Hong Kong's legal system.
4. China government should not have any say in Hong Kong politics.
Difference in perspective - and in particular no.4 is quite unreasonable but it seems many Hong Kongers nowadays don't accept anything less than that.


Clarification: The first three is what we believe China would do or is doing (admittedly it is difficult for them to do some of these otherwise because, say, #3 is what the Chinese people have been committing for millennia. Even Taiwan is not very adapt in applying British Rule of Law, and Singapore arguably twisted it. The latter is yet another reason why I do not support HK Independence), while #4 is what we deduce from the first three.

I personally think #3 is the most important concern. The Chinese's tendency to sentence dissidents (even if the said victims do not intend it) on whim is frightening.
#15058458
benpenguin wrote:The aim of China's Hong Kong policy, from their perspective, is to:
1. Integrate Hong Kong's economy with China, erasing barriers.
2. Wrestle power away from property oligarchs, hostile media and other fat old cats that they perceive is causing the deep rooted problems in Hong Kong, and preventing real reform.
3. Amend security breaches in the basic law, that was agreed as a "to-do" item back at 1997.
4. Find a political system where both China govt and Hong Kong citizens have a say, with a bottomline that Chinese interests must be protected.

I think:
1. I can see plenty of benefits in initiatives such as the Greater Bay area, or having HSR connectivity; I don't see any harm in promoting Mandarin, and I honestly don't see Cantonese being prosecuted. As we are neighboring mainland, some cultural integration will happen naturally and I don't see why we should react so badly. As usual, our government's execution is pretty abysmal, so other than that, I disagree fully with the opposition on point one, and I don't think China is that interested in Hong Kong's identity.
2. The existing forces controlling Hong Kong is indeed causing problems, but whether a Chinese replacement will fare better for us remains to be proven. So far I don't see them any worse than the existing fat cats, and mainlanders do provide healthy competition.
3. I think Hong Kong's fight with China should be focused to a legal one, e.g. how article 23 is implemented, what safeguards should be in place to prevent abuse. The sentiments in Hong Kong is preventing any meaningful discussion and pushing this to an ugly street battle.
4. I disagree with the opposition completely.
Patrickov wrote:I personally think #3 is the most important concern. The Chinese's tendency to sentence dissidents (even if the said victims do not intend it) on whim is frightening.

Understandably, I only argue not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
#15058460
benpenguin wrote:3. I think Hong Kong's fight with China should be focused to a legal one, e.g. how article 23 is implemented, what safeguards should be in place to prevent abuse.


Ultimately it is most Hongkongers' worries on their perceived inability to outpower the Chinese Government, that make them fear there is no point of having such a discussion.

In other words, they simply do not think anybody among them can stop China if China finds an opportunity to abuse it.

From what they see, they think China will commit such abuse at the first opportunity as it suits Chinese interests (at least as they perceive), but I will put it aside since this is technically irrelevant.

Instead, I will justify that sentiment with something even simpler: Better "safe" than "sorry".

benpenguin wrote:The sentiments in Hong Kong is preventing any meaningful discussion and pushing this to an ugly street battle.


As I currently can commute and walk the streets without any problem (unlike, say, two or three months ago), I think My Friend might have slightly exaggerated the situation. I don't want to convey misinformation to our fellow Members, even by accident.
#15058465
Patrickov wrote:Instead, I will justify that sentiment with something even simpler: Better "safe" than "sorry".

Indeed, but I'm afraid this is not something China can fully compromise with. I believe Hong Kong will need to open this up somehow.
But truth be told, it just needs to be significantly more trouble to abuse, than to just snatch the guy and worry about the subsequent cover-up / political fallout. I mean, the current proposal already requires HK court approval + the chief executive to sign off, and excluding political crimes, meaning that it is already very inaccessible except to the highest levels of CCP. I think more safeguards can be added for confidence - but discussion shouldn't have been off-limits.
In addition, if 港人港審, there's the added benefit of subjecting Chinese cases to the confines of common law. For the opposition this could be quite a win.
On the other hand, say you pissed off some corrupt official who wants to snatch you, do you think he will jump through all the hoops by ordering the Chief Executive and fight through both Hong Kong and China courts, potentially exposing himself to attack? Even if you assume the entire extradition chain is fully compromised, this process could still take years to complete, and plenty of political capital to be spent.
In practice, it is a lot easier to just ring up your friendly local gang member like any honest criminal :lol: - a crime that can be stopped within the confines of law.
Patrickov wrote:As I currently can commute and walk the streets without any problem (unlike, say, two or three months ago), I think My Friend might have slightly exaggerated the situation. I don't want to convey misinformation to our fellow Members, even by accident.

Situation has indeed subsided for a bit at the moment, but I think the extremists just needed some rest before the next big topic, which I think is not far down the track.
#15058471
benpenguin wrote:On the other hand, say you pissed off some corrupt official who wants to snatch you, do you think he will jump through all the hoops by ordering the Chief Executive and fight through both Hong Kong and China courts, potentially exposing himself to attack? Even if you assume the entire extradition chain is fully compromised, this process could still take years to complete.

In practice, it is a lot easier to just ring up your friendly local gang member like any honest criminal - a crime that can be stopped within the confines of law.


In practice the latter might already be being applied even now.

Many do not actually think things will be immediately different, but investment and, more importantly, the freedom (of, say, travelling) granted by the international community out of their trust of our administration will certainly be revoked bit by bit.

benpenguin wrote:Situation has indeed subsided for a bit at the moment, but I think the extremists just needed some rest before the next big topic, which I think is not far down the track.


If the Government thinks in the same way then I agree that the resolution is by no means nearer than our event horizon.
#15058476
Patrickov wrote:Many do not actually think things will be immediately different, but investment and, more importantly, the freedom (of, say, travelling) granted by the international community out of their trust of our administration will certainly be revoked bit by bit.

Not necessarily - said person needs to break both the Hong Kong common law and Chinese law to be extradited. On a purely legal basis, this has the potential to work.
Not easy I know.

Patrickov wrote:If the Government thinks in the same way then I agree that the resolution is by no means nearer than our event horizon.

What can the government do except sitting on their arse, that will not invoke the wrath of the media and the masses? Even if what they do next is perfectly reasonable, the opposition will still find a way to get angry once they are rested enough and itching for action - it is just bound to happen again.
#15058483
benpenguin wrote:So, if the Chinese finds stability a foundation of their ideology which you disagree, their national security concerns are less valid than those of the democratic world? That's some mental gymnastic.

I just love that circular logic:
China is undemocratic > undemocratic = evil > China enemies are good guys > Good guys = democratic > We support good democratic guys > China fights them > China undemocratic evil


I never said any of those things.

benpenguin wrote:For the gazillionth time, I said their ideological basis is right wing in nature, because the deep rooted racism against all things Chinese. This is not a movement championing ideals of equality, but "Hong Kong first". I haven't noticed any Hong Kong gas chambers yet, so I guess you need to be more specific of why you think I am accusing them of "being Facist", as the term is just being used loosely as political bad language.


Right, you never used the term 'fascist', I misread.

benpenguin wrote:I also find it quite curious when you say you aren't American, as I recall you standing at the exact same position as the US state department most of the time.


Eh...nope.
#15066914
A surprise update. I think this is not related to the recent epidemic so I put it here.

To stay brief, a hard-line CCP official responsible for Hong Kong was replaced by someone allegedly even more hard-lined, as commented below.

China's new Hong Kong chief a hardliner known for crusade against Christian churches

A hardliner notorious for the demolition of thousands of Christian crosses on churches has been appointed the new head of China’s office in Hong Kong, a sign that Beijing aims to further tighten control over the semi-autonomous city, analysts say.

Xia Baolong, an ally of president Xi Jinping, has been appointed director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office under the State Council, replacing Zhang Xiaoming, State media reported on Thursday. His appointment came amid a purge of officials in Hubei, the province wracked by the coronavirus outbreak.

Zhang has become the most senior Beijing-appointed official to lose his job in the wake of months of anti-government protests in Hong Kong. The city has been roiled by more than seven months of protests over an extradition bill that would have allowed suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial.

Xia was Xi’s deputy when he was the Communist party’s secretary of the affluent province of Zhejiang from 2003 to 2007. Xia was known for his hardline ideology in a 2014 campaign to tear down thousands of crosses and many underground churches in the province while he later took charge of Zhejiang as its party secretary – a post he held until 2017. He became a vice chairman and secretary general of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in 2018.

Analysts say Xia’s appointment is a signal that China wants to tighten its control over Hong Kong and further curb its civil society.

Willy Lam, adjunct professor at Chinese University of Hong Kong, said Xia’s appointment is “bad news for Hong Kong”. “It signals that China will bring Hong Kong under closer scrutiny and tighten control over all aspects of the city,” he said.

Professor Ying Fuk Tsang, the director of the divinity school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the appointment of a close ally of Xi who had consistently shown his eagerness to carry out his orders meant he might also intensify ideological control in Hong Kong.

“He has a track record as a hardliner. If the central authorities want a crackdown, he would not spare any efforts,” he said. “This would definitely have an impact on Hong Kong’s civil society.”

China has already indicated its desire to bring Hong Kong under tighter control after a key Communist party meeting, the Fourth Plenum, in November last year. A party statement said national interest should take priority over the “two systems” policy that has allowed Hong Kong extensive autonomy since the handover from British colonial rule, and warned that it would not tolerate “any actions that split the country”.

It also called for Hong Kong to perfect its legal system to “safeguard national security”, “strengthen law enforcement power”, and increase “patriotic education” of young people and civil servants.


The Guardian
  • 1
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]