More importantly, it quietly dismisses the vast moral chasm between the CCP's propaganda and that of the protesters. One aims to restrict information (and spread misinformation) to advance the control of a state over its people, while the other aims to expose that restricted information to protect civil liberties.
Information freedom is politically correct, but that doesn't mean tactics or investigation isn't important before conveying information to certain group of people to achieve a political goal practically.
Btw, CCP puts great stress on these two peculiar notions. Propaganda appears far more than restriction and misinformation.
Interesting. Very specifically, how?
A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or even worse in a sense of superiority (as pointed out in a twitter comment) saying "did you know? oops, sorry for you".
I think open-minded mainland people would prefer a thorough and better explanation of the opposition. Because from many ordinary people's perspective, Hong Kong still keeps legal control over the extradition under the bill and it would help the fight against corruption since Hong Kong is regularly involved in economic crimes committed by mainland citizens. "Extradition bill threatens your property in Hong Kong", appearing in many flyers, just looks like some kind of evidence supporting it for ordinary people.
Also, mainland people worries about stability and order of Hong Kong as much as protesters concern about freedom and democracy. Even if they disagree with each other on the order of importance, protesters could express a little about the shared value for long-term law and order in Hong Kong to dispel some concerns. Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters, let alone storming the building of Legislative Council or attacking the police with bricks.
As is well known to mainland people, in the colonial era, the Hong Kong governor was appointed by British monarch and no democratic legitimacy existed until Britain started preparing the handover to China in 1980s. There were also multiple bloody riots crushed in the colonial history. It's really confusing for tourists to see protesters weaving flags of colonial or British flags without further clarification, for what these flags stand for besides asking for Britain's direct interference.
Lastly, truth is powerful enough. There is no need to exaggerate the numbers.
> A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or even worse in a sense of superiority (as pointed out in a twitter comment) saying "did you know? oops, sorry for you".
I think the version of the opposition as presented by the Chinese media is not the full picture.
Case in point: even though the court of Hong Kong would be involved in the extradition, they could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt. After all, Hong Kong does not have a near 100% conviction rate, showing the huge gap between going to court (prima facie) and conviction (guilty beyond reasonable doubt).
And the superiority in legal system in Hong Kong with respect to China is the independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution (for those who know, see 零八宪章 Charter 08 manifesto on constitution and 709大抓捕 709 crackdown), so that the law does not serve politics. Arguably, if and when China catch up on these two aspects, the opposition in Hong Kong would be much smaller.
> I think open-minded mainland people would prefer a thorough and better explanation of the opposition. Because from many ordinary people's perspective, Hong Kong still keeps legal control over the extradition under the bill and it would help the fight against corruption since Hong Kong is regularly involved in economic crimes committed by mainland citizens. "Extradition bill threatens your property in Hong Kong", appearing in many flyers, just looks like some kind of evidence supporting it for ordinary people.
For those who want a more thorough explanation, see the article by Leung Kai Chi (in Chinese [1], a rough translation in [2]). This article likely does not fit into a leaflet, but thanks for suggesting to use this version for open-minded mainland people instead.
[1]: https://medium.com/@leungkaichihk/反送中答問集-9841974d889c
[2]: https://pastebin.com/6JqR1EsR
> Also, mainland people worries about stability and order of Hong Kong as much as protesters concern about freedom and democracy. Even if they disagree with each other on the order of importance, protesters could express a little about the shared value for long-term law and order in Hong Kong to dispel some concerns. Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters, let alone storming the building of Legislative Council or attacking the police with bricks.
Concerning stability, Hong Kongers are arguing that a proper legal system (independent jurisdiction and respect for constitution) and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability, and are one key issue underlying this protest.
Relatedly, note that storming local government and attacking police with bricks in protests also happen in China (and they sometimes turn cars over and set fire), but those do not get much media attention and are often censored (search for 群体抗暴事件). If mainland people do worry about such stability, those mass protests in China shows that what China is doing is not enough, and a better legal and political system is the key.
> As is well known to mainland people, in the colonial era, the Hong Kong governor was appointed by British monarch and no democratic legitimacy existed until Britain started preparing the handover to China in 1980s.
Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by Beijing [3]. Again, those “wellknown” as presented by Chinese media is not the full picture. These AirDrops are trying to counter the disinformation and censorship.
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
> It's really confusing for tourists to see protesters weaving flags of colonial or British flags without further clarification, for what these flags stand for besides asking for Britain's direct interference.
Don’t know if it is related to the flag, but after the 1 July protest Britain just defended the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration concerning the autonomy of Hong Kong from Beijing’s influence [4]. It is hard to fit so much context into a small leaflet.
[4]: https://www.ft.com/content/429886f4-9cd1-11e9-9c06-a4640c9fe...
> They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?
I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.
> a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability
Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.
>Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by Beijing
Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan. My point here is, according to history, the colony is not a better symbol for freedom and democracy than the SAR in mainland people's eyes, but more like a symbol for independence.
The link from hker's extensive post (thanks man!) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu... specifically says this
"But documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that 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"
Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? (edit: I'm not denying we did some really bad stuff, but we may have got it right that time)
Also in your original post you said
> Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters
This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. 'Freedom' means the ability for me to choose, as an adult individual, what I can do (within the constraints of not messing up the lives of others; basic morality). You seem to be saying that mainlander chinese are actually afraid of or repulsed by that? That they do not wish to have that ability to be themselves? I think I'm reading you wrong, could you give me an idea of what you're trying to say.
I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.
> This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner.
It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.
OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this
"In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:"
and also the original typewritten docs https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still... faded but readable.
> I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions
It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification.
> and proactively impose sanctions against mainland
As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).
I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion.
The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think.
> I still don't
Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good.
> would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time.
My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html
It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'.
But the point was britain tried to give in the 1950s what you say it didn't until the 1980s, and it was down to chinese pressure - they threatened to invade!
I'll read up on the link to the young plan, thanks.
> It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side
You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.
> the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think
Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protestors think? I literally don't understand what you're saying. I realise your english is infinitely better than my chinese is ever likely to be (regrettably!), I'm not criticising that, just asking you explain what you mean.
> But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people
Okay, you are exactly right, we have to be precise about meanings, and propaganda distorts. But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour. That is not tolerable in the west, same as anywhere. The reaction of UK politicians to images of that were real dismay and shock.
And I can (theoretically) make the case for chinese communism as a source of stability. Whether that kind of stability (which places the state above the individual) is something I would wish to live under or impose on others is quite another matter.
So let's talk - what are those shared values between east and west? This is a very important point you raise and I'd like to know because other than trivial stuff (looking after your kids etc) it would be important for me to understand where we unite, and divide.
> My mistake, it's not just sanction...
From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).
But yes, rights and wrongs aside, the fact there was a uk-supported embargo and china still threatened to invade, is interesting and I can't explain it. Point taken.
> It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'.
Read the first image of https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
> You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what Britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.
Read the Young plan.
> Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protesters think? I literally don't understand what you're saying.
Some protesters think the colony is a good symbol of democracy. Many mainlanders disagree. Because to prove colony really cared about democracy, abandoned plan is not enough, and practical action records are required, like limited democratic legitimacy for a small area within Beijing's tolerance. I can't see how China wound invade just because of any small-scale democratic experiment.
> But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour.
I noticed that. I believe we would agree with each other on freedom and many other values most of the time. I am not arguing with you on the difference between us or between protesters and tourists. The point I raised is that some propaganda towards mainlanders did distort, without spelling out the meaning clearly and excluding extremism carefully, and this is bad, even if their heart is good, that's all.
> From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north Korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).
Nobody denies this. It's in the name of United Nations and everyone knows Uncle Sam is the leader of the embargo. What I want to say is, Hong Kong was strong enough at that time to neglect certain pressure from the mainland and push Britain's policy.
OK, let me read your links and I'll get back to you.
thanks for your patience
> First of all, I have been concentrating on the topic of a more effective propaganda
I'm unclear whose propaganda you're referring to (british or chinese or both), or what the effect you believe it's having.
> these are the real thoughts of a portion of people targeted
OK, what are these real thoughts? I'm really curious because this is rather central to the issue.
> Read the first image
I see what you're getting at but it's a quote from a chinese official: "with regard to hong kong there was an important point he (Chou En-Lai) wished to put forward personally, to Mr macmillan or at least to his deputy. A plot or conspiracy was being hatched to make hiong kong a self-governing dominion like singapore"
Precisely, the letter is quoting an opinion coming from Mr Chou En-Lai. Mr Chou is making this claim, not the brits. Whether that opnion is right or wrong, it appears to have been used by china to kill the attempt to kill an early attempt at introducing democracy by the brits. Again, britain tried to introduce democracy much earlier, do you accept this?
> Read the Young plan.
Interesting stuff, thanks. Ok...
Mark young said: "...the means by which in Hong Kong, as elsewhere in the Colonial Empire, the inhabitants of the Territory can be given a fuller and more responsible share in the management of their own affairs"
and
"it is considered essential that the important issues involved should be thoroughly examined in Hong Kong itself, the fullest account being taken of the views and wishes of the inhabitants"
So the UK gov't tried. It was scuppered by business - as you correctly said - and part of the same UK government that tried to introduce it. If you state the uk engaged in "resistance and obstruction" then at least also acknowledge that it also tried to introduce the very thing you say it (and big business) resisted and obstructed.
Let's have a look at the chinese behaviout: "With the support of Grantham, British-educated lawyer and unofficial legislator Man-kam Lo, one of the three members in the 15-man [legislative council] was also strongly opposed to the Young Plan"
So it wasn't just the brits then.
It would be inetersting to understand the political machinations that were going on back then.
> Some protesters think the colony...
Sorry, I'm having trouble decoding most of that paragraph. I wish I could speak chinese then we would have less of a barrier. Sorry.
(erm, I'm being stupid and it probably won't happen as I have so much to do, but any good resouces for learning chinese? Preferably online to start with)
> I can't see how China wound invade just because of any small-scale democratic experiment.
Well, it threatened to, in writing, and had already invaded north korea hence the sanctions you mentioned imposed by the UN. Whether it was small-scale or not is irrelevant. It made a very credible threat.
> The point I raised is that some propaganda towards mainlanders did distort, without spelling out the meaning clearly and excluding extremism carefully
I'm not aware of propaganda by hong kong citizens towards the mainland. They strongly interpreted the actions of china as potentially hostile (see hker's post you have not replied to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20405269 ). I can see why. The ccp is not playing nice. You point out britain's faults clearly and I accept many of them, but you are not addresssing china's behaviour with the same critical eye.
Anyway, thanks and sorry for the long delay in answering.
> How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?
This entry on Prima Facie may be helpful [1], though perhaps a bit light.
On a related note, Hong Kong’s conviction rate is just 50% [2], so statistically speaking prima facie is a much lower bar than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in Hong Kong. Moreover, one additional concern is that cases could be made-up for extradition, such as the case for Gui Minhai in the Causeway Bay Books disappearances [3], making it much easier to produce prima facie evidence for extradition. For a more relevant essay on the difference between Hong Kong’s and Chinese legal system especially on the issue of anti-extradition and the (lack of) independent jurisdiction, see [4] in Chinese.
[1]: https://legaldictionary.net/prima-facie/
[2]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/183380...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...
[4]: https://www.master-insight.com/內地法制難被接受：法院為何不敢做「無罪判決」/
> I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.
Thanks for your opinion. There is no denying that the protestors could do better in conveying their message, but arguably their audience, the mainlanders, is so diverse that sometimes it is hard to satisfy everyone. But the protestors would try I think.
> > a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability
> Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.
Thanks for the words. Yes, even among protestors, there are values that is more obvious to some but less obvious to others, so your view is completely understandable.
In one of the Hong Kong forum related to the protest, posts reflecting how mainlanders think got overwhelming upvotes (in Cantonese [1], [2], [3]).
As a matter of fact, those posts and their views hardly get mentioned in the press (local or foreign).
But if you have more to add, it would be very much appreciated.
[1]: https://lih.kg/1291046 "以一個大陸人的角度看向自由行宣傳"
[2]: https://lih.kg/1290746 "關於7/7遊行, 我有一個喺尖沙咀做服務業嘅朋友, 佢有啲嘢想講..."
[3]: https://lih.kg/1305083 "(開拓視野)看看大陸人真實既看法"