
Hong Kong can be a gateway to liberal values for China - baylearn
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/09/10/hong-kong-can-be-a-gateway-to-liberal-values-for-china
======
mytailorisrich
The 'gateway' to liberal values in China really is Taiwan that shows that
China and Chinese culture are compatible with democracy and these values
despite what some claim to justify refusing any such development on the
mainland.

Taiwan is the home of the Chinese state that ruled over the whole country from
1912 to 1949 and it managed a democratic transition.

Hongkong has no "liberal" credentials. It has always (which means 150 years)
been a commercial and trade centre only without democratic tradition and the
recent protests show that politics very quickly turns into "my way or the
highway" on both sides.

~~~
shp0ngle
Taiwan was no democracy until 1989. It had a right-wing dictatorship with a
one-party rule.

~~~
mytailorisrich
Yes, exactly my point.

The political regime was very authoritarian and under martial law, and then
they opened and liberalised.

------
ovi256
This is wishful thinking, the mainland Moloch will devour and assimilate any
traces of liberal values in Hong Kong. It's a tiny morsel by Chinese
standards, they've assimilated much more.

~~~
xwolfi
Heh don't be so sure. At least we're trying, not armchair losing before even
fighting.

China is large, vastly uninformed and HK is very far from liberal values by
western standards. But heh we can show them small improvements, like how to
change their over protective labor law encouraging slacking at work.

------
analyst74
I think that was actually part of the original plan, China didn't have to
agree to the two system thing, but Deng chose to do it. China under Deng's
leadership was very bold on testing big policy changes, from various special
development zones, to limited experiment with democracy in HK.

Sadly several key reformists had to resign after Tiananmen massacre, so when
Deng stepped down, the more conservative forces took over and have been
dominating since.

~~~
bakuninsbart
Small correction: Tiananmen protests started in part because of the death of
one of the biggest reformist voices in the Polit Buro, Hu Yaobang. Other
reformers were sidelined during the protests.

Basically, in the beginning many voices in the CCP and Deng Xiaoping himself
were sympathetic to the protests, but as they dragged on and more radical
voices gained ground with demands like opening the country and introducing
free elections, the tides in the upper (and lower) branches of the CCP turned
against the reformers.

It is also interesting to note that while the reformers have been mostly side-
lined since then, and Xi especially is a hard-right hardliner, the party is
still at least paying lip-service to reformers. - For example one of the key
policy goals of the last 5-year plan was to continue to develop Hong Kong into
a global financial centre and broadly liberalize the chinese economy.

~~~
pishpash
And HK protestors are making the same mistake, radicals have taken over.

~~~
wtdata
Demanding due process and civil liberties is not radical, it's just following
the UN chart for human rights.

EDIT: The immediate downvote of any pro HK civil liberties comment continues
on HN and still @dang, instead of looking into the real issue and into the
number of new accounts created on HN to specifically support the PoC in these
threads, chastises whoever points what is happening.

~~~
ndidi
The UN chart for "human rights" is not some kind of holy scripture.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Just calling all these people from all walks of life "radicals" doesn't even
pass the smell test either way.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d0iqpy/2000_medic...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/d0iqpy/2000_medicial_professionals_singing_do_you_hear/)

You can give up your own human rights however you wish, but not those of
others on their behalf.

[https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-
rights/ind...](https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-
rights/index.html)

edit: wow, I dropped 14 karma in a 13 minutes of posting this comment, because
apparently one or more people are going through older of mine comments and
downvoting anything that can still can be voted on. That's actually the first
time in over 6 years that happened.

------
AndyMcConachie
You gotta love how predictable and consistent The Economist is. When it was
founded in the 19th century it was a strong advocate for forcing China to open
up to British opium. It was important to The Economist then, like it is
important to The Economist now, that westerners be allowed access to Chinese
people and Chinese markets.

One could argue that the United States has been operating a regime change
operation in China since 1949. But The Economist, they've literally been
arguing the same thing since like 1850.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
A guest post from one of the protesters, who happens to be a student at the
University of Washington, is not "The Economist" arguing anything. It couldn't
be more clear that it's an independent view from some third party.

------
JumpCrisscross
No, it can’t. This line assumes a rational, strategic-thinking CCP with long
time horizons.

Pre-Xi, possibly. But Xi is a dictator, a leader for life. He is optimising
for short-term political survival. There is zero chance of China liberalising
until he either dies or is deposed. With respect to either, Hong Kong will
likely be irrelevant.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Hong Kong _could_ be the catalyst for Xi being deposed. Not likely, but it
could happen.

------
powerapple
I guess this is exactly why a popular opinion in mainland China now is that
there is safe net between China and rest of world. Most of them don't want to
be liberated, at least not to outsiders' terms.

~~~
Dude2029
Probably because liberty does not mean prosperity.

~~~
adventured
> Probably because liberty does not mean prosperity.

In the post WW2 era, it has overwhelmingly meant that. Not subtly, not kinda
sorta, overwhelmingly. And the lack of liberty has overwhelmingly meant
poverty.

The scales are so radically tilted toward those things, that the outliers are
few on each side, counted on one hand typically.

Prosperous + high degrees of liberty: Switzerland, Norway, Ireland, Iceland,
US, Canada, UK, Denmark, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Austria,
Germany, Belgium, France, Japan, Israel, New Zealand, Italy, South Korea,
Spain

You know, just nearly all the most affluent nations on the planet. Nearly all
the most prosperous nations are also high liberty nations.

The list continues even further on down the line: Taiwan, Portugal, Estonia,
Slovenia, Czech, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Poland

Even Romania for example now has a GDP per capita well exceeding that of China
and Russia. How is that possible, that Romania is embarrassing Russia
economically? One has far more liberty than the other; one is democratic, the
other is autocratic to an extreme. In the not so distant future, Romania will
double Russia's GDP per capita. Russia's liberty deprivation is beginning to
show itself - again - in their economic regression (eg falling incomes for 5-6
years) and general stagnation.

What are examples of very impoverished high liberty nations? There are
exceptionally few. So few I would challenge anybody to name more than three or
four out of ~196 nations.

Outliers in the prosperous group when it comes to low liberty? Also
exceptionally few: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE

The low liberty group of nations is dramatically dominated by poverty by
comparison.

~~~
raquo
> Russia's liberty deprivation is beginning to show itself - again - in their
> economic regression (eg falling incomes for 5-6 years) and general
> stagnation.

Let's be fair, the last few years recession in Russia was largely, if not
entirely, caused by post-Crimea sanctions and crashed global oil prices, it
had little if anything to do with liberty deprivation.

As to the general point, nobody in Russia knows or cares how well off an
average American is. People care how well off they are relative to their own
yesterday. Russians know they have it better today than in the 90s, and they
(think they) know whom to thank for that. I guess same goes for Chinese as
their economy has been growing wildly at the time, although I have no personal
experience there.

To be extra clear, this does not mean at all that autocracy contributed to
that growth in any positive way – most probably the opposite, – only that it
appears so from the inside, as without freedom of speech it is very easy for
the regime to take credit for any improvements and blame the west for any
setbacks. Russia excels at that game domestically, which explains why Russians
are largely fine with the relatively small amount of freedoms they're
enjoying. Again, probably a similar situation in China.

(I didn't downvote you, just wanted to expand on GP's point)

~~~
ur-whale
> Let's be fair, the last few years recession in Russia was largely, if not
> entirely, caused by post-Crimea sanction

And where did the Crimea sanction come from, if not from an autocratic,
follow-the-leader regime who created the problem in the first place?

~~~
raquo
The sanctions came from liberal nations, to state the obvious. An external
enemy, as far as Russians are concerned. The same countries never sanctioned
USA over any of its similarly unjustified wars or the coup d'etat-s it
organized. It's a matter of power relative to other nations, not the level of
democracy in the aggressor.

Again, I'm not defending Crimea invasion by any means, but the original
question is why do people accept autocracy, and the answer lies in their
perception as much as actual truth, neither of which should be ignored.

------
wei_jok
The author of this story was a front line protester involved in the LegCo
incident in early July.

He is a currently PhD student studying political science abroad.

Not sure he will ever be able to return to HK ...

An interview with him about the smashing of LegCo building:
[https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/politics/article/3017530...](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/politics/article/3017530/only-unmasked-protester-hong-kong-legco-
takeover-has-fled)

------
rsj_hn
They say that history repeats, first time as tragedy and the second time as
farce. I think with HK, the situation is reverse. It was farce in 1996 and
tragedy today.

Just before the handover, when there was a buzz of discussion around the
relationship between Hong Kong and China, one of the common talking points in
the West was that legally China may be absorbing HK, but economically HK would
absorb China. The party line was that

1\. China needed more foreign capital inflows, and so HK would be a model of
open capital markets. (see this Rockefeller report:

"One important component of this trade, and a major engine of Chinese economic
growth, has been the freer flow of foreign capital into the Chinese economy.
Foreign- funded enterprises — the majority of which are supported by overseas
Chinese based in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other countries in Southeast Asia —
account for more than one-third of Chinese exports."
[https://www.rbf.org/sites/default/files/attachments/china_co...](https://www.rbf.org/sites/default/files/attachments/china_confronts_the_challenge_of_globalization.pdf)

2\. China would need to democratize more to overcome problems with CCP rule.

3\. China's economy was reaching diminishing returns in the current system.

I recommend reading the summaries of that Rockefeller paper, starting on page
4.

HK was so much wealthier and advanced whereas China was considered backwards,
and so it was just assumed that China would be copying HK as much as they can.

The reality proved..different. China became an industrial powerhouse
(something HK never was) much more dependent on capital outflows than inflows.
It increased centralization, reversing Deng's reforms. It did not suffer any
diminished capacity to either act internationally (see Belt and Road) or to
increase industrialization. There was no devolution, no reform, no
democratization, and no financialization or internationalization of the
economic decision making process. Even culturally, HK had a movie industry in
the 90s that was completely eclipsed by mainland China. Same for fine arts,
classical music, everything. There is no area, either cultural or economic,
where HK has a leadership role now.

And the position of HK as a crucial financial gateway to China that allowed
China to access western capital began to fade, as did the wealth discrepancy
between top tier cities in China and HK. At this point, HK's economy is
underperforming mainland China and most mainland Chinese don't view it as
having any kind of leadership role, either as demonstrating a system to be
emulated and admired or even as demonstrating a possible path forward for
China, which is deep into nationalism and xenophobia.

So today, given the huge reversal of importance of HK and China, to be
bringing out this old line -- it seems crazy.

------
dragonsh
How Hong Kong can be gateway to liberal values when it itself cannot be
liberal enough to reconcile with the fact that everyone in Hong Kong is a
Chinese citizen (except few permanent residents) following Chinese nationality
law. Unless it cannot be liberal enough to acknowledge it's true state how can
it serve as an example to others.

For people who lived in Hong Kong before 1997 and after it Hong Kong people
(except the discriminated groups) discrimated openly people from China and
other parts of Asia except Japan. If they happen to seat in MTR, the Hong Kong
person will not seat next to them even, deny them jobs due to ethnocity.
Indeed in some cases they run full page ads against them openly without
repurcussions, which might result in a severe punishment in UK in the form of
libel laws, in USA in the firm of racial discrimination.

There are no laws against racial discrimination or discrimation based on color
in Hong Kong. There is a small toothless organization trying to show as if
they care.

This is laughable by the economist to even think Hong Kong can ever be an
example of liberal values to Chinese in China who did not treat people from
other parts of Asia with open contempt like in Hong Kong.

Again as it is a minority view I know it will be downvoted, but for people who
lived there know the truth.

~~~
Arn_Thor
It is true that mainlanders face discrimination in Hong Kong. But let's not
forget that a huge portion, if not the majority, of people who call themselves
Hong Kongers were born in the mainland, or have parents that came from the
mainland. So it's worth examining where those feelings of ill will towards
mainland Chinese come from, because it's certainly not ethnic.

Hong Kong has a very "western" culture (for lack of a better term, because
Hong Kong certainly has a heady mix of Chinese, British and American culture,
with the rest of Asia sprinkled in). The increase in anti-mainland sentiment
seems to me to correlate closely with the fear of Chinese government
encroachment on Hong Kong's institutions, and outright attacks on those
institutions and values. From national security legislation, to education
reform, to reducing the prominence of Cantonese, to the stifling of the free
press by purchases of news organizations by mainland companies, all of this
creates a feeling among Hong Kongers that they are losing the way of life they
treasure.

In addition to that, there is the economic pressure from rising property
prices spurred by endless flows of money and people (albeit in quotas) from
the mainland, and world-record income and wealth inequality (a problem Hong
Kong's government set itself up for long before the handover).

This is in no way a defense of the despicable treatment many mainland Chinese
have experienced in Hong Kong. That is indefensible, and it is shameful in an
otherwise liberal society. But it is just that, an exception to the rule in a
liberal society being squeezed relentlessly by the mainland government—and
most lately by the Hong Kong government itself, which no longer makes its own
decisions.

~~~
calyth2018
> This is in no way a defense of the despicable treatment many mainland
> Chinese have experienced in Hong Kong. That is indefensible, and it is
> shameful in an otherwise liberal society. But it is just that, an exception
> to the rule in a liberal society being squeezed relentlessly by the mainland
> government—and most lately by the Hong Kong government itself, which no
> longer makes its own decisions.

It is hardly an exception. Being a HK born, and lived abroad, I've seen
exactly the same kind of discrimination that the previous poster had
mentioned, the ones toward mainlanders.

When I was working in HK, I've heard barbs behind my back about how I'm here
stealing jobs. Online, I've seen barbs about how just because people like me
have "the 3 stars", the right of abode, it doesn't mean that people like me
are Hong Kongers.

During my time there, I got along with the mainlanders working in the office
because of these reasons. They throw barbs behind my back, but when they have
no choice but needed my help, either they put on a thin veneer of civility, or
couldn't simply be forthright about it.

They believe the reasons why HKers from overseas advance in their career
because of who they are, but never questioned why. Perhaps they done more work
that delivered more value, willing to take risks for their career, instead of
relying on this magical status of "studying abroad".

A lot of Hong Kongers feel inferior compared to others, and it partly has to
do with the education system - largely a carry over from the Colonial days
that punishes students severely from being "wrong", stifling creative thinking
and risk taking; and partly has to do with Hong Kongers in general with their
discriminatory streak.

> The increase in anti-mainland sentiment seems to me to correlate closely
> with the fear of Chinese government encroachment on Hong Kong's
> institutions, and outright attacks on those institutions and values.

This is the lie that Hong Kongers like to tell themselves. The anti-mainland
sentiment had always been around. The word 阿燦[1] came to be in the late 70s.
That dark undercurrent had always been there, alongside the discrimination
towards Filipino and Indonesian maids and their treatment. New slang term came
up and took their place, dehumanizing them to locusts, or start calling them
derogatory terms dating back to WW2.

A Bangladeshi-Canadian friend of mine and I just visited last year. He knew he
was going to be discriminated upon in China, but was taken aback by the amount
of discrimination he had seen in Hong Kong. He recounted about how daggers
were coming out of peoples' eyes, even your typical servers at a restaurant,
and they had only relented when he spoke in Canadian English. This is
_particularly_ telling, because they had expected him to speak in an South
Asian accent, and already lumped him into that group that had always been
looked down upon.

You can see this with the initial protests, outside of government buildings,
it's typically in TST / MK, where a lot of mainland tourists tends to shop;
and border towns in NT where mainland grey-market buyers tend to grab milk
formula. And this went on full-display when they occupied the airport, and
held the two mainlanders. The protesters said that they had been anxious of
instigators, but the fact of the matter is, their discriminatory sense was on
full display, and if one were to look at it at the point of view of the
protest-supporter, it was a colossal strategic mistake.

> Hong Kong has a very "western" culture (for lack of a better term, because
> Hong Kong certainly has a heady mix of Chinese, British and American
> culture, with the rest of Asia sprinkled in). By this, you mean if one were
> White, they'd look at them fondly. If one had dark skin, then they'd look
> down on them, either because they're labourers, e.g. Filipino / Indonesian
> maids at near indentured-servitude; or part of the people segregated into
> their own enclaves.

\---

Articles like these masks the core problems underneath, the deep-seated
discrimination that had been festering for decades. The sentiments that HK has
a western culture, or it was liberal, or democratic, and had it taken from
them ignores a lot of the realities on the ground, and history. Colonial HK
only got its first indirect-election in '85 [2], after the Joint-Declaration;
the first direct election in '91 [3]. The article lamented that the LegCo
wasn't 100% directly elected, but rarely people look back and figure out that
the functional constituency [4] is from the Colonial days, and pro-democratic
leaders like Martin Lee and Szeto Wah was elected through the FC in '85 [2]

1:
[https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%98%BF%E7%87%A6](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%98%BF%E7%87%A6)
2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Hong_Kong_legislative_ele...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Hong_Kong_legislative_election)
3:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Hong_Kong_legislative_ele...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Hong_Kong_legislative_election)
4:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_\(Hong_Kong\))

~~~
Arn_Thor
All this to say "Many Hong Kongers are racist". That's correct, sadly. But
there is no doubt that anti-parallel trader demonstrations are a new
phenomenon, and directly correlated to the disruption to daily life in the
border areas. This has not all arisen out of nowhere.

------
steenreem
I'd be very interested in understanding mainland Chinese sentiment better. My
impression is that there is a lot of love for the current Chinese political
system, and I'd like to understand why that is. Can anyone refer me to writing
pieces that focus on this?

~~~
dirtyid
[https://supchina.com/2019/07/22/why-do-chinese-people-
like-t...](https://supchina.com/2019/07/22/why-do-chinese-people-like-their-
government/)

------
DeonPenny
Stop trying to make china something they are willing to fight be. Stop
financing authoritarians on your way to doing so.

------
emptyfile
Pure, unadulterated propaganda on HN... I despair. Even worse it's total
nonsense.

------
m00dy
"Hong Kong can be a gateway to liberal values for China". Oh really ? Is China
aware of this ? I think we should stop trying to export western values to
China. Ladies, Gentlemen and all non-binary people, I have a news for you.
These guys are a bit different.

~~~
DeonPenny
Exactly we should be exporting anything their or doing business with them

