Hacker News Reader

Comment by hkai | Hacker News Reader

Just finished the 8 hour march. That was insane.

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.

View on HN

(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.

Life-long dictator ended ... but for your worry many if not all his family are Austrilan, American etc. They run away long time ago, just like many elites there. Just still work for china’s interest in spite of any possible reflection by seeing what the host country do. Instead they will try to take advantage of that. That is the tragedy.

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?

> 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.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tung_Chee-hwa

> In 2003, more than 500,000 protesters demanded Tung to step down in the light of the proposed legislation of the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 and the SARS outbreak. Tung resigned in the middle of his second term on 10 March 2005.

2 years delay make attributing causality seem like a bit of a stretch. The Wikipedia article makes it sound like he resigned after losing the backing of the PRC government.

Multiple elements weakened Tung, the most significant being his attempted pro-Beijing legislation and handling of the SARS epidemic. Those lead to a series of resignations and public dressings down. Beijing’s disapproval, while a factor, was neither the proximate nor dominant cause.

Hong Kong, politically and culturally, responds to protest.

Can you tell us more about your experiences as a participant in the march?

Looks like the PRC still wants to turn Hong Kong into paste.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com