But the law is even more insane. A North Korea-like totalitarian state that puts people in camps can just snatch any lawyer, businessman our journalist and take them away without trial and without revealing their location.
Imagine people at startups working in sensitive areas like DNA testing, biotech, finance or data mining can be taken away and forced to reveal data, trade secrets, or forced to collaborate, under threat to their families or themselves.
Hong Kong is over.
Historically, it benefited from being one of the only open ports, proximate to China, but not in it. Good governance and rule of law (very important for mercantile activity, given how much finance, insurance, and complex legal codes around ownership / title / possession), nice real estate, etc.
Today, it feels like the PRC is playing the long game, and they're going to win -- they'll just hang up their hats and wait 50 years, only a generation or two, until they eventually take complete control of Hong Kong, maybe going as far as outright annexation. They're patient, determined, and focused in a way only a place ruled by a powerful, long-term oriented elite oligopoly can be (vs in the US, where we still can't fix Social Security, even though everyone knows it's a train wreck in the making, or build anything remotely resembling China's current high-speed rail network).
The real question I have is, what's going to happen in China when Xi Jinping (dictator for life) can no longer rule effectively? Will he willingly stop aside or is there going to be some kind of coup / violent overthrow if the CCP splits and can't decide whether or not it's time to replace him? That's what's got me thinking these days.
You’re modelling China circa 2005. Xi Jinping is now a ruler for life. Dictatorship predicts Beijing better than long-term oligopoly.
For example, he’s been impatient with Hong Kong. If Xi respected Hong Kong’s independence, the fraction of Hong Kongese identifying as Chinese would have stayed high (or risen); integration in ‘47 would have proceeded seamlessly. Instead, he got impatient. He’s impulsively abducting bookstore owners and ramming through measures. That is stoking dissent and economic corrosion in a totally unnecessary way.
> what's going to happen in China when Xi Jinping (dictator for life) can no longer rule effectively?
We’ve passed the point where Xi can peacefully cede power without fearing for his and his family’s lives.
There may be a few more peaceful transitions of power in China’s future. And there’s a lot of political capital to burn, which gives the process time. But any course correction will be effected by force.
Personally, I think the Chinese Central Government won't recall the Extradition Law. But as a Hong Konger, I can proudly say that: We do our best to show the world, showing the Hong Kong spirit.
An unpopular chief executive resigned in 2004 to protests half as large . Beijing is at least somewhat constrained with respect to what it can openly do.
2 years delay make attributing causality seem like a bit of a stretch. The Wikipedia article makes it sound like he resigned after losing the backing of the PRC government.
Hong Kong, politically and culturally, responds to protest.
Another video (6 minutes) you might be interested in by Vox is "China's trillion dollar plan to dominate global trade" , which is on China Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Edit: One great passage from the first video  at 11:29 says:
"The [umbrella movement] protest didn't change the government's mind and it didn't immediately change anything in Hong Kong.
But this spectacle of young people rising up to defend their rights from the central government of China did spark a political awakening among the many in the city who had never before paid attention.
'I think post-umbrella movement was the first time that the middle class came out and voted in droves, and voted for the opposition force.' - HK Resident"
BRI will potentially have a large effect on trade and welfare for many countries
▪ All countries in the world experience a decrease in trade costs
▪ Not all sectors/countries will gain but potential aggregate effect is largely positive
But many policy barriers still remain in place. Potential gains of BRI would be enlarged by complementary reforms
▪ Need to reduce border delays, trade barriers and FDI restrictions
▪ But also boost investor protection, open public procurement, ensure private sector participation
Economic and non-economic risks associated to BRI projects need to be managed
▪ Public debt sustainability, governance, environmental and social concerns
▪ Coordination problems, lack of data, poor transparency magnify these challenges"
China’s Trojan horse: Hong Kong’s new extradition arrangement puts foreigners at risk
Here's a piece from last month reporting that a raft of countries including Turkey have refused to attend latest summit.
> Yes, debt is on the rise in the developing world, and Chinese overseas lending is, for the first time, a part of the story. But a number of us academics who have studied China’s practices in detail have found scant evidence of a pattern indicating that Chinese banks, acting at the government’s behest, are deliberately over-lending or funding loss-making projects to secure strategic advantages for China.
> The main example of these purported ploys is the Hambantota Port in southern Sri Lanka: The government handed control over the port to a Chinese company in 2017 after struggling to make its loan payments to China. But that’s a special case, and it is widely misunderstood.
> China does not publish details about its overseas lending, but the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University (which I direct) has collected information on more than 1,000 Chinese loans in Africa between 2000 and 2017, totaling more than $143 billion. Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center has identified and tracked more than $140 billion in Chinese loans to Latin America and the Caribbean since 2005.
> Based on the findings of both institutes, it seems that the risks of B.R.I. are often overstated or mischaracterized.
My recollection is that, prior to BRI/earlier loan diplomacy from China, the strategic goal was for influence in the UN against Taiwan (checkbook diplomacy.) So the goals are completely different.
'Taiwan’s current foreign relations bind stems from a deal brokered in 2008. This “diplomatic truce” guarantees that neither China nor Taiwan will pursue formal diplomatic relations with a country that has already recognized one or the other. Beijing calls it the one-China policy, and it forces nations to choose between it and Taipei, with Beijing increasingly coming out the more appealing choice.'
Lumping data over strategic change seems like a poor research to me.
But the US (rightly) gets criticism for doing such things. If it's right to criticize the US for such actions, it's also right to criticize China for them.
This is democracy. The people voted for a strong executive and to be represented by the monarchy. Nobody gets that vote in Uzbekistan.
Democracy is an indicator of whether the people are represented but it is not the definition.
I think a better indication of whether a government represents its people is whether the government acts according to the people's wishes.
At one end of the spectrum is Switzerland, where the people can choose to directly override any government policy by referendum (or propose an action of their own).
At the other end of the spectrum is a government like North Korea, where the people have zero say.
Somewhere in the middle you see most Western democracies.
How do you measure the latter? That’s the essence of democracy.
There are many democratic systems. Constitutional republics are democratic because the monarch must answer to the public. Dictatorships featuring leaders for life with limited options for sidelining or recalling are not democratic. The latter describes North Korea, China and certain African and central Asian states.
Business people want to make money, foreign companies have started to divest from China, perhaps Hong Kong would be next?
Passing this law may akin to killing the goose for the golden eggs.
The opinion and longform side of the paper are another matter, though. Almost all the columnists are pro-Beijing hacks at this point. It's kind of like how there's a divide at Fox between the "news" side, which is relatively reasonable (e.g. with Chris Wallace), and the "opinion" side (e.g. Bill O'Reilly an his ilk). While the news folk at these kinds of places might be principled journalists, their ultimate purpose is to legitimize the propagandists on the opinion side.
So this is one big statement. Is it true, or are you just guessing at that? Is it common knowledge, or suspicion? Where are we with the validity of that statement?
Complaints like "disappear much faster than everything else (same will happen to this one)" are quite misplaced when they concern posts that spend 10 hours or so on the front page.
YC seems to be a generally 'above board' entity, if they say they aren't doing anything specifically, I believe them.
That said, this is not an NGO, it's a Venture Capital firm. So they're going to assuage their interests. I've always found YC kind of interesting that way, playing along a very fine line.
YC has enough credibility (and frankly a lot to lose) so I'll take their word for it.
The English and Chinese versions looks pretty different in tone, especially in the last sentence: 'Noting that the Second Reading debate on the bill will resume on June 12, the Government urged the Legislative Council to scrutinise the bill in a calm, reasonable and respectful manner to help ensure Hong Kong remains a safe city for residents and business.'
Understandable when this is for foreign press. Directly translated, the Chinese version says: 'The Second Reading debate on the bill will resume on June 12. End. '. Obnoxious if you understand Chinese.
That is not strictly true, while both Chinese and English are the official languages, In writing, especially with any legals documents, in case of any discrepancy between the English version and the Chinese version, the English version shall prevail.
And ppl might miss the last decades of British rules too, in an emotional way, as Economically and culturally HK was in a very good shape. Though most ppl won’t express it with a union flag in a public setting.
I'd venture to say it's overall a tiny minority, mostly youth.
Many more are those who'd or are considering (re-) emigration.
It, more than anything, IMO, was said to appease the fear of the HK people who had a deep mistrust of the PRC government. Still, a lot of people emigrated before 1997.
Note that the saying is kind of vague anyway, it just says that the capitalist system and "ways of living" will not change.
> Taiwanese officials have sought help from Hong Kong authorities to extradite the man, but Hong Kong officials say they cannot comply because of the lack of an extradition agreement with Taiwan.
> But the Taiwanese government has said it will not seek to extradite the murder suspect under the proposed changes, and has urged Hong Kong to handle the case separately.
I thought the extradition bill was to / from China? What does Taiwan have to do with this?
Basically Hong Kong right now, has a whole bunch of extradition treaties with 20 countries, just not with both China governments, due to the existing law. The bill fixes this.
Also, the 19 year old HK man admitted to the crime , however due to the the crime being committed outside HK, he can't be tried for manslaughter in HK; the HK authorities can only charge him with "money laundering" of his girlfriend's money and property (again ). He is currently serving the sentence for money laundering, and he's going to be released in October. However if this bill is passed he can be extradited and tried for murder in Taiwan.
 With Australia, Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka and the United States
Except Taiwan isn’t China. If Taiwan and Hong Kong want an extradition treaty, they can sign one.
This bill is to enable the lawful extradition of dissenters. (Beijing tried doing it surreptitiously ; that backfired.)
In practice it isn't, but on paper it is, both according to the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. (One-China Policy)
Taiwan clearly stated that they wouldn't extradite the man under this bill. This is the exact lie the government has been telling to mislead people who don't follow the news.
"Taiwanese authorities had asked their counterparts in Hong Kong multiple times to extradite Chan for a court trial, but that has not happened due to restrictions from Hong Kong law."
"Tsai Chiu-ming (蔡秋明), head of the Department of International and Cross-Strait Legal Affairs under the Ministry of Justice, said Taiwan welcomes closer cooperation with other jurisdictions to combat cross-border crime, and he is glad to see Hong Kong's planned legislation."
 "Taipei will not agree to transfer of Hong Kong murder suspect if Taiwanese citizens risk being sent to mainland China"
Or maybe the Hong Kong government can't distinguish between both China's? Like a bill that discusses extradition with mainland China's PRC by default is referring Taiwan China's ROC. That wouldn't surprise me since all of greater china is basically a twilight zone mockery to the nation state concept.
Unless that site requires valid ID to sign in support, I immediately disbelieve the number because bot activity is basically inevitable. (Not that I don't believe that there are people in Hong Kong who support the bill, just that online signatures don't help figure out how many there are.)
AFAIK the agreement mentions that China must not interfere politically or economically with the capitalistic nature of Hong Kong for at least 50 years.
China stopped honouring its agreement shortly after Xi Jinping ensconced himself as leader for life. That resulted in the umbrella protests against Beijing interfering with who could run for office . There were also the abductions of Hong Kongers selling books publicising corruption and scandal among the CPC’s elite .
It is perhaps a hindrance that we don't have an ethnic-neutral term for the set of ideas associated with "western values" but "western" is descriptive of the origin not the applicability of the ideas.
In order to genuinally adopt and espouse "western values" you have to at some level abandon "non-western values". This of course has as a pre-requisite that you've discarded the notion of multiculturalism -- at least the version of multiculturalism that insists that avoiding value judgements between cultures as a virtue unto itself.
TLDR: basic human rights doesn't mean you have to identify as western.
This is garbage. The massacre happened because Beijing responded ham-fistedly to a peaceful student demonstration. It involved atrocities including PLA troops firing on their own ambulances and dissolving bodies under tanks and in vats of acid .
And while the protests in Beijing are memorialised by Tank Man, there were protests in pretty much every other Chinese city at the time. They were all brutally suppressed in favour of the ruling elite.
I was talking about the ultimate reason why they protested, it was influenced by the west, human rights.
Not the way they were massacred, or how people memorialized them.
I am definitely stunned to know how hacker news people comprehend
edit: confirmed hacker news upvote/downvote buttons work like reddit's ones, and in turn work like facebook one except facebook doesn't have a downvote button neither
Marxism, or the morphed variety of the CCP, also originates from the West. That doesn’t mean that Mao or the 6/4 movement didn’t have a genuine appreciation of “Western ideas” and want to implement them.
And yes, the West causes lots of problems. At least there is freedom to discuss them, and the probability of being sent to a camp for pointing things out is extremely low. That doesn’t discredit Western ideas; indeed, the self-awareness and capacity for self-criticism of the West is an important feature of its political system that the CCP increasingly lacks.
In case you are genuinely confused why people would downvote you: you bring up a lot of issues like 6/4, the Opium Wars, Huawei ... that only fit into a coherent topic if you make it incredibly broad, e.g. "China vs. the West". It is hard to have a good discussion on a topic that broad, and by bringing up so many different issues you spread yourself too thin and argue none of your points particularly well.
If you were to focus on a single on-topic issue, try to provide some additional relevant information and keep your value judgment out of it (voting on opinionated comments is inevitably going to be opinion-based), it would at least make for good reading.
You are right. I should change my tone.
> You're not interacting with peoples' responses to you very much, just throwing out a blizzard of new accusations.
I think I have made my point even though it was harsh. This thread is about protest in Hong Kong, and what the list of accusations (as you said) don't spread too far away, since it relates to the same thing.
More interesting is your idea that protesting - being willing to demonstrate disagreement with leadership - is a negative value that governments should resist and supress. You could make that argument in a clearer form, but you would still not convince many people here. (Note that this would be a different argument from "western countries also suppress disagreement sometimes.")
Massacres and atrocities are no easy things to discuss. I've spoken to survivors of the holocaust in Europe, and the Rwandan genocide, you have obviously not heard anyone participating in Tiananmen square talk about the events? It's very hard to talk so lightly about massacares when you have heard personal anecdotes and the hard ships that the people went trough.
So my only point is that the west has caused more troubles than ever for the world. (Which is why I go on and talk about the wars etc)
Perhaps I am wrong, it was the history written by someone else.
> Massacres and atrocities are no easy things to discuss. I've spoken to survivors of the holocaust in Europe, and the Rwandan genocide, you have obviously not heard anyone participating in Tiananmen square talk about the events? It's very hard to talk so lightly about massacares when you have heard personal anecdotes and the hard ships that the people went trough.
I don't talk about this at all. (not that I am cold hearted if the impression I left for you was such, I am sorry)
edit: I made a mistake, I mean I don't talk about the details of massacres and atrocities. I just mentioned the title of them.
Russia is harder to pin down. Historically, they self-identified as western, even though the geographic center of Russia is actually in Asia.
Four of them have taken place since November 2016.