It will disproportionately take away the more wealthy and better educated. The majority of HKers live in public housing, pay no tax and are unlikely to have the means to live in the UK since there will be no recourse to public funds.
This level of brain drain, as in the other mass migration events away from HK, could trigger the government to loosen their grip.
> This level of brain drain, as in the other mass migration events away from HK, could trigger the government to loosen their grip.
I've heard that HK is no longer as important to China as it was 20 years ago. HK's contribution to China's GDP has declined in relative terms as the rest of China has developed. With regards to the brain drain I get the impression that there are plenty of people from the mainland that could fill the gap.
Our biggest advantage is that we are a trilingual society with a deep understanding of both western and Chinese culture. Although there are many people in the mainland who have studied abroad, the ability to understand the needs of Chinese and Western business is definitely not as pervasive. But I agree that HK isn't anywhere as near valuable to China, especially in terms of finance.
That's only dubiously a net advantage, even historically, of HK for the PRC. It's instrumental in some of the business advantages, but it also contributes to it's big political liability for a national regime for which the law is a convenience, not a limitation.
Good point. I meant advantage for companies (or individuals) to base themselves there (rather than eg in China), not advantage in terms of benefit to China.
That's in GDP terms. But lots of money flow through Hong Kong. If HK was to fail and get disconnected, China will lose a significant portion of their exports. Hong Kong imported around $264bn of products from China. These are unlikely going to HK mainland but rather re-routed to other parts of the world.
It doesn't help that China is in bad terms with the U.S. and India. India is on track to become the third-world economy. China is gradually isolating itself from the rest of the world.
Just because HK couldn't facilitate it anymore doesn't mean the world will stop buying $260bn worth of goods and services. It would just be 'rerouted'.
Sure, just as New York is not as central to the American economy as it was in the 19th and early 20th century. It would still be a very heavy cost to lose it. A few percentage points of GDP might seem small on paper, and won’t be the end of the country, but it’s not something to scoff at.
> It will disproportionately take away the more wealthy and better educated.
Which for Hong Kong as the universe of analysis would be a travesty, but for China is probably not a significant consideration against removing that population as a source of unrest which can spread beyond HK.
From what I've heard almost everyone tries to get out, so I expect that the alleged hope of the CPC will come true.
Nonetheless it is the right thing to do for the UK (where are the EU nations on this?), and exile doesn't have to mean abandoning the future of your birthplace. Hong Kongers might be able to achieve more for HK from the UK than under a Beijing cyber-dictatorship.
That's if their children don't assimilate and forget their HK identity. Children of Asian migrants in anglophone countries losing touch with their language and heritage is a very common phenomenon.
Actually that raises an interesting comparison with the Tibetan diaspora that mostly left during around 1950. How many of their descendants growing up in India/US/UK still know how to speak Tibetan?
IMO assimilation isn't a bad thing, rather an indicator of a culture they bring with them which is accustomed to concepts of citizenry (or even more evolved) and the state (confucianism?).
Assimilation means the next generation won't be willing to fight the the memories of a HK half a world and century away. Also, most of the Asian diaspora in the anglophone sphere assimilate simply because there's not enough population, not because of some special cultural quality. 5% of the US is Asian American, and that's divided among all the different Asian nations. The Asian diaspora in Southeast Asia do a much better job of preserving their languages and culture.
If by remembering their heritage you mean how half the US remembers they're 1/16 Irish only when St. Patrick's day rolls around, then yes.
HK is in a catch-22. Stay where they are and get absorbed into the Mandarin speaking behemoth that's mainland China like Hakka, Wu, and Hokkien speakers once the CCP starts tearing down border and population movement restrictions, or move abroad to a dozen different countries and be absorbed piecemeal into the Anglosphere. The third option would be for 1 million or so HKers to build a new city somewhere where they could be the dominant culture. Unfortunately, Singapore is a very unusual case in world history where Malaysia didn't care about sovereignty over the land Singapore stood on and actually forced them out. Very little chance of that happening a second time.
> Hong Kongers might be able to achieve more for HK from the UK
Hong Kongers are likely to achieve more for the world - from UK rather than from authoritarian China.
The fate of Hong Kong, specifically, is not that important.
Pretty soon the law-abiding and obedient people will become aware that life outside of authoritarianism is better and safer, and they will either run away or revolt.
Life in China is fine right now. They are living about 50x better off than their parents. They are educated.
The CCP is super clever and imbued a sort of nationalistic pride from birth. Instead of the US's more complicated dualistic individualism/patriotism combo, the Chinese people actually get some sort of pride for being a cog in the CCP machine.
It's a completely different paradigm and obviously super dangerous because it allows the people at the top who aren't elected to pull the strings on a machine of 1.4 billion people. If they run the system correctly, it can be much more "effective".
Democracy has lots of pressure outlets, and it is definitely much more healthy longterm. That's why I think it's the better system, even vs a well-run (and let's even assume benevolent) CCP.
Yup, and exactly part of the reason they are protesting. Goes to show how much "relative" economic success is important to peoples' satisfaction of government.
Even in the US, that is the #1 issue in every Pres election. How's the economy? Aka do people with 401k's think that they are better off, and thus do they think they are doing better against their peers (their competition for finding a mate/maintaining their mate)
Not brainwashed, but socialized. In East Asian countries and China especially, collectivism and Confucianism are pervasive, with deep cultural roots. The CCP is, of course, supporting and reinforcing those ideals, but it's just as much simply taking advantage of the pre-existing culture. Just like how the US is strongly culturally capitalist and individualistic -- as we value bootstraps capitalism and the "American Dream", the people of mainland China value supporting each other and the state, even when it's not explicitly in their best interests.
So you are basically saying that the cohesion of China is because they are doing better economically these past few decades... and thus people's egos are at an all-time high. Thus they support the regime.
Which is not far off the mark. In China there is a pervasive feeling that the reason it is behind in development is due to the Imperialism in the 1800s and the domination of Western powers over China. This developed into some sort of inferiority complex. With economic development they claim that China is no longer the 'sick man of Asia', the shaking off of which imbues them some sort of pride. That pride is the source of support for the CCP, not any inherent properties of the system.
It's very hard to give up your home, your friends, your connections, and potentially your family even if you have an opportunity for a better life.
Yes, a lot of those connections can potentially move to the same city & country as you but will your neighbor still be your neighbor? Will the bar at the end of the street you go to after a hard day still be there and know exactly what you want when you walk through the door?
The revolt started almost 15 months ago against this kind of crap from China. Emigration may protect you from getting arrested but you're giving up everything you know and love in exchange. That's not much of a deal.
Not the person you’re replying to, but I know a number of people with this sentiment. They’re all former residents of the Soviet Union and were able to get out as refugees to the US when it collapsed.
My wife grew up in the PRC. Before Communism they were a very prominent family (her great uncle was a literary pioneer; his brother, her grandpa, a judge prominent enough that he was mentioned in the movie Lust Caution; and their brother a successful MD), and as a result were "black" under the Communist regime.
With the exception of my wife's grandmother, every member of her extended family spent time in either prison or forced-work camps. One of her aunts translated for me the "confession" she was forced to sign. None of this was related to what we'd consider crimes, but was entirely political.
The Communists took the family's house. They had a refrigerator and a piano, which the Red Guard destroyed on the basis that if everyone didn't have such bourgeois goods, then no one should. When TVs were made available for neighborhood viewing, my wife wasn't allowed to attend.
And there's the malnutrition and squalor they were subjected to. They shared one floor of a brownstone with 2 other families - so, 3 entire families sharing one kitchen and 1.5 baths. There was insufficient food, to the point where they had to eat insect-infested grain - while Party members got plenty.
So, all in all, my wife's experience with Communism wasn't positive, and having lived through that, she's the first to speak up against anything that exhibits any of those traits.
This is of course terrible, and I'm sorry your family went through any of it.
I though think it's worth mentioning that the China of today is absolutely not the China of the 50's.
I've personally spent quite a bit of time in China, and it's never seemed particularly "communist" - the middle class has long since been established and continues to grow, and capatalism is very much thriving. On a personal note, I've always really enjoyed my time in China.
I'm not saying it's a model of wonderdrous virtue either of course; there is a lot of corruption (hardly unique to China, mind), many people wouldn't even dream of openly criticising the CCP, there is little press freedom, and of course the Uigher (spelling?) camps are an abomination. Yet the overwhelming majority of the population have never had it better, and are happy with the way things are (of course, few will know everything about the way things are).
There's a lot of truth in your response. My own personal feeling, from my visits to the country from the 90s to the present, is that in some ways the day-to-day life on the streets of Shanghai seem more free than America. It seems like the government has been mostly laissez-faire toward the individual people, so long as those people leave the oligarchy alone.
The thing is, it's very much a pendulum. The Cultural Revolution, when my wife was growing up, was one of the worst times. The couple decades starting in the 90s was relatively quite good. The thing is, since Xi took control the pendulum has been swinging back in the other direction. That's most obvious back in Hong Kong, but is also evident within the mainland, as reported by family members and we can see ourselves through online interactions (e.g., on multiple occasions my wife's WeChat comments have been censored).
The CCP has not at all let up on its persecution of people, groups, and ideas that are deemed "enemies of the state": Christians who do not meet in a State-registered/3-self (= state-controlled) church (persecution of those Christians has worsened significantly), Falon Gong practitioners, and minority group members, among others.
In addition to religious and ideological persecution, we see grave human rights abuses continue unabated: forced abortions, arbitrary (non-rule-of-law) treatment of citizens, lack of habeas corpus, ruling officials and legislators who are unelected (or who are only eligible for election if they are CCP members), a secret police, massive slave labor camps, long prison sentences for journalists and human rights activists, etc.
Perhaps the only difference we're seeing since the 1950's is that capital and property ownership in themselves are not seen as anti-state.
Who in their right mind downvotes this ^? If you do downvote, I'd really like to know why.
Communism is manifestly a negative influence on mankind's well-being... don't know how anyone could rationally think otherwise (unless you grew up in a communist country and believe the propaganda).
In particular as GP didn't even make a political statement about theoretical political systems whose veracity could be discussed on some abstract grounds, but made a personal statement about themselves and their direct experience.
No, chances are the person who downvoted you is someone who never has actually lived in a communist country and likely did so from the comforts of an overpriced western coffee shop. They probably think they're an intellectual who wouldn't be first against the wall in such a situation.
Take the downvote with pride, since you're speaking truth to abuse.
Eastern bloc country. Grandfather tortured for being a priest after his house got confiscated and family ran out of town. My other grandfather had a similar experience but got his house back eventually. Constant persecution. Fear of anyone who was not family because they could be spies for the state. Food rationing. 6 day workweek. Bribe doctors so you don't die on the operating table and everyone else too. Can't read in public. Tons of censorship. I was very young and my family was doing well, the communist equivalent of middle class. Others had it much worse. Being a child I was shielded from a lot but children are not stupid. Imagine having murderous hate for your president at seven, eight years old. Education was quite good though, but I missed most of that. Highly doubt China much different in many respects from my visit there.
Of course it is better to live in a liberal as opposed to an authoritarian system, but this type of thinking (an inherent inevitability of liberalism to win over authoritarianism) breeds complacency and can ultimately be the downfall of western liberal democracy.
There is no guarantee that the system that is more just will win out. That's the reason why we have to do everything we can to make sure that liberal democracy works and to impede authoritarianism in all its forms and guises. The CCP should never have had the amount of international investment and export markets it has had, given the overall strategy of the party to hoard power and crush dissent.
I'm not sure we need to impede authoritarianism or any other form of government. It is more than likely that level of investment that has gone into China over the last few decades have put the country in the a strong position. But I think the CCP and the Chinese people in general can take a lot of credit for what they have achieved. And to my point...if the end result is rising incomes for all, better life expectancy and an overall better quality of life does it matter that it came about through an authoritarian regime?
>if the end result is rising incomes for all, better life expectancy and an overall better quality of life does it matter that it came about through an authoritarian regime?
And when this growth ends, what will happen? An authoritarian system is able to withstand challenges with the full power of the state behind it. People that dissent are crushed, and many times the people that dissent do so with the most honourable of intentions. Viewed under the prism of authoritarianism this matters not. It's a system that remains not because of consent and merit, but ultimately due to suppression of dissent.
Just because China is able to catch-up some of the growth that it completely missed out on due to the turmoil of the Communist revolution and the turbulent 50s and 60s, doesn't validate this system one bit. Other countries were ahead of China, with more growth and sustainability, minus the cruelty.
>Just because China is able to catch-up some of the growth that it completely missed out on due to the turmoil of the Communist revolution and the turbulent 50s and 60s, doesn't validate this system one bit. Other countries were ahead of China, with more growth and sustainability, minus the cruelty.
The most powerful countries in the world were literally coasting on stolen Chinese wealth for 100 years of so. When the UK couldn't coast anymore, it lost world reserve currency status.
That era ended long before the Communists took power. Which they did by allowing the KMT to deplete their resources by fighting the Japanese first. They contributed surprising little in the war effort.
Now, can we get back on the subject of how the CCP is treating dissidents (and neighbouring countries)?
Was India next to a financial hub like Hong Kong and a electronics and manufacturing hub like Taiwan that rapidly industrialised in the 60s and 70s? India is also further positioned from the Pacific and the sea routes to the US market, but that's a secondary reason, not the primary one.
Just because they both have large populations don't make them alike.
If it is so bad in the US, what is keeping you there? Many developed countries have relatively few immigration hurdles for US Americans to pass. UK in particular, European countries are lax in general in these regards (I live in Germany).
"Relatively few" usually means a significant employment barrier - you usually have to be making a certain amount of money which is hard to come by at the lower rungs of STEM employment, especially if you're restricted to applying for companies you can interview with from overseas.
I believe that in all countries in Europe, there's a requirement that the pay be at market level to avoid the exploitation of immigrants (there's no distinction based on country of origin as you seem to imply), and that the job be advertised first with the EU's job agency (whatever that is called, I forgot now) and EU citizens are able to apply before an immigrant may be allowed to apply and take the job.
I believe that is called minimum wage? So that would be already a given.
there's no distinction based on country of origin as you seem to imply
there is a distinction: There is a German by-law as well as a EU-decree that classifies US Americans as citizens of a "priviliged country" (§ 26 BeschV (Verordnung über die Beschäftigung von Ausländern)).
You then also need to make more, as you continue to be taxed in the USA, until you've lived abroad long enough to qualify for citizenship in your new host country, and can give up your USA citizenship.
Because the US has an incredibly restrictive immigration policy towards most of the world, most countries retaliate by having an incredibly restrictive immigration policy against americans.
Yes, but it's a lot more distributed. It's people being assaulted in public spaces for being in any way different. It's the bathroom bills encouraging people to assault people in bathrooms based on nothing but perceived trans status - and then this actually happening. I've suffered both in a country where I theoretically have protections, and I am aware that my friends in the US have suffered worse. I am not going to go into what folk outside my communities suffer from, but I imagine it's not a whole lot better.
This isn't violence based on stating an opinion - it's violence based on simply daring to exist in a public space.
There's very little news coverage of it because it's "small" things - assaults that leave bruises and not much more, but which the victims know mean they're not welcome in the public spaces everybody else takes for granted - that happen all the time to people minding their own business, and this is and has been the norm for a very long time.
Do you want me to spend the next 24 hours finding you news stories of right-wing violence against people minding their own business? Actually, no, you do it.
There's nothing that indicates any of these were committed by right wing people. The first article is based on a study surveying 13-17 year olds and mentions some legislation, but no sexual assault that I can see.
Two drunk women, no evidence they are right wing or support any specific ideology.
And so on.
Individual acts of violence are not the same as an authoritarian regime, like the current left wing mob.
Right, so violence against trans folk is totally left-wing. There's never been anybody encouraging violence against trans folk as part of right-wing ideology. Got it.
Many individual acts over time can be worse than a single instance of violence that affects many, you realise?
I am aware of TERFs, I currently live in a country where they recently managed to convince the Prime Minister to harass us in order to split the opposing party (which has multiple factions and where the primary reason they stay together is similar opinions on workers' rights) which had started gaining footing.
I also very much disbelieve that they constitute any of the left, given that the left largely won't talk to them or acknowledge the validity of their ideas, and they tend to wind up making deals with right-wing anti-feminist (even anti-cisgender-woman) organisations to push their agenda.
Calling yourself a "feminist" doesn't make you one, especially when you stomp on other women's hard-earned rights and privileges in order to pursue your goal of burying "men".
Find me a TERF who openly supports Black Lives Matter and spends a bunch of time advocating for women's rights other than the oppression of trans women, and I'll eat my hat.
EDIT: On the other hand, Black Lives Matter groups by and large support trans folk, at least in words. Black Lives Matter UK: "All forms of oppression are interrelated, you cannot be for Black lives if you do not emphatically support the cause for Black queer lives, Black trans lives [and] the lives of Black women." - and this demo: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/15/black-trans-... - and this trans person who cofounded a part of BLM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elle_Hearns
There's a reason some portion of the left is pretty intolerant of the current situation - it literally results in violence to people who don't even share their opinions in the first place.
The "current situation" is not as clear-cut as many would make it out to be. Watching an emotional video is not the smoking gun that shows one side to be completely right, but that's what's happening now.
I would think a good write up/analysis using high quality statistics would be the way to decide what is happening in the "current situation".
But a graphic and emotional video is going to pull the strings much harder.
A lot of people have been trying "good write-ups" and "high quality statistics" for a long time, it turns out they don't actually change people's minds - people make up their mind before reading the article. The production of "high quality statistics" hasn't been the turning point in any civil rights movement I'm aware of.
For what it's worth, I've read the statistics, I've read the counterpoints to the statistics, I believe based on them that there is a right-wing violence problem in the US and some other specific places.
When the market doesn't like your actions, the market makes you pay. That's how the system works. Regulating that market response seems like the actual authoritarian move.
Talking to a Chinese friend who is quite pro-CCP, they are pissed that UK is offering this and say that mass emigration of HKers would be a major loss of face for the CCP.
