An Era in Hong Kong Is Ending, Thanks to China’s Tight Embrace
wsj.com
wsj.com
Fortunately, the HK people recognise the salami tactics of the CCP, and protest (as in the umbrella movement 2014), and a small but growing minority now agitates for some sort of independence.
However, given
* the increasing power of China on a world-wide stage, even vis-a-vis, say, the UK
* the decreasing relevance of HK for China (see the graph in the article: HK GDP was a quarter of China GDP, now under 3%)
* China's aversion to any secession (almost instinctive, though probably based on historically justified fear of crumbling order and prosperity when a dynasty falls apart), as seen in Xinjiang, Tibet, etc.
it is hard to see how the tensions can be reduced peacefully, rather than gathering steam.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Government
> For almost all of its history under British rule, executive power in Hong Kong was concentrated in the hands of the colony governor, a position appointed by the British crown without any democratic input from Hong Kong citizens. The introduction of elected representatives determined by local elections, even limited to the role of "advisory councils", did not begin until after the 1984 agreements by the British to hand Hong Kong over to China.
Wikipedia maintains a decent compendium on sources of tension: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong–Mainland_conflict
Hong Kong Is Banning Pro-Independence Candidates From Running in Elections
http://time.com/4436253/hong-kong-election-briefing-protests...
By the way Hong Kong under British rule was freer than mainland China has ever been under the CCP rule, even though they did not have democratically elected leaders.
The British were quite happy to give the people of Hong Kong freedom, when it didn't cost them anything. China's current behavior is not dissimilar. Hong Kong exchanged a colonial overlord ruling from London, with one ruling from Beijing. Neither concerns themselves much with the welfare of the populace.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton%E2%80%93Hong_Kong_strik...
The Birtish didn't station thousands of soldiers in Hong Kong so they could have an exotic vacation. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Forces_Overseas_Hong_K...
Conversely, you can have a "Democratic People's Republic" without either (looking at you, North Korea).
Of course the UK was hypocritical in "recognising" the importance of democracy just before handing HK over to China.
But that HK enjoys civil liberties and the rule of law, more so than the mainland, and has so even under British administration, particularly after WW II, is undeniable.
Speech, by itself, does nothing - until you transform it into action. Which was quite illegal. Inmates in a prison have as much freedom of speech as they could ever want - but they are not free.
It's not going to be too long before the people of HK can do neither, much like their pitiable neighbours to the north.
How do you think HK got non-corrupt? Trust me, it wasn't because of a democracy.
> In 1839, Britain invaded China to crush opposition to its interference in the country’s economic and political affairs. One of Britain’s first acts of the war was to occupy Hong Kong, a sparsely inhabited island off the coast of southeast China. In 1841, China ceded the island to the British, and in 1842 the Treaty of Nanking was signed, formally ending the First Opium War.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hong-kong-ceded-t...
If Canada invaded the US and forced rohde island to become a territory of Canada, I'd probably be bitter about it, even if it became safer to live there.
> ... beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.
But Scotland had a referendum 2014 about leaving the UK, and Scottish independence can be openly discussed. Some autonomous regions of Spain enjoy big degrees of autonomy, and might get more.
China is very protective of its integrity, and I'd say even more so than many, if not most countries.
(I wonder, incidentally, how constitutions deal with it.)
The Basque separatist movement hasn't been entirely peaceful:
German constitution, article 1, paragraph 1: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."
HK basic law, article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China."
Chris Patten (last governor, and something of a surprise appointment) made a big effort to shape the handover agreement to give democracy the best chance of surviving. He ended up quite popular in HK and deeply disliked in Beijing.
He has often spoken that one of his biggest regrets was he and Britain couldn't have achieved more and complained that British governments haven't criticised China enough since handover (most recently having a pop at George Osbourne last year). You end up with the impression his 5 years there made more impact on him than the rest of his career.
In addition to activities in Hong Kong, there have been reports that China’s government has pressured overseas Chinese journalists, activists, and community leaders in other parts of the world (2) with at least one Chinese-Canadian journalist losing his job for not toeing the pro-China line. The Globe and Mail has reported that Chinese security agents on tourist visas regularly attempt to strong-arm certain expatriates to return home (3).
Finally, in China itself many journalists have simply given up. Many believe there is no future in the profession, because the government clamps down on almost any reporting that goes against local and national interests (4). The Communist/PRC propaganda machine has been around since 1949, but in an era of instant communications, social networking, and higher standards of living, the hopes and goals of China’s young journalists can’t bypass the power of a one-party political system that will do whatever it takes to achieve its vision of stability while preserving one-party rule.
1. http://www.zonaeuropa.com/weblog.htm
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/world/americas/chinese-can...
3. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-agents-...
4. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/12/china-journali...
Hong Kongers are sensitive about encroachment by mainland law enforcement. Last year, several Hong Kong booksellers disappeared after publishing thinly sourced, salacious tell-alls about China’s leaders. They turned up later in detention in mainland China.
Why do you think cultural genocide is a good thing?
No, seriously, as a Hong Konger, I really would like to know if are there really any actual advantages.
Please also note that big chunk of the population in both Hong Kong and Taiwan fled the Cultural Revolution; so Chinese reintegration would best be compared to the state of Israel being given back to a direct descendant of the Nazi party. #Godwin #EverythingIsAwesome
The foundation for currency is trust. Hong Kong has a functioning legal system, whereas China does not and will not in the future - by eroding that autonomy, China is in effect canibalizing its own capital base.
If you have room mate A and room mate B, and room mate A is very trustworthy while B is not, but B starts writing down tons of IOUs for millions of dollars onto pieces of paper and gives them to roommate A, is roommate A now richer? Well it depends upon roommate B's ability to pay back. Now, if roommate B has a business selling widgets, but no organizational skills to keep all of the contracts in order, and outsources that to roommate A, then the system works. If roommate B interfere's with A's ability to organize by...I don't know...getting A drunk on a regular basis so he can't complete his job, then the enterprise as a whole collapses.
That's what is going to happen in China with what they are going to do with Hong Kong, with China obviously being B and Hong Kong being A.
An enormous number of Chinese people have made huge amounts of money. They've already bid up all the desirable areas in their own country to insane prices. It's San Francisco bad. So they look elsewhere. They see lots of opportunities in the West that offer more value for their money, an opportunity to escape from the brutal rat race that China is, and a mature legal system and deep cultural respect for property rights. All they have to do is make payment...
They can't just wire the money out because the Chinese government imposes strict capital controls. So they bypass them through HK, insurance schemes, investment schemes, through purchase and return of expensive luxury items, by having friends and family wire out of their accounts to their limits, with bitcoin, with good old bags of cash through the airport, or whatever other creative solutions they can find.
The People's Liberation Army has 2.3 million personnel and Hong Kong has a population of approximately 7 million.
Hong Kong is an amazing place that the world shouldn't lose. But I get the impression that, as China develops, it's using HK as a template for how to make cities great. Maybe it won't be a cultural genocide, so much as China catching up? Hong Kong's always been a mixture of cultures, that's part of what made it so special to begin with, so I think integrating with a more successful China could be good?
It's economics thats more powerful than a bullet these days. It's a sort of suicide destroying HK.
For starters, we are not taught anything about Chinese history and "World History," is basically European history. Can you put yourself in the shoes of someone who is starting off from that perspective?
You hear a lot of broad oversimplifications over here such as, "China is communist!" vs, "No it's not, it's capitalist!" But not a lot of nuance behind the truth of such statements. The commentator is not likely intending to be malicious, he/she likely just does not have access to sufficient information to even know they are making a bad assessment.
It may or may not be within China's interest as a whole or in part, or their perceived interest to do away with these artifacts and methods of difference. But individual interests of the largely powerful economic scale within mainland China rather than attempting to decelerate the process, treat Hong Kong like a personal sandbox and pay people to attempt to bring the democratic governmental system down, and this involves all sorts of strategies which help toward that aim. It's not really a, "conspiracy theory," it's kind of just a long, slow out in the open slog that everyone knows about.
If you go to Hong Kong in the year 2047 and then go over to Shenzhen I predict you won't sense much of a difference crossing from one side to another -- I would contest that is not likely good for China as a whole as my other comments on this thread point out.
Further evidence to my point...can you imagine if you saw banners in the US being put up by the Federal Government which said, "Be Civilized...Speak English Everywhere, Including the Airport!"
Or, could you imagine textbooks in school which say, "don't do uncivilized things like spit on the street, or speak Spanish." Horrifying.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cantonese-lan...
This system requires ceaseless indoctrination of the populace - ideological carpet bombing by means of movies, TV, news, music, books, games, toys, whatever - on the supreme value of 'freedom', above and beyond any local cultural norms, or indeed rational evaluation of the benefits. People must just know in their bones that 'dulce et decorum est pro libertas mori', and that whatever came before is now obsolete and irrelevant.
Some people get riled up about that.
Should be "pro libertate" ("pro" governs the ablative case).
Edit: the reason you may not notice the difference in the original is that the ablative of "patria" is "patriā" (just with a long a, which isn't explicitly marked in all texts).
I guess my strong reaction came from a deep dislike of the concept of "integration" in this context. To me, "integration" means "to achieve sameness", so perhaps I should briefly explain how mainland China and Hong Kong differs. Apart from the differences in the political, economic and legal systems, culturally Hong Kong is very different from northern China; from the languages we speak, the script we write, to the food we eat, but more importantly, in our different worldviews and different thoughts on how the entire society should be run, like how business relationships should be maintained, how kids should be raised, how success is defined, who should we look up to, and so on. It's not completely different, but different enough to be distinctive.
Which brings us to today. Most primary schools now teach in a non-native tongue. Kickbacks are almost expected in deals because "that's China and we're in China". Infrastructure projects for "integration" are abnormally costly and got to go ahead with doctored projection data to justify them. We must "go north" and look for opportunities in mainland China, the government says -- what happened to the rest of the world?
And then there are 150 new settlers from mainland China every single day, 7 days a week 365 days a year, and our government have no say in who gets to come.
"Most primary schools now teach in a non-native tongue"
They used to teach English in HK schools. At least Mandarin is in the same language family as Cantonese.
As someone who used to live in HK and then left before '97, "cultural genocide" sounds like a hyperbole to me. HK and China has much more in common than they differ. HK and Guangzhou are exceptionally similar in culture and speak the exact same dialect. In fact, many people in HK have relatives there.
Lastly, having left HK and seen the rest of the world, I want to ask "what culture?" Nearly all of HK culture is imported and cheap copies of other cultures such as China, UK, and Japan.
I can be onboard with opposing the political changes but culture is a stretch for HK. HK's culture is skin deep and very insular.
Yes, secondary schools used to teach in Chinese and English (more of the former if you chose a Chinese school, more of the latter if you chose an English one), but the Chinese used to be Cantonese.
Now they're teaching even primary schools in Mandarin. The lingua franca is Cantonese, and Mandarin is a foreign language. Obviously, this is problematic. When I was going through the school system, Mandarin instruction (as a separate class, not as a language of instruction) didn't even start until fourth grade. Can you imagine starting your first day of grade one and your teacher starts speaking gibberish to you? That's ridiculous.
I am obviously wrong on that point. Thanks for the info.
Of the 80 schools sampled, 36 teach Chinese in Cantonese in all classes, 22 teach in Putonghua in all classes, 9 teach in Putonghua in all classes of some grades, and the rest have a mix of both.
Cantonese was used to teach Chinese if not other subjects in schools. I'm talking about the switch of the medium of instruction from either English or Cantonese to Putonghua. There are even not-so-subtle "not knowing Putonghua" = "treats customers bad" stuff appearing in textbooks.
> HK and Guangzhou are exceptionally similar in culture
I totally agree, but note I said northern China. Guangzhou is facing the same problem to a much larger degree, unfortunately people there have mostly given up.
> Lastly, having left HK and seen the rest of the world, I want to ask "what culture?" Nearly all of HK culture is imported and cheap copies of other cultures such as China, UK, and Japan.
Looks like I have a slightly broader definition of "culture" than yours. Would you say Aussie culture is a cheap copy of America's, for example?
That said, as a member of the HK diaspora, whenever someone complains about culture it often ends up being a nativist argument against immigrants. To hear someone from HK bring that up, especially against a population we are similar to, is a bit hard to take.
That said, I don't have anything against mainland Chinese people -- I have worked with them, became friends with them. Yet, it is through extensive interactions with them that have made me realise how different we are, not just in languages or food but in how we think. That's the essence of what we are trying to preserve, and what the PRC is trying to eradicate.
Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, this is a rather offensive thing to say no? If people think their culture is unique or at least different, who are we to say otherwise?
* the increasing dominance of Mandarin, rather than the native Cantonese (see [1] for details and background).
* the (attempted) imposition of a "moral and national education curriculum" [2] in schools in 2012, teaching better appreciation of the motherland. (This was mostly defeated by a public outcry. Some groups that opposed it, e.g. Scholarism, played a major role in the umbrella movement later.)
* creeping erosion of press freedom and other civil liberties, such as the Article 23 anti-subversion bill that was introduced in 2003, but rejected after massive protests, or the so-called "Internet Article 23" bill introduced in 2015.
* integration and China-focus at any cost, leading to projects such as the high-speed railway to Guangzhou (Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link) or the 50 km bridge to Zhuhai.
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/07/language?zid...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_and_national_education
Hong Kong is a beautiful country, a bustling dynamic city, with fantastic natural features on every side.
However it lost the ability to innovate, it became too expensive to live in, and talent has poured away.
At the same time liberties are being taken away, and there is a fear of Hong Kong losing its identity.
But there are seeds of hope; the localist / independence movement may still achieve the assumed impossible, and a startup scene is rapidly developing, and technology is beginning to be taken seriously.
I urge you to come visit some time.
Off topic / Advert
We're hosting the 3rd annual Hong Kong Code Conf in a few weeks, if you're looking for an excuse to visit.
I'm not going to use a proxy or TOR to read them.
From a military point of view, Hong Kong as an island is very easy to isolate and fully suppress for years until the people change their minds. China has the economic clout and manpower to do this for decades if necessary.
I strongly believe Hong Kong politicians are better served by asking for concessions and benefits from the mainland (tax reduction, extra funding, etc) then attempting secessionist movements that are only going to spectacularly fail with a bloodbath of their people.
in the recent legislative elections,pro democracy voters won.it will be a tough fight for china.people here are prepared to sacrifice multiple generations for freedom.
i live around the region and follow hong kong closely. would like to share more,but limited by my mobile device.
source: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/09/05/legislative-legco-hong...
What happened in the mainland exactly in the last 10, 15 years?
Sorry if it's a naive comment
Technically China has been open for business for a long time, but the rule of law and peculiarities of Chinese business were less approachable for Western business.
Hong Kong was right nextdoor, spoke English, and had a similar legal system to the UK, and respected copyright and intellectual property.
If you were doing business in China, chances are you were going through Hong Kong or Taiwan.
Gradually though, China has boomed, people have learnt English, and doing business directly with China has become more accessible.
At the same time Hong Kong's rule of law has eroded and Singapore has taken it's place as the business hub of Asia.
Would love to hear.
[1] http://hongkong.coconuts.co/2016/02/02/chinese-woman-shocks-...
Then there is the languages. There is a different trying to get everyone to speak Mandarin as well, and trying to get everyone to speak Mandarin Only, while actively trying to kill Cantonese.
I really like the word Genocide used in this thread. It sorts of describe what is happening.