China Hong Kong SAR: News and Images

[gambit]

May be it is time for the PLA to roll in the tanks. This is not Tiananmen Square of 1989. Today, with the availability of social media, the images of tanks running over bodies will serve as intimidation and deterrence to prospective democracy believers seeking to make voices in China.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

@LeveragedBuyout , @Chinese-Dragon , @mike2000 , @TaiShang, @ChineseTiger1986 , @Huaren , @Huan ; sometimes I really think the Diplomat reads PDF's East Asian Section because we discussed all these points last week, and they just published this article just today. lol.





---------------


Japan Dips Its Toe into the Hong Kong Protests


Since the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong re-intensified on September 27 when 50 students managed to reenter the barricaded Civic Square, Japan has been relatively silent on the issue – until last Friday. While the rest of the world has watched the tense situation unfold, Hong Kong’s third-largest trading partner has been reluctant to weigh in on the issue, for fear that it will be seen as meddling in China’s domestic affairs. This fear is especially potent right now as Japan seeks to improve damaged ties with Beijing and hopefully hold a summit between Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the upcoming APEC summit in Beijing this November.

Japan’s first official statement on the issue came from Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga at a press conference, where he said “Japan strongly hopes that Hong Kong’s free and open system will be kept under the principle of ‘one nation, two systems’ so that the close relationship between Japan and Hong Kong will be maintained.” He further said that Hong Kong’s stability was important for the entire region.

However, government officials who spoke with the Japan Times were less supportive of the protesters in Hong Kong, or Japan’s involvement in the issue. One official said “We should not say any more (than what’s been officially said). That would be better,” while another told the media outlet that Japanese support of the protest “shouldn’t be made clear.” The officials did make clear that Hong Kong is very important economically for Japan, while the Japan Times noted that even Suga did not directly answer when asked by reporters if Tokyo supports the protesters.

Japan is certainly constrained by its economic ties to both mainland China and Hong Kong. There are 1,200 Japanese businesses operating in Hong Kong alone, and the city is the world’s largest importer of Japanese agricultural products, about 111 billion ($1.01 billion) worth in 2011, or roughly one quarter of the total. Hong Kong is likely attracted to the higher quality of Japanese food products, as a large percentage of the city’s citizens are leery of potential health hazards associated with mainland China’s agriculture.

However, Japan has a much larger interest in improving its tenuous ties with Beijing at the moment, particularly as the Occupy Central movement does not represent a strategic interest to Tokyo or its relationship with Hong Kong. Nor would the loss of the democratic freedoms the protesters are seeking to protect clearly or immediately affect that relationship. As my colleague Zach has pointed out, the protesters face a stiff and all but insurmountable challenge if China should choose to forcefully remove them. Japan appears to be more interested in maintaining stability in Hong Kong, whatever form that takes, so that business can continue as normal without hindering its attempts to hold high-level talks next month.


Japan Dips Its Toe into the Hong Kong Protests | The Diplomat

Interesting, when you mention names in the beginning of a new thread, the PDF Twitter account mentions me in its tweet. Convenient.

I know that this has been mentioned before, but I don't see any upside to Japan issuing even the bland statement that it did. If the protestors are seen as pawns of outsiders, it undermines their cause. If the protestors are abandoned by outsiders, it creates feelings of bitterness.

Hong Kong, and even Xinjiang, is less of a threat to the CCP than protests in Wukan. As other articles have pointed out, mainlanders couldn't care less about HK complaints, because they are not perceived to entirely belong to the same nation, but the Wukan protests struck at the heart of everything that's wrong with the Chinese development model.

As far as the cause itself, I can't believe how inept the protestors were. Even if the candidates for chief executive were selected by Beijing, it would still be an incremental step towards democracy. The CCP has shown time and again that it prefers gradual, cautious moves, and when it is resisted, it has no choice but to strike back with an iron fist if it doesn't want to invite yet more protest. The HK protestors should have worked within these constraints for gradual change; now, at best, they will get nothing, and at worst, jail and a rollback of the reforms already in place.

 

[Fukuoka]

Oct. 5: Future of Protest Is Uncertain


Pro-democracy demonstrators began pulling back on their blockade of the offices of Hong Kong’s leader on Sunday and debated whether to abandon another key encampment as the government set a Monday morning deadline for the police to restore access to the government’s headquarters.

It was unclear whether either concession had the support of any of the main protest organizations and could be sustained in the face of criticism by protesters opposed to compromise.

A leader of the ong Kong Federation of Students warned that talks would be suspended if the government made any attempt to forcefully drive away the protesters.

“A dialogue is not a compromise,” Alex Chow of the Hong Kong Federation of Students said. “We will start arranging talks with the government, because we understand that there are people in both the government and here who want to solve society’s problems.”

The Monday morning deadline set up a possible confrontation between the passionate and, often disjointed protest movement, and a government that, taking its cue from Beijing, has refused to compromise on the protesters’ broadly shared demands: Mr. Leung’s resignation and democratic elections for his successor.

The police used tear gas a week ago in an effort to disperse protesters, but more crowds arrived in response to what were perceived by many as unnecessarily heavy-handed tactics by the authorities.

A government spokesman urged student leaders to clear a footbridge leading to the main government offices and to allow 3,000 staff members to return to work on Monday. He also asked for roads in Admiralty, near the government offices, to be reopened so that schools in the area could resume classes.

 

[terranMarine]

As far as the cause itself, I can't believe how inept the protestors were. Even if the candidates for chief executive were selected by Beijing, it would still be an incremental step towards democracy. The CCP has shown time and again that it prefers gradual, cautious moves, and when it is resisted, it has no choice but to strike back with an iron fist if it doesn't want to invite yet more protest. The HK protestors should have worked within these constraints for gradual change; now, at best, they will get nothing, and at worst, jail and a rollback of the reforms already in place.

Students are so easy to manipulate and the British/Americans are shortsighted as well. Beijing gave them the option as a good will and this is how they repay CCP back with a chaotic gesture. The protest can not last, these idiots have shot themselves in the foot including the Americans wasting all that money to promote Democracy. The result is meaningless, the world is watching how this end with failure. It's time to revise some of the treatment for the city.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Students are so easy to manipulate and the British/Americans are shortsighted as well. Beijing gave them the option as a good will and this is how they repay CCP back with a chaotic gesture. The protest can not last, these idiots have shot themselves in the foot including the Americans wasting all that money to promote Democracy. The result is meaningless, the world is watching how this end with failure. It's time to revise some of the treatment for the city.

How much money did the US spend on this protest, and who did it spend the money on? Let me guess, this is a CIA operation?

On the other hand, no matter the outcome of this protest, Taiwan will be uneasy. There are no winners here.

 

[bobsm]

You talk about unity, you think southerners don't care about unity? Those HK have too much influence from westerners and you blame the entire southern chinese. That kind of speech are for people who want to break China apart.

Exactly. Most of the people I know want unity for China. 團結就是力量 We all know that the only reason the westerners are attacking China is their fear that China will one day unite all Chinese, and they will lose their current standing. There will always be a minority of weak minded that others will exploit, but no need to generalize. As for northern and southern Chinese, we are all the same: Chinese.

 

[terranMarine]

How much money did the US spend on this protest, and who did it spend the money on? Let me guess, this is a CIA operation?

On the other hand, no matter the outcome of this protest, Taiwan will be uneasy. There are no winners here.

US Now Admits it is Funding “Occupy Central” in Hong Kong

Beats me how much they had spend.

 

[northeast]

Exactly. Most of the people I know want unity for China. 團結就是力量 We all know that the only reason the westerners are attacking China is their fear that China will one day unite all Chinese, and they will lose their current standing. There will always be a minority of weak minded that others will exploit, but no need to generalize. As for northern and southern Chinese, we are all the same: Chinese.

One coward is coward，a bunch of cowards are still cowards .one sheep is the food of wolf，a crowed of sheep are still the food of wolves.Unity won't make you strong unless everyone is brave.Numbers don't matters that much.

 

[TaiShang]

The article is a sort of late comer. Hence, irrelevant now. As for interfering in another state's internal affairs, that's an offence under international law. Besides, Japan has its own soft spots, thus, a consensus not to interfere in each other's political-social issues is possibly the best route to take for both.

Soft spots are easy to scratch and the region is full with soft spots. No body is spared.

As other articles have pointed out, mainlanders couldn't care less about HK complaints, because they are not perceived to entirely belong to the same nation

Just as New Yorkers could not care less about Texans' complaints, right? But sovereignty and national territorial integrity is another issue, if it is what you try to imply.

I guess those articles should just test and challenge China's sovereignty over Hong Kong to see China's resolve and the Chinese people's reaction.

This attempt to paint HK as somehow separate from the rest of China is no less lame than Texan or Californian independence movements.

Other than this, certainly, HK's economic woes is a concern for their on residents, local government and Beijing. It is not by accident that Beijing subsidizes HK. Because Beijing has sole autonomy and thus responsibility.

As far as the cause itself, I can't believe how inept the protestors were. Even if the candidates for chief executive were selected by Beijing, it would still be an incremental step towards democracy. The CCP has shown time and again that it prefers gradual, cautious moves, and when it is resisted, it has no choice but to strike back with an iron fist if it doesn't want to invite yet more protest. The HK protestors should have worked within these constraints for gradual change; now, at best, they will get nothing, and at worst, jail and a rollback of the reforms already in place.

This was a big blunder on part of the string holders. Some heads should roll over the State Department and a bunch of CIA extensions here and there.

I see one big problem with the US handling of its foreign diplomacy. This has been the case with rightist-sentimentalist Bush and centrist-sentimentalist Obama: The US has recently been too in a rush, hasty to reveal its true color all at once -- all the cards it has, so to speak. There is no strategic silence, or a momentary step-back to see the bigger picture, to calculate costs and benefits, to let the early hot-headedness pass... Led by Biden and Kerry, they simply jump into every occasion and speak their mind, which allows the opponent to develop counter-strategies early on.

I guess US has a serious leadership problem and I guess your Constitution allows you to overthrow a government by force when it turns tyrannical. I consider this plundering of foreign legitimacy and influence an extension of tyranny. Deal with it, US people. Let's see if you will be greeted with open arms or riot police.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

US Now Admits it is Funding “Occupy Central” in Hong Kong

Beats me how much they had spend.

Ah, I see where this idea comes from. Congress funds NED, NED funds NDI, and NDI funds Chinese NGOs, and one of the protestors sits on one of the boards of one of those NGOs. I can only conclude that my tinfoil hat is malfunctioning, because I didn't immediately see the hand of the State Department behind the protests. State clearly isn't as subtle as the Confucius Institutes.

 

[bobsm]

The umbrella revolution won’t give Hong Kong democracy. Protesters should stop calling for it.
This is about inequality, not politics, so democracy can't fix the problem.
Eric X. Li
By Eric X. Li October 6 at 1:01 AM
Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist and political scientist in Shanghai.

Protesters in Hong Kong on Oct. 4. (Anthony Kwan/Getty Images)

HONG KONG — The prevailing media narrative about the Hong Kong protest — namely that the citizens are politically dissatisfied and are fighting for democracy against the tyranny of Beijing — is false. What’s actually happening is this: A fringe of radical (or sometimes, more charitably, merely naive) ideologues are recasting the real and legitimate economic grievances of people here as a fight about Hong Kong’s autonomy. The movement is part of a global trend you might call maidancracy (rule of the square, from the infamous Maidan in central Kiev where the Ukrainian protests began). If carried out to its full extent, it will not end well for Hong Kong.

Maidancracy is an increasingly common post-Cold-War phenomenon. From the former Soviet Union to Southeast Asia, from the Arab world to Ukraine, it has affected the lives and futures of hundreds of millions of people. Hong Kong’s iteration shares certain characteristics with the ones in Cairo and Kiev: First, there is general popular discontent over the prevailing state of affairs and the region’s probable future. Second, while the foot soldiers are largely well-intentioned people with genuine concerns for their own welfare and that of the Hong Kong society, they are led by activists with a strong ideological agenda. As a result, their aim becomes the overthrow of the government or sometimes the entire political system. Third, the press relentlessly cheers them on and thereby amplifies the movement and turns it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fourth, democracy is always the banner.

These movements generally fail when they are put down violently, with tragic loss of life (think of Syria). In the rare cases in which they succeed, they lead to long periods of suffering and destruction (think of Ukraine, where more than a decade of continuous color revolutions have torn the country apart and now threaten the nation’s very survival). Some maidan movements seem to run on a perpetual cycle: get on the square to remove a government, only to return to the square to remove the next one (think of Egypt). In the meantime, paralysis, chaos and even violence reign.

Those trends have already developed in Hong Kong. Tens of thousands of protesters are occupying the central city district of one of the world’s largest financial centers demanding a particular method for electing the city’s future chief executives. They even set a deadline for the current chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, to resign, or else. (In accord with the typical maidan arc, violent skirmishes have begun between protesters and residents frustrated by the inconvenience and fearful of long-term threats to their livelihoods.)

But the protest message, as described by the loudest activists, is problematic, because its central theme of democracy for Hong Kong is all wrong. The degree of political participation in Hong Kong is actually at its highest in history. Before 1997, Hong Kong was a British colony for 155 years, during which it was ruled by 28 governors — all of them directly appointed by London. For Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, to now brand himself as the champion of democracy is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Only after the return of sovereignty to China 17 years ago did Hong Kong gain real public participation in governance. Today, half of the legislature is directly elected by the public and the other half by what are called functional constituencies. The chief executive, a native Hong Konger, is selected by a committee of 1,200 other Hong Kongers.

Further, Beijing has now devised a plan for voters to elect the next chief executive directly, rather than by committee, in 2017 among candidates fielded by a nominating committee — also made up of Hong Kongers. The proximate cause for today’s upheaval is the protesters’ demand for direct public nomination of candidates, too.

But the context matters: General discontent has provided fertile soil for this movement, and the sources of that dissatisfaction have nothing to do with imaginary diktats from Beijing. Hong Kong is going through a tough period of economic and social dislocation. Its unique advantage as the only port into and out of China has largely disappeared as the mainland’s own market economy scales up. Its manufacturing base, which provided ample employment, has been moved to cheaper locations. Globalization and the expanding Chinese economy have elevated the city’s position as an international financial center, but the economic benefits have mainly accrued to landowners and those who are engaged in financial intermediation and deployment of capital. Median income has been stagnant and is dropping, but costs of living, especially housing, have been rising. The wealth gap is among the highest in the world.

Empirical data demonstrates the nature of public discontent, and it is fundamentally different from what is being portrayed by the protesting activists. Over the past several years, polling conducted by the Public Opinion Program at the University of Hong Kong has consistently shown that well over 80 percent of Hong Kongers’ top concerns are livelihood and economic issues, with those who are concerned with political problems in the low double digits at the most.

When the Occupy Central movement was gathering steam over the summer, the protesters garnered 800,000 votes in an unofficial poll supporting the movement. Yet less than two months later an anti-Occupy campaign collected 1.3 million signatures (from Hong Kong’s 7 million population) opposing the movement. The same University of Hong Kong program has conducted five public opinion surveys since April 2013, when protesters first began to create the movement. All but one showed that more than half of Hong Kongers opposed it, and support was in the low double digits.

Hong Kong’s economic issues are daunting challenges for any government. But they have been made even more difficult by protesters attempting, successfully it seems, to manufacture a narrative that Beijing is the cause of Hong Kong’s troubles. By misdirecting the frustration and anxiety of Hong Kongers to Beijing, the maidancracy ideology has overtaken rational discourse about the root causes of Hong Kong’s problems and their solutions.

Given all this, the future of Hong Kong is not nearly as bleak as it looks on the streets at the moment. Hong Kong is fundamentally different from the likes of Egypt and Ukraine. The economy is largely prosperous. Rule of law still prevails. Resources are abundant and can be directed and allocated in the right ways to address the structural challenges. The vast majority of Hong Kongers want to solve problems and are not ideological. And most of all, Hong Kong remains an integral part of an economically vibrant and politically stable China. As Martin Jacques wrote in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, “China is Hong Kong’s future – not its enemy.”

At the moment, the situation is tense. If either side makes the mistake of escalating, we know that maidancracy can be destructive. Hong Kong’s current conditions do not call for such destruction. Let calm return to the City by the Harbor. Hong Kong needs problem solvers, not revolutionaries.

source: washingtonpost, just search for the title.

 

[Aepsilons]

Ah, I see where this idea comes from. Congress funds NED, NED funds NDI, and NDI funds Chinese NGOs, and one of the protestors sits on one of the boards of one of those NGOs. I can only conclude that my tinfoil hat is malfunctioning, because I didn't immediately see the hand of the State Department behind the protests. State clearly isn't as subtle as the Confucius Institutes.

 

[TaiShang]

Documents show US openly approves HK chaos

According to a recent article by MintPress News based in the United States, behind the so-called "Occupy Central" protests, which masquerade as a "pro-democracy" movement seeking "universal suffrage" and "full democracy," is a deep and insidious network of foreign financial, political, and media support. Prominent among them is the US State Department and its National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as well as NED's subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

To push this agenda – which essentially is to prevent Beijing from vetting candidates running for office in Hong Kong, thus opening the door to politicians openly backed, funded, and directed by the US State Department – NDI lists an array of ongoing meddling it is carrying out on the island.

Since 1997, NDI has conducted a series of missions to Hong Kong to consider the development of Hong Kong's "post-reversion" election framework, the status of autonomy, rule of law and civil liberties under Chinese sovereignty.

It also claims: In 2005, NDI initiated a six-month young political leaders program focused on training a group of rising party and political group members in political communications skills.

NDI also admits it has created, funded, and backed other organizations operating in Hong Kong toward achieving the US State Department's goals of subverting Beijing's control over the island.

It should be no surprise to readers then, to find out each and every "Occupy Central" leader is either directly linked to the US State Department, NED, and NDI, or involved in one of NDI's many schemes.

"Occupy Central's" self-proclaimed leader, Benny Tai, is a law professor at the aforementioned University of Hong Kong and a regular collaborator with the NDI-funded CCPL. In 2006-2007 he was named as a board member – a position he has held until at least as recently as last year. In CCPL's 2011-2013 annual report , NDI is listed as having provided funding to the organization to.

There is also Martin Lee, founding chairman of Hong Kong's Democrat Party and another prominent figure who has come out in support of "Occupy Central." Just this year, Lee was in Washington meeting directly with US Vice President Joseph Biden, US Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, and even took part in an NED talk hosted specifically for him and his agenda of "democracy" in Hong Kong. Lee even has a NED page dedicated to him after he was awarded in 1997 NED's "Democracy Award." With him in Washington was Anson Chan, another prominent figure currently supporting the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong's streets.

If democracy is characterized by self-rule, than an "Occupy Central" movement in which every prominent figure is the benefactor of and beholden to foreign cash, support, and a foreign-driven agenda, has nothing at all to do with democracy. It does have, however, everything to do with abusing democracy to undermine Beijing's control over Hong Kong, and open the door to candidates that clearly serve foreign interests, not those of China, or even the people of Hong Kong.

Exposing the insidious, disingenuous, foreign-driven nature of "Occupy Central" is important. It is also important to objectively examine each and every protest that springs up around the world. Superficiality cannot "link" one movement to another, one group to hidden special interests. Rather, one must adhere to due diligence in identifying and profiling the leaders, following the money, identifying their true motivations, and documenting their links to special interests within or beyond the borders of the nation the protests are taking place in.

 

[TaiShang]

China is so mixed up, especially now the country has the best highway roads, railway and air aviation system in the world, it moves billions of people every year efficiently and comfortably, here in Beijing everyone is from everywhere. it will be very hard to tell northerners and southerner apart in the future.

That's basically what I love about China's impressive and ever-growing transportation network: It encourages greater mobility and carries people from far and near into various parts of the country, and thus making the national unity stronger. Thus railway to XiZhang and XinJiang are of extreme importance. Thanks to this, and many other policies, China has an overall/umbrella culture and identity above the myriad of local identities.

 

[TaiShang]

Hong Kong version of the 'color revolution'

The "Occupy Central" movement in Hong Kong which paralyzes business, transportation and disrupts the normal life of the population is purported to be "promoting democracy." In fact, as the Bangkok-based geopolitical scientist Tony Cartalucci pointed out in a penetrating article on Scott. Net, it is essentially a U.S. plot "to turn the island into an epicenter of foreign-funded subversion with which to infect China's mainland more directly."

But that is a pipe dream. China today is a far cry from its semi-colonial past, when it was impotent and subject to foreign domination. It stands firm and can handle any subversive scheme handily.

The "movement" has been called the Hong Kong version of the U.S. engineered "color revolution." The campaigners shout the familiar slogans and adopt familiar tactics seen across the globe as part of the U.S. political destabilization and regime change enterprise. It is part of America's vast ambitious global geopolitical reordering that started in 2011.

Documents show the U.S. openly approves Hong Kong chaos, and it has created and admits it is funding "Occupy Central." It is U.S.-backed sedition.

Both U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and White House spokesman Josh Earnest openly aired their support of "Occupy Central." State Department affiliate National Democratic Institute has been working ever since 1997 when Hong Kong was returned to China, funding and organizing NGOs, and training activists who now lead the occupy campaign. The goal is to prevent Beijing from vetting candidates running for office in Hong Kong, so as to empower candidates they openly backed. In other words, they are fighting the Chinese government for control of Hong Kong.

The U.S. also openly admitted that the National Endowment for Democracy funded the "Occupy Central" campaign.

The list of organizers makes plain what is going on:

A primary organizer is Benny Tai, a lecturer of law (does he really know law?) at the University of Hong Kong, who regularly attends forums funded and/or organized by U.S. State Department, National Endowment for Democracy (NED, U.S. major arm for subversion) and its subsidiaries, and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

Cartalucci also mentioned Martin Lee, founding chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong. But strangely, he left out Anson Chan, the former chief secretary of colonial Hong Kong, who is the real power behind the thrown. When the twosome went to Washington to plead U.S. backing of their "cause," I wrote a piece in this space on April 12, saying "It is logical for Martin Lee and Anson Chan, two of Hong Kong's prominent "democracy fighters" who have consistently fought the central government ever since Hong Kong's return to China, to go looking for help in Washington, which has a long record of interference in Hong Kong's affairs."

Of course, there is Jimmy Lai Chi-Ying, owner of Next Media and Apple Daily, who gave generously to the "occupation" gang. He met with the neocon and former Deputy Defense Secretary and World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz in his private yacht for five hours in late May. What did they discuss (plot)? He also plotted with pro-Taiwan independence elements who support the occupy campaign. Lai even declared he is willing to go to prison or die for it. He knows he is violating the law.

There is also Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, and former head of the Catholic diocese Cardinal Joseph Zen Zi-kiun. The entire gang has turned out in full force.

The "Occupy Central" movement is clearly illegal. No government can tolerate long-term blocking of business center and main traffic routes. The Hong Kong authority has exercised maximum restraint, trying to persuade the students who are used by the "color revolutionaries" as fodder, to go back to school or go home.

Their cause is plainly illegal, unpopular and doomed to failure. It is like an ant trying to shake a tree, as the Chinese saying goes.

As the British Guardian columnist Martin Jaques wrote in a recent article: China is Hong Kong's future -- not its enemy. Protesters cry democracy but most are driven by dislocation and resentment at mainlanders' success.

He pointed out that for 155 years when Hong Kong was under British rule, all 28 governors were appointed by the British government. Hong Kong never enjoyed even a semblance of democracy. It was ruled from 6,000 miles away in London. The idea of any kind of democracy was first introduced by the Chinese government. Yet the "democracy campaigners" are protesting universal suffrage for the election of the chief executive in 2017!