What's new

HK student leader Joshua Wong goes on hunger strike

There's no such thing as HK race, we all belong to the Han race. When i heard one of the student leader claim Hong Kong people are the master of this city and not Chinese, i couldn't help but laugh at his slogan. Each year they hold vigil in remembrance of June the 4th. yet they have a thing against Mainland Chinese. To keep up with this beating a dead dog game is only a waste of time. They just don't like to admit "game over" due to pride.
 
Resistance Is Futile |

Resistance Is Futile

Beijing is emerging as the big winner from protests that have left Hong Kong's social fabric in tatters.

By Rachel LuRachel Lu is a senior editor at Foreign Policy, based in Hong Kong.
December 4, 2014
rachel.lu

Resistance Is Futile

HONG KONG — A chill has gripped Hong Kong. The Occupy Central movement, which advocated for open nomination rights in the 2017 election for chief executive, the city’s head of government, is entering its third month, and what is likely to be its final phase. After more than 60 days of sleeping in the streets and battling police batons, protesters are almost out of moves, while the powers that be in Beijing have not yielded one inch to demands that they allow more open elections in the Chinese territory. Hong Kong will probably emerge from the movement battered — its government scorned, its police mistrusted, its social fabric torn. Even for Leung Chun-ying, Hong Kong’s chief executive and the protesters’ staunchest foe, the end of occupation will likely be a Pyrrhic victory. The central government in Beijing, on the other hand, is likely to be pleased with the turn of events. It has successfully mobilized its allies in Hong Kong and discredited the movement on the mainland. Ah Yeh, or “Grandpa,” as the central government is known in Hong Kong, has shown that it is firmly in charge.

Although the occupation of two of Hong Kong’s key commercial areas has not ended, the protesters’ tactics increasingly smack of desperation. After more than 1,000 demonstrators heeded the call from the Federation of Students and Scholarism, two main organizers of the protests, to lay siege to the city government headquarters and chief executive’s office on the evening of Nov. 30, police clashed with protesters for hours, leaving many with bloodied foreheads. By the next day, student leaders Alex Chow and Joshua Wong admitted that the siege was a failure and apologized to supporters. Wong, the 18-year-old student leader, then began a hunger strike on Dec. 1 to try to win sympathy (and maybe end his participation in the movement with a soupçon of glory). These tactics are likely too little, too late to save the movement. “All forms of protests are futile,” said Leung on Dec. 2.

Signs of setback are everywhere. Hong Kong’s high court granted an injunction on Dec. 1, filed by a local bus company, to clear most of Admiralty, the busy business area that has been occupied for over 60 days. Police have already cleared an occupation site in the busy shopping district of Mong Kok on Nov. 24, after the court granted a similar injunction.

Internal schisms among the protesters and their supporters — students, legislators who advocate for democracy, the occupation movement’s brain trust, and fringe groups with their own agendas — are increasingly apparent. The co-founders of the occupation movement, two professors at local universities and a Christian minister, have surrendered to the police to take responsibility for the civil disobedience movement that had crippled parts of the city. (They were released without charge after a few hours.) The surrender was a controversial gesture, as many protesters believed it “sold out” the remaining protesters and would further delegitimize the movement with the general public.

Indeed, it seems the public has already turned on the protesters. Opinion polls taken in mid-November showed that about 70 percent of residents wanted the occupation to end. Legislator Ronny Tong of the Civic Party, a pro-democracy party, has warned that continued occupation may cause a “chain reaction,” and that a wider public backlash would cost the pro-democracy camp precious seats in the legislature in the upcoming 2015 and 2016 elections. The Occupy Central co-founders and most of the legislators have advised the students and other protesters to retreat.

Yet even though Hong Kong authorities seem to have prevailed, it’s likely to be a short-lived victory, won on the backs of thousands of overworked, stressed-out, and occasionally injured police officers. The seeds of discord have been sown between the Hong Kong government and a large swath of the population who now believe the chief executive is a stooge of the Chinese government, the police a politicized arm of the establishment. Flash mob-style protests involving hundreds of people mobilized via Facebook, online discussion forums, and smartphone apps have become almost a nightly occurrence in Mong Kok — sometimes aimed at shutting down businesses. This type of pop-up protests may continue as hardened activists seek a way to continue to spread their message after the movement ends, but they may also may further erode support for their cause among the general public. Analysts are rightly concerned that Hong Kong, once known as the pliant seat of Asian capital, will be harder to govern in the future.

Worse yet, the movement has torn at the social fabric of Hong Kong, pitting parents against children, old against young, friends against friends. There are genuine disagreements among Hong Kongers over whether the blockage of roads, disruption of businesses, and provocation of the police are laudable, even if these acts were done in the name of pursuing democracy. The phenomenon of people taking to social media platforms like Facebook or WhatsApp to “un-friend” their acquaintances, sometimes even close family members, who do not share their views is one troubling bellwether of social dispersion.

Everyone in Hong Kong will probably emerge from the Occupy movement a bit bruised, either physically or mentally, but some in Beijing might be smiling. China’s central government has stood fast on the core issue — that Beijing will vet the slate of nominees for Hong Kong’s chief executive in the 2017 election. Years (if not decades) of “united front” work, a term used by China’s ruling Communist Party to describe efforts to hew non-party elites close to its goals, seem to have paid off. Beijing has proven that it knows how to pull the right levers in Hong Kong to wield considerable influence — all of the local government officials toed the line, tycoons spoke out against the occupation, and grassroots groups staged counterprotests. When one businessman took the position that Leung should resign, he was swiftly removed as a delegate to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference as a form of discipline and censure. The ranks of the pro-establishment camp will likely tighten, while the opposition pro-democracy camp is left in disarray amid infighting.

More importantly, Beijing has managed to discredit this brand of student-led protests in the eyes of many mainlanders. In the initial days, Chinese censors tried to erase news of the movement from Chinese social media, going as far as shutting down Instagram, probably fearing copycat movements in the mainland. But as the movement disintegrated and sometimes turned violent, Chinese web portals began to carry news of the Hong Kong protests on a daily basis, often putting emphasis on the mayhem and portraying protesters as hooligans. On Weibo, China’s popular microblogging platform, most comments on the news about Hong Kong’s occupation movement are negative. “After seeing the riots in Hong Kong, I feel like I don’t want democracy,” wrote Wang Hai, a businessman in the eastern city of Dalian. “If mainland China had this type of democracy things would be much worse.”

To be sure, the Chinese government still wants Hong Kong to serve its role as a stable financial capital and a gateway for foreign investment into China, as demonstrated by the Nov. 17 launch of the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect, a long-anticipated program that allows investors in Hong Kong to trade shares on the Shanghai Stock Market, and vice versa. However, the trend of China’s economy growing less reliant on Hong Kong will likely continue, which could mean that Beijing will feel less beholden to calls for wider democratic participation in Hong Kong.

The Occupy Central movement is likely to be remembered as a watershed moment in Hong Kong’s history, when the territory’s politics became toxic, its businesses jittery, its people on edge. On a day-to-day basis, governance of the former British colony will become more challenging as some among the population, particularly the discontented and indignant younger generation, seek ways to undermine the authorities. But from Beijing’s point of view, Occupy Central may turn out to be a positive development, allowing the central government to pull strings among its allies and flex muscles against its foes. Grandpa, it seems, has gotten things under control.
 
Protesters must abandon fantasy of a 'Hong Kong race' free from the mainland

SCMP

Regina Ip says the Occupy protesters who are in effect demanding self-rule - rather than democracy - have been misled by the years of colonial rule into rejecting their Chinese family

By Regina Ip

For months, warnings against Occupy Central sounded by Beijing officials were dismissed as "crying wolf" in some quarters. Protesters had likewise sent many warnings of a "final showdown", but few were able to predict the precise shape that the face-off would eventually take.

The violent clashes between demonstrators and the police last Monday, more than two months after Occupy began, finally put paid to any semblance of "love and peace" and prompted the three chief instigators of Occupy to turn themselves in to the authorities. As students vow to fight on, it will be a while before Occupy can be brought to a close.

As the endgame draws near, debates are under way on what caused Occupy to erupt in such a ferocious manner, causing damage to the economy, cleavages in family and society and a body blow to Hong Kong's reputation as a safe and law-abiding city.

A multitude of factors have been put forward as underlying causes. Among former senior officials, a view has emerged that Occupy was inevitable.

It was inevitable because the protest was not really about democracy. Large numbers were attracted, especially at the start of the protest, by the democracy mantra. But right from the start, the quest for self-rule was evident from slogans - such as "self-determination" - writ large on the backdrop of the stage when students kicked off their sit-in.

In the past year, in several issues of Undergrad, the official publication of the University of Hong Kong students' union, contributors have advocated "self-determination" by "the Hong Kong race".

Occupy is an attempt to redefine "one country, two systems" and, by implication, Hong Kong's relationship with China. By rejecting the decision of the National People's Congress Standing Committee of August 31, which ensures Beijing's say on the outcome of the chief executive election in 2017 via the nominating committee, the Occupy demonstrators are effectively saying no to China's sovereignty over Hong Kong.

Since 1997, Beijing has been nothing but extraordinarily helpful to Hong Kong whenever the latter's economy is in trouble, and extraordinarily tolerant in allowing protests unimaginable on the mainland to thrive in Hong Kong. For a country of 1.3 billion people, which has never known universal suffrage in its 5,000 years of history, it is taking huge risks and a plunge into the unknown by promising Hong Kong ultimate election of the chief executive by universal suffrage. In 2007, it even went further in spelling out a timetable for universal suffrage to happen.

Under the "one country, two systems" arrangement, Hong Kong is also extraordinarily privileged in not having to pay tax to the central authorities or the costs of defence of the territory. (In the colonial era, Hong Kong paid as much as 70 per cent).

Why this rage against the motherland which has done nothing but tried its best to welcome back an "abducted" child with open arms?

Occupy was inevitable because Hong Kong had been a British colony for more than 150 years. Its population includes many who fled to this southern outpost to escape the turmoil that ravaged China during the death throes of the Qing empire and the chaos of the Republican era. It also includes many who fled here for fear of communism. Under British rule, Hong Kong people enjoyed unprecedented rights and freedom, the rule of law and a much higher standard of living. It was ruled as though it was part of the West. While many Chinese families remained steeped in traditional values, Western ideas and institutions exerted indelible influence.

In the last two decades of British rule, the sharp contrast with the much more conservative and regimented Chinese culture and systems was accentuated by the mad dash to usher in democracy and new legislation to strengthen the protection of rights and freedoms. The local officials set to lead the new administration were hardwired to "benchmark" the performance of Hong Kong under China against Western standards, and to defend its system against erosion by authoritarian China. The stage was set for "one country" to be viewed as a threat to "two systems".

The paranoia was aggravated by the tragedy of June 4, 1989, images of which were seared into the memory of Hong Kong people. Since then, annual rituals in remembrance of the lost souls have not helped engender forgiveness or a broader understanding of the context in which the tragic events occurred.

Perhaps the greatest blow to some Hong Kong people's perception of the motherland is the reversal of economic fortune and roles which have followed the economic ascendency of China. Now heavily dependent economically on mainland China, the sense of injured pride has led many to view China as a threat, and fantasise that Hong Kong would be better off as a free-standing "Hong Kong race".

Yet the reality is "Hong Kong race" has no place in the world and Hong Kong's destiny is intertwined with that of China. The sooner our leaders can help the young and the restless come to terms with that, the better. Hong Kong people must muster enough courage and wisdom to find a new place of pride in the family of 1.3 billion.

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee is a legislator and chair of the New People's Party

@Chinese-Dragon , @ChineseTiger1986 , @tranquilium , @Edison Chen , @terranMarine , @cirr , @Keel , @Nihonjin1051

I think Ms Regina Ip has a rather thorough and precise delineation of all the problems that have led to the culmination of the Occupy Central parody except she has shied away from mentioning 1. covert or subversive involvements of foreigner agents durig the event. But why she is avoiding to mention these involvement is understood.
2. The situation of "HK has no place in the world" is precisely the same conundrum facing the radical Taiwanese. By comparison with TW, HK is in a worse position to garner strength for 'independence". Actually there are links circulating on the net that the 2 groups of separatists from TW and HK have been linking or having meetings with each other. An occasion of such meeting was photographed below. Again due to the sensitive diplomatic issues, Ms Ip is not talking much about HK radicals' want to "overthrow the Party" and to foster an "Independent HK".

Nonetheless this is one of the best articles hat I have come across by far :cheesy::tup:

13822504224372201310201425559_70367.jpg


30_141026110357_1.jpg


Li Zhuoren 李卓人 on the far right is caught with receiving millions of HK$ from NED
He was meeting with the ex-DPP leader Shi Mingde 施明德 (bow-tied). The other 2 are the key organisers of OC-HK.




The Sunday Telegraph carries Ambassador Liu Xiaoming's article: "For China and the UK, respect is key"
2014/12/07

W020141207716957897738.jpg




The following is the full text of article by H.E. Ambassador Liu Xiaoming titled "For China and the UK, respect is key",which was carried on 7 December 2014 by the Sunday Telegraph:

There have recently been many reports in the British media about China denying a Commons Foreign Affairs Committee delegation entry into Hong Kong. But most of the reports are one-sided – they only tell the UK's side of the story. As Chinese Ambassador to the United Kingdom, I have a responsibility to help the British public hear China's voice and appreciate my country's position.

Of all the comments from Sir Richard Ottaway, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, there is perhaps only one that I can agree with: "We are not enemies. We are friends and partners." Therefore, in a manner that's fitting for friends and partners, I want to share China's side of the story.

First of all, China cannot agree to the committee's Hong Kong "inquiry" and its visit. The reason is simple: since the handover in 1997, Hong Kong has been, in every sense, part of China. Matters relating to Hong Kong, including political reform, are purely China's internal affairs. The so-called inquiry amounts to interference in those affairs.

According to its statement, the committee wishes to examine the UK Government's position on political reform in Hong Kong, especially universal suffrage. Does universal suffrage in Hong Kong have anything to do with the UK? The answer is no. Even the frequently invoked Sino-British Joint Declaration does not mention a word about universal suffrage, hence the UK Government's reiteration that universal suffrage in Hong Kong is a matter for China's Central Government, the SAR Government and the public of Hong Kong to decide. So it looks like the Foreign Affairs Committee intends to overturn the UK Government's position by intervening in Hong Kong's political reform.

Right now, a visit to Hong Kong by British MPs would pour oil over fire. The illegal "Occupy Central" campaign is still ongoing and the rule of law and public order in Hong Kong is under severe threat. Against such a backdrop, what kind of message would British MPs bring to Hong Kong? They would only feed the arrogance of the illegal activists by giving them the illusion of external support.

For months, the Chinese side has been explaining its position through dialogue. But means of communication were exhausted and persuasions met with disregard.

China's decision to deny the MPs entry into Hong Kong has a solid legal basis, with the full backing of the Constitution of China, the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the basic norms of international law.

When someone – even if it is the Foreign Affairs Committee of the parliament of a foreign country – disregards the strong opposition from the Chinese Government and people, and ignores the repeated dissuasion of the Government of Hong Kong SAR, China's Central Government has the right to act as it sees fit. Likewise, to my knowledge, the UK Government banned an American citizen from entering the country only last month on grounds of the public interest.

The ban on entry was not intended to insult the committee. China was only safeguarding its national sovereignty and security. It was not intended to be a confrontational move. China was only holding to its principles and bottom line. It will certainly not close Hong Kong to foreigners. China was only acting to safeguard the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

In China, we have an old saying: guests do as their host thinks fit. Members of the committee are only guests if they visit Hong Kong: they have no supervisory power. Naturally, it is always the host who decides whom to invite and when – a social etiquette almost anywhere. If uninvited or unwelcome guests insist on coming over, they would certainly be regarded as being arrogant. And to blame the host for refusing to extend his welcome would only be categorised as hysterical.

China has never interfered in the UK's domestic issues. It is not too much for China to expect the same in return? I hope the latest episode will prompt people to calm down, and put themselves in other people's shoes.

China wants good relations with the UK and will continue to work to expand our common interests. It is also ready to continue to engage Westminster in exchanges and co-operation. China, and indeed Hong Kong, is open to goodwill visits by British MPs. I hope they will come to do more things that are in the interests of Hong Kong's stability and prosperity and in the interests of China-UK relations.
 
Last edited:
China should pass a patriotic law.

Anyone who get caught for working as foreign agent, will be jailed as a traitor under military court.

China should pass a patriotic law.

Anyone who get caught for working as foreign agent, will be jailed as a traitor under military court.
 
:coffee: I think the only loser is Taiwan. In this movement, all agents from Taiwan should be eliminated.

KMT is the evilest party in the world. All mafias in Hongkong are branches of KMT. This party should go to the hell.

Bravo DPP, kick their ***!
 
:coffee: I think the only loser is Taiwan. In this movement, all agents from Taiwan should be eliminated.

KMT is the evilest party in the world. All mafias in Hongkong are branches of KMT. This party should go to the hell.

Bravo DPP, kick their ***!

Yep, KMT is always the biggest problem, and most Chinese netizens are definitely supporting DPP this time.

Since DPP is always the biggest closet pro-unification group in Taiwan. :enjoy:
 
There's no such thing as HK race, we all belong to the Han race. When i heard one of the student leader claim Hong Kong people are the master of this city and not Chinese, i couldn't help but laugh at his slogan. Each year they hold vigil in remembrance of June the 4th. yet they have a thing against Mainland Chinese. To keep up with this beating a dead dog game is only a waste of time. They just don't like to admit "game over" due to pride.
The HK race? LOL

:rofl:

That is just too funny.
 
The GMD (KMT) co-operating with the US is no news, but I thought the DPP is even more hardcore anti-China.

DPP is a very strange party, some of them are extremely anti-China, but some of them can become very pro-unification/pro-CPC.

For example, this is the cousin of Taiwan's ex-President Chen Shuibian.

The obvious common thing for both CPC and DPP is that they are all dislike KMT.

1291191939_5jX0bx.jpg
 
DPP is a very strange party, some of them are extremely anti-China, but some of them can become very pro-unification/pro-CPC.

For example, this is the cousin of Taiwan's ex-President Chen Shuibian.

The obvious common thing for both CPC and DPP is that they are all dislike KMT.

View attachment 162466

What? :woot:

The Communist Party of Taiwan? :cheesy:
 
What? :woot:

The Communist Party of Taiwan? :cheesy:

The Communist Party of Taiwan is the left-wing branch of DPP.

This only shows that DPP is a very loose political party with no common ideology.

There are many different factions among them, pro-USA, pro-Japan, pro-CPC.

The difference between these factions are much more than the difference between the neo-conservatism and the paleo-conservatism among the GOP.
 
The central government in Beijing, on the other hand, is likely to be pleased with the turn of events. It has successfully mobilized its allies in Hong Kong and discredited the movement on the mainland.

Just as it should have been. Beijing has not only mobilized its allies, it also received overwhelming public support among HK citizens, namely, the silent majority. In fact the lack of public support has sealed the fate of the protesters. All Beijing had to do was to sit aside and watch the clowns get bruised under public pressure.

HK is divided, even through, is not a bad thing since we know who is the majority and who is the minority.

In China, we have an old saying: guests do as their host thinks fit. Members of the committee are only guests if they visit Hong Kong: they have no supervisory power. Naturally, it is always the host who decides whom to invite and when – a social etiquette almost anywhere. If uninvited or unwelcome guests insist on coming over, they would certainly be regarded as being arrogant. And to blame the host for refusing to extend his welcome would only be categorised as hysterical.

Strong words on part of the Mr. Ambassador. So it came down to teaching the Brit elite on basic social etiquette?
 
Strong words on part of the Mr. Ambassador. So it came down to teaching the Brit elite on basic social etiquette?

The English politicians have lost how to behave accordingly, the Scottish guy who stepped down after losing the independence vote also said the same thing about Cameron not to gossip the British Queen for having a relieved smile upon hearing the news of Scotland's decision not to leave the Union. You just can't kick in the door and invite yourself inside somebody's home now can ya? :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom