My blogs have always been very unpopular, which isn't surprising, even to myself really. They are subjective, wrong most of the time, very controversial and mostly boring and formating still sucks (even at 10K post, I am still a noob at formatting hahaha).
But today I am still writing another blog because I don't know what will happen to me next. And this blog is going to suck as well, but as usual, I have editted, re-editted, reformatted and re-typing the whole thing until I don't even know what I am typing anymore.
From tomorrow, I will be joining the Occupy Central, a movement that should update its name to Occupy Hong Kong (for full story about this movement, you can go read up on r/worldnews or bbc)
I will be joining tomorrow after work and staying there for at least 2 nights because it will be a public holiday, which ironically, is the China's PRC birthday.
================================================================================= The whole situation looks fairly calm for now, but there is a sense of danger lingering around.
The protesters are mostly sitting around and occupying the roads while the police is watching, or throwing tear gas or 'convincing us' or doing whatever on the other side. I won't be at the front for sure, because people can't actually go in anymore.
But anything can happen: 1. China can intervene (though I think they would do it cleverly such as pretending to be one of us and leading people to break in stores). 2. Someone gone all aggressive due to exhaustion and lead to chaotic situation where people will trample each other. 3. Someone gone aggressive and lead to confrontation against the police.
It's likely that I am just pessimistic, but with the stern stance from the government, I would like to think I am just being logical.
=============================================================================== I am a coward, I have always been a coward, I get bullied around at work sometimes just because I am willing to do extra work to make sure everything goes well.
What caused this strange bravery that grew inside me results from watching others, some of whom are more afraid than me, some of whom are younger students, some of whom are elders.
When I saw them lighting their phone torch all together, I know that this is maybe, the last chance that we have. The spotlight from international papers, the people backing us up before they get fed up at losing their livings. (it is already happening, one political member who is supporting this movement, was kneeing on ground to beg for understanding and taking all the insults from the annoyed ones)
So tomorrow, if you turn on the TV and happen to see any video footage of us, remember that in there somewhere, there is a StarCraft 2 player from Hong Kong, who post shitty blogs and stupid balance whining arguments, lighting up the light of the democracy before it dies away.
Why is China being so heavy handed with this protest? I thought the whole point of the 'One Country, Two Systems' was to entice Taiwan back into the fold.
Because if China does not suppress this protest it will spread to the mainland and there are many pissed off millions ready to start a shitstorm. I was going to make a whole post about this but I'll refrain.
edit: If this type of protest would happen in a Mainland China city, it would not last a day. Actually it probably wouldn't even get a chance to brew up. But China will leave it to the HK government to deal with it, eventually this protest will melt away and just be another piece in the history books. It will not deter Beijing's political influence.
On September 29 2014 22:45 iHirO wrote: Why is China being so heavy handed with this protest? I thought the whole point of the 'One Country, Two Systems' was to entice Taiwan back into the fold.
I cannot speak for Taiwan because I am not familiar with it.
The problem of Hong Kong recently is the suddenly influx of Chinese who buys up lots of daily products and use up public space such as hospital. The slow response from the Hong Kong government drove the anger against the Chinese and HK government.
Then there was another issue with Government being ignorant to the public choice for one of the HK free TV channel. Somehow it just didn't make it to the list despite it being the best. (most likely because it is not easily manipulated by Chinese government but it's a guess at best of cause)
Then there was another issue with "national education" where schools were forced to teach "national" knowledge. This is, of cause, very pro-china materials. and eventually people came out and it was removed.
And lastly the basic law. China added a condition that the voting candidates for the prime minister of Hong Kong must love the country and love Hong Kong and basically said it is assumed so.
The new voting system is going to be: there will be three candidates selected from some groups and we have to vote between them. All of which will be "love the country and love Hong Kong".
Normally I would argue this is ok, but as you know, in China, love the country also means love the party. Love the country is placed before love Hong Kong. Therefore it is Love the party before anything.
And that means our prime ministers will not speak for us anymore. It has to think China then Hong Kong. The order of this line of thinking is already affecting us greatly.
The key point about this is that: China will never back down, it needs to be ruthless about this to keep the other cities in China know the PRC is determined to destroy any uprising. BUT China will have to think about Taiwan as well, the world is watching, Taiwan especially is very concerned. There is a saying: "Today's Hong Kong, Tomorrow's Taiwan".
======================================================================================= I wish more people would know our situation, but it is afterall, just a city. We can only get so much attention for so long.
One day our news are all going to be censored (You can almost read nothing about this in Baidu news, which is the chinese google) Our education system will be biased as hell. Our prime minister, no matter how horrible, will not back down because it has power. Worst of all, China is about "Party Power before Law".
When the Chinese sent a spokeman to speak to us about the basic law to calm the crowd down, he started with: "Today I called up the Air control department head and told him I cannot be late for this" This was supposed to show China's concern and care about the situation, right?
But for us, Hong Kong people, this is crazy. A single person has the power to influence the whole public air flight transportation system, and he isn't even a big BIG member of the party.
In Hong Kong, no matter how high in position you are, you got caught doing shit, you will be going to court. If you are rich, you might get away with lesser punishment. But never, anyone is BIGGER than law.
The one central reason, sort of the smoking gun is that they are protesting for universal suffrage. In the 2017 Chief Executive Election Hong Kong citizens are allowed to vote from a pool of candidates but there is a catch. They are only allowed to cast their votes on 3 candidates that must first be pre-approved or nominated by a committee of top Beijing officials.
Man another thing Margret Thatcher messed up. I mean she had alot on her plate at the time, lots of changes. But the 99 year lease that ended in 1997 has all pretty much led up to this point. China is free to do what it wants with Hong Kong they look to have chosen now to tighten the restraints onto the country. Why now im not sure but it seems like they are ready to absorb Hong Kong? Or at least make it look that way.
Famous line when reading up on why the british empire gave up Hong Kong so easily was;
During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon". Thatcher replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like"
When you realize how much China wanted Hong Kong back you realize that it was never going be keeping up to the treaty it signed. Or treaties as it were.
Back to your point of view, good luck! Please stay safe and don't do stupid things.
The Treaty of Nanking resulting in Hong Kong being handed to the British was widely viewed by China as an unequal treaty. The Treaty of Nanking meant that China permanently ceded parts of Kowloon and HK Island to the British. It was only the question of the 99-year lease of the New Territories to the British that led to the eventual handover, since the British realised during negotiations that China had absolutely no intention of relinquishing New Territories. Hong Kong could not survive without access to Guangdong and a link to the mainland (along with being indefensible militarily). As a result, Hong Kong was handed over in it's entirety.
It strikes me as particularly ironic that a lot some of the political leaders behind Occupy Central claims that Deng's did intend to give 'democracy' to Hong Kong through the 'One Country, Two Systems', when in reality Deng was the authority behind the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. The reality is that Hong Kong is in an incredibly difficult headache for Beijing. Hong Kong serves as an 'experiment' of sorts for Beijing in further social reforms. Unfortunately, even if more liberal and progressive elements of the National Party would like to afford Hong Kong further leeway, Beijing still has to consider it's interest in places like Tibet, Taiwan etc. From Beijing's perspective, it would be a dangerous precedent to let one city of 6-7 million people get completely free elections whilst the other one billion Chinese citizens watch.
Personally, I do support an eventual move to democracy but I don't particularly support the Occupy Central movement.
Yeah thanks for that post baggage, i find this story very interesting and like reading more and more facts/opinions about what is going on.
Do you think if in say 5-10 years and China has more control in Hong Kong in the way it is pushing it politically that it will push out and try and take taiwan etc? Or am i miss reading the whole situation?
GL, I lived in Zhuhai for a couple semesters and spent my fair share of time in HK. It always interested me how people from HK seemed to be of the few with political motivations still in China; on the most general of curves the Chinese from the mainland I met seemed to have defaulted to, "Yes it is like this, but there is nothing that we can do about it."
I really have a hard time imagining HK being fully integrated ever into the mainland, same with Macau. They are too different and make too much money.
The main instrument guiding political reform in Hong Kong is the 'Hong Kong Basic Law'' that acts as a sort of mini-constitution. Article 45 states:
"The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government." "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures."
The current protests generally stem from people's unhappiness at the slow pace of reform for Universal Suffrage. On August 31, Beijing's legislative body the National People's Congress Standing Committee (that acts as ultimate judicial authority for matters concerning the Basic Law), stated the the 2017 Chief Executive would be elected through one person, one vote but would require 50% approval from a select 1200 nominee committee. As a result, there are concerns that this would force Chief Executives to be extremely 'pro-Beijing'.
In all honesty, I think that China has been relatively patient in it's dealings with Hong Kong. As OP has mentioned there were incidences regarding National Education and Article 23 (sedition and subversion), that has sparked public outrage and was postponed indefinitely. Although there may have been situations where China may have exerted influence since the handover, Hong Kong has been relatively autonomous from a legislative and judicial standpoint - particularly when you compare it to the judicial attitude in Macau. People are primarily concerned that the reform packages will eventually lead the executive and legislative elements of government to follow Beijing.
At this point China can never forcibly try to seize back control of Taiwan as Taiwan is protected by the US (which is also why China continues to support North Korea). My ambivalence over the current matter is that democracy for the sake of democracy is somewhat naive and silly. For me the main draw, of Democracy is it's transparency in governance and ability to uphold individual rights and freedoms. As long as the political system in place allows people to enjoy their human rights and freedoms (along with rule of law), then I would be satisfied. To say that Communism and Socialism do not support rights is simply wrong - they simply choose to prioritise economic/social rights over individual rights and freedoms.
I have always thought that China's stance towards Hong Kong was to slowly entirely assimilate it making it just another PRC City, but had that been the case they would probably use this movement as an opportunity to speed up the proces in the name of "peace" or whatnot (parallels to the Crimea situation, though that may be a bit out of place). Since they don't seem to do that, my conception may have been wrong which is interesting.
On September 30 2014 00:47 Baggage wrote: The main instrument guiding political reform in Hong Kong is the 'Hong Kong Basic Law'' that acts as a sort of mini-constitution. Article 45 states:
"The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government." "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures."
The current protests generally stem from people's unhappiness at the slow pace of reform for Universal Suffrage. On August 31, Beijing's legislative body the National People's Congress Standing Committee (that acts as ultimate judicial authority for matters concerning the Basic Law), stated the the 2017 Chief Executive would be elected through one person, one vote but would require 50% approval from a select 1200 nominee committee. As a result, there are concerns that this would force Chief Executives to be extremely 'pro-Beijing'.
In all honesty, I think that China has been relatively patient in it's dealings with Hong Kong. As OP has mentioned there were incidences regarding National Education and Article 23 (sedition and subversion), that has sparked public outrage and was postponed indefinitely. Although there may have been situations where China may have exerted influence since the handover, Hong Kong has been relatively autonomous from a legislative and judicial standpoint - particularly when you compare it to the judicial attitude in Macau. People are primarily concerned that the reform packages will eventually lead the executive and legislative elements of government to follow Beijing.
At this point China can never forcibly try to seize back control of Taiwan as Taiwan is protected by the US (which is also why China continues to support North Korea). My ambivalence over the current matter is that democracy for the sake of democracy is somewhat naive and silly. For me the main draw, of Democracy is it's transparency in governance and ability to uphold individual rights and freedoms. As long as the political system in place allows people to enjoy their human rights and freedoms (along with rule of law), then I would be satisfied. To say that Communism and Socialism do not support rights is simply wrong - they simply choose to prioritise economic/social rights over individual rights and freedoms.
Ahhh, thanks for your insight I am to your opinion to in the last paragraph :D
Also i see why Taiwan would be a very "interesting" situation!
Honestly the way I see it its more of a anti-Beijing movement than pro-democracy. When Britain ruled Hong Kong for a century, they also appointed their own executives. But I guess in the eyes of HK, Britain brought them from a fishing village to the financial powerhouse, now CCP wants more control in how things are done.
There is this feeling in Hong Kong that we are losing the things that make Hong Kong what it is: rule of law, freedom of speech and press, fairness and so on. It seems that with every day these principles are trampled on by the Chinese. The police are now often criticized for obstructing peaceful demonstrations. Most press are now fearful of being overtly anti-CCP. A potential television broadcaster was denied a licence for unconvincing reasons. Property prices have risen beyond reach of most people. The education department attempted to introduce a very pro-CCP civics course to all schools. And China's shadowy hand seems to be behind this. The universal suffrage question was just the last straw that broke the camel's back. China absolutely refused to give any hope of a fair election. Thus the people of Hong Kong have come out onto the streets. The frustration is longstanding. We have been remarkably patient already.
To say that Communism and Socialism do not support rights is simply wrong - they simply choose to prioritise economic/social rights over individual rights and freedoms.
lol
"right of party members to engage in blatant nepotism," I guess
On September 30 2014 00:47 Baggage wrote: To say that Communism and Socialism do not support rights is simply wrong - they simply choose to prioritise economic/social rights over individual rights and freedoms.
This is both bullshit and at the same time kind of sad - provided that you really believe this. The whole concept of "economic/social rights" has been specifically designed as a propaganda tool to make it sound better. Or, if you really believe that you have the "right" to take money from others or practically enslave them or to do any other of the things non-recipients of benefits in any so socialistic society are subjected to, you mat call it that way, but it is some really twisted logic.
There are no other human rights than individual ones, that just does not make sense. If a person has a right, it means that he/she is allowed and able to take some specific set of actions. Using the term for anything else is just rhetorical abuse.
Honestly, this blog was the first I heard of Hong Kong's recent protests. I've been looking more and more into it as different stories and accounts pop up. There's a great video of protesters filling the streets here:
Sorry if it isn't great quality or anything, I am still new to photography and I am sure it is too heavily post processed anyway. =========================================================================================== Some thoughts: I went to the most peaceful region of the occupy movement but I kept having hallucination of police siren (due to poor sleep, my GF is from mainland and she is afraid the gov would crack down on us, I had roughly 5 hours sleep and a whole day of work before i went to support the people)
Police were completely absent, and it turned into some kind of a carnival of democracy. Some tourists came to raised our spirit, some even provide suppliers to us.
Most of the whole place is ran by students. They use social chat on mobile phone to arrange manpower and materials across different areas in Hong Kong. Tram stations are turned into first aid stations, with the more experienced and licensed (?) ones standing by at all time.
There were a huge rain with lightning at night and they calmly arranged everyone to do whatever, people helped actively. There were students walking around to ask for garbage and put cargo boxes and identifying them which is plastic bottles and other wastes etc.
Some people were dropping soap water from their flats high above but the girl who got hit reacted calmly (well, more like "arrrrr I got stuff on my hair Q_Q" reaction).
Some cafe and restaurants offered free power supplier recharge and free unlimited wifi.
This is something I wish can be done every once a year, a peaceful occupy movement for one day for people to gather up and write messages about love and peace. The whole atmosphere is amazing.
I only have around 3 hours sleep and spent hours post processing the photos (mostly because I am just new to this) and upload to flickr. so this post is probably messy, sorry
I am very worried that if the government doesn't back down in any way possible at all, then these movements will begin to fade, people will want to see more results from all these efforts and some would determine they need to make it bigger and worse.
In the mean time, the hong kong prime minister, when asked will he resign due to this, he answered that even if he resigns, the next prime minister will be elected in the same way he did (no public vote on the election candidates)
On September 30 2014 00:47 Baggage wrote: To say that Communism and Socialism do not support rights is simply wrong - they simply choose to prioritise economic/social rights over individual rights and freedoms.
This is both bullshit and at the same time kind of sad - provided that you really believe this. The whole concept of "economic/social rights" has been specifically designed as a propaganda tool to make it sound better. Or, if you really believe that you have the "right" to take money from others or practically enslave them or to do any other of the things non-recipients of benefits in any so socialistic society are subjected to, you mat call it that way, but it is some really twisted logic.
There are no other human rights than individual ones, that just does not make sense. If a person has a right, it means that he/she is allowed and able to take some specific set of actions. Using the term for anything else is just rhetorical abuse.
Perhaps my wording could have been more carefully chosen, with "economic and social rights over political and civil rights". It is important to note that "Human Rights" (as people largely recognise) as a term has only really began to develop in the 20th century. Although human rights are meant to be universal, that does not mean every culture will have the same understanding with regards to its implementation and existence. Our current human rights model was largely sourced from the West with little to no input from other cultures (Islam, Asia etc.). Although I'm not personally defending a cultural relativist approach to human rights, it does mean that certain cultures would naturally be suspicious. However, I do believe that Chinese leaders to a certain extent do actually appreciate human rights, albeit with reservations and conservativeness. The evolution of rights in China is "top to bottom", rather than "bottom up" in most liberal democracies.
Been following the news on this rather closely. My wife is originally from Hong Kong and we visit regularly (love that city). The Hong Kong people are amazing and I wish them all the best in finding some worthwhile resolution.
EPT
