
'Today, Hong Kong; Tomorrow, Taiwan:' Resistance to China Spreads - lawrenceyan
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/Today-Hong-Kong-tomorrow-Taiwan-Resistance-to-China-spreads
======
taiwanboy
Tech/media related issue here is that

1.) There are many media companies in Taiwan that have taken
subsidies/investments from the Chinese government. For example, the richest
Taiwanese, Tsai eng-meng, currently lives in Shanghai, and owns many tv
stations and newspapers in Taiwan. Many of these tv stations are watched by
the older generations, and a lot of the channels are politics focused. Thus
these channels usually have a pro-China angle on them: how well China is doing
economically, and ignores any sort of xinjiang/Hong Kong/trade war
problems/economic slowdowns/human rights issues China has. I shuddered when an
older relative told me that the tv show had told him that concentration camps
for Uighurs are ok because it keeps the peace.

And don’t think this is restricted to Taiwan. China has spread its media
influence to other democratic countries in the world as well.

2.) hacking politicians. The pro-China presidential candidate, Han-Kuo-yu, was
a literal unknown 6 months before the election for city of kaoshung. However,
thanks to a (purported) digital influence campaign by Chinese hackers, he won
the election. Then he declared to run for president, without having
accomplished much of anything for the city. This sort of thing could also
happen to US, in that China could interfere in the 2020 election.

~~~
supertiger
how arrogant do you have to be to attribute Han's success to Chinese hackers?

~~~
taiwanboy
Careful there with the personal attack.

I put purported there for a reason. Han promised riches for citizens of
kaoshung, went to visit China right after the election, and yet haven’t done a
single thing yet to improve the city, before running for president.

~~~
cttet
This is not a valid argument to support your speculations though. With the
same logic, almost every politician is questionable.

~~~
tempguy9999
> This is not a valid argument to support your speculations though

This was not speculation, it was a claim. Though I'd agree he did not provide
links to support his claim.

> With the same logic, almost every politician is questionable

True, if every politician was indeed "a literal unknown 6 months before the
election". But at least in the west this is rather unusual, so I can't accept
your claim.

~~~
cttet
I was replying to the previous comment and refer to the exact comment.

The previous comment did not mention this, instead, it is "Han promised riches
for citizens of kaoshung, went to visit China right after the election, and
yet haven’t done a single thing yet to improve the city, before running for
president.".

What I was saying is that this is not a valid argument.

------
_cs2017_
I expected the Beijing government would (a) continuously improve its image in
Hong Kong, and (b) monitor HK public opinion to ensure they don't push its
agenda to the point where it would risk instability.

How in the world did they mess up so badly? It looks like a completely
unforced error: prior to the extradition proposal, there was no social unrest,
and barely any political activism. The time was on the Beijing side.

It seems that someone is terrible at their job. If I was Xi, I would fire
Carrie Lam, and appoint someone more capable in her place. Someone who can
understand and relate to the public, who can earn the respect of the
population, who recognizes the long term interests of Beijing and yet knows
how to trade them off against the need for stability.

I know it's easy to criticize, but I think it's reasonable to have high
expectations from HK Chief Executive. And it's very sad to watch a great city
threatened by the leader's incompetence.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
One of the problems with power is that the more power you have, the less truth
you hear. Xi has grabbed total control of power in China, and one of the
results is that people almost certainly tell him what they think he wants to
hear, rather than what he _needs_ to hear.

~~~
_cs2017_
If that's the case, hopefully, he can learn from the clear screwups like this
that his team fails at keeping him informed. And hopefully he can still find
people who can do more than flatter and kowtow, and get them to advise him.

I do think though that things are not as bad as in ancient China. I think
people are trying to inform him, they are just not very good at it.

~~~
kenneth
So you want him to succeed?

~~~
rshawshaw
why not?

~~~
pertymcpert
Why do you want him to? Why do you support the CCP? Why the new account?

~~~
_cs2017_
(Answering a parent post)

> So you want him to succeed?

Xi pursues many different objectives, and I don't know what most of them are.
I suspect I would support some but not all of his objectives, and some but not
all of the methods he's using to achieve those objectives. (I would say the
same if you asked about almost any other world leader or political movement.)
Therefore, I cannot answer your question with a simple yes or no.

However, the relevant question is much simpler: do I want Xi to follow
policies that endanger stability and prosperity across Asia? The answer is a
very clear no. So I really hope that his advisors will help him avoid such
policies.

------
tempguy9999
Something something golden goose.

I understand that HK is an asset and I presume china wishes to keep it an
asset but they must, at some level anyway, realise that they will choke it if
they grab it, but grab it apparently they must.

ISTM china can either have some of what it wants, or try for all and
eventually get none, and they seem to be heading for the latter. I don't
understand the thinking. So can anyone enlighten me as to the economic and
political theory behind it?

Edit: I may be plain wrong and they genuinely can have it all, I just don't
see how.

~~~
pertymcpert
HK economically is not significant to China. It wants to control it for
ideological reasons. If it destroys the economy, that's a price it will be
willing to pay.

~~~
Schnitz
What they are really scared about is that Hong Kong and Taiwan demonstrate
that other systems than an authoritarian one party dictatorship can work well
in a "Chinese" society. The mainland party line is that democracy wouldn't
work for "Chinese" because whatever culture thousands years of history blah
blah bs and that sounds a bit stupid if there are flourishing democracies in
HK and TW. It's all about keeping the lid on the mainland.

~~~
rshawshaw
China cares about Unity. American coins are minted with a Latin saying "e
pluribus unum", which means "Out of many, one". It's a reminder that there
were 13 colonies that united to become one. Hence the name the "United States
of America".

China and America are alike in that they value unity. The difference is that
America has never lost a territory whereas China lost two: Taiwan to Japan and
Hong Kong to Britain. In the process the people in Taiwan and Hong Kong who
valued Chinese culture were killed by the Japanese and British and the ones
who remain went along with the new regime to survive.

China is trying to reclaim their land and people. But unlike the Japanese and
British, they don't want to reclaim it with force/violence because the people
of Taiwan and Hong Kong are Chinese. Instead they are looking for a more
agreeable path towards re-integration.

But honestly, it would be easier to do what Japan did to Taiwan b/c then the
protests would end quickly and all you'd be left with are people who are
outwardly compliant. It's a tricky situation and the western world is really
playing it up to make China look like the bad guy while ignoring how Taiwan
and HK were taken over to begin with.

Reminds me of how foreign powers split up Korea and Vietnam into North and
South. After dividing these countries up they became weak.

Hence the importance of unity. China doesn't want to make the same mistake.

~~~
pertymcpert
Whataboutism and glossing over the huge sacrifices in freedom of expression
and democracy that both countries would lose if they were to be taken over,
well Taiwan at least. HK is already lost mostly. The people of both countries
do not want it.

And you're entirely wrong about China being unwilling to use violence. 30
years ago they committed an atrocity in order to silence protest. They just
don't think the risk-reward is worth it.

------
WomanCanCode
This fight in Hong Kong is larger than just fighting over democracy. It's
about preserving traditional Chinese culture and the Cantonese language. Who
wants to be forcefully extradite and sent to camps to be re-educated about
what the party believe is the correct value system?

