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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Regarding your point 1.) Where I live in New Zealand, the largest newspaper/website (NZ Herald) has a Chinese language version. It was shown that the Chinese version of the news articles are sanitised to be more China friendly. Articles critical of China are also often not featured at all in the Chinese version of the website. The Herald always states this is a coincidence and is due to a 'lack of resource' for the Chinese version of the publication but it's clear foreign investment is manipulating the news/media locally. (A rival news agency recently showed some of the writers had been to China on paid trips for 'media conferences' which appear to set the agenda on what to publish etc)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well it wasn't exactly unprecedented. Far from it. Every Chief Executive election, from the very first, has had some smell of corruption about it - threats of finding trouble makers, or Beijing interference etc. Not forgetting Beijing immediately threw out the system and produced their own electoral college, and IIRC required votes to be public before casting - how perfect for applying pressure. Carefully built an electoral college to be pro Beijing but that appears independent on the surface. They are show elections.
Lam, like all Chief Execs before her, was Beijing's choice, but now HK is not as outsize an economy compared to China, Beijing feels able to breach the spirit and letter of the agreement they signed with far more impunity. So they're pushing more, harder, from relatively gentle interference in the 90s and early 00s. It's not an isolated one-off. Whether a technical breach by putting Chinese border and customs for the bridge in HK, or kidnapping and getting show confessions on TV of HK booksellers and publishers. They've got into the habit of interfering more and more, and being fairly crass about it.
I'm not nearly as well informed as I was back around handover, but my few HK friends still there are now thinking (not sure how seriously yet) about emigration yet again, just as they had after Tiananmen, and after handover. What Beijing does seem to have done is wake up the younger generation who were generally more accepting of the system they grew up with until 14's umbrella protests.
When managing a special territory like Hong Kong, I think Beijing's goal is to promote its interests as much as possible, at the lowest possible cost in terms of instability.
What is the reason we observe seemingly the opposite policy: irritating people in silly ways, for little if any gain, and at a large cost in public discontent?
The only thing I can think is because HK has become so much less significant compared to the size of the Chinese economy, whilst Xi has been consolidating power ever since becoming president, removing term limits and so on. Rather like Putin in Russia. I suspect they are both prioritising differently than predecessors, or even themselves at the start of their presidency.
At some point China seems to have switched from preserving the golden goose to trying to amalgamate and homogenise, so they've been steadily getting pro-Beijing Han Chinese to move to HK, and making larger changes. China's economy is fine even if HK struggles. The extradition is an odd one, as at the end of the 50 years of two systems I assume it won't be necessary, so simpler to just wait. I can't imagine it wasn't instigated by Beijing, with Lam tasked to deliver. Maybe it's a first move to compliance at all costs, more like in Tibet and Xinjiang. I sincerely hope not. Still, second guessing the why of their motives is way beyond my pay grade. :)
At the end of the 50s when China threatened to invade if the British followed through with planned democracy, they also made very plain they'd like to keep HK just as it was. That is, a non-democratic colony that gave them a key route to trade with the West. Even though it had 10 years filling with skilled anti-communist refugees who fled the civil war and aftermath and kick-started HK in the first place. That clearly doesn't matter any more.
I find it hard to believe that HK doesn't matter. Even leaving aside the city's economic importance, uncontrolled civil unrest carries the risk of an overthrow of the city government, leading to a rejection of the Chinese sovereignty. (Not to mention, it may also ignite pro-democracy activism in the rest of China.)
Losing HK is unacceptable to Beijing, so if the HK unrest goes too far, it will have be quelled. Doing so without bloodshed may be impossible.
Such an outcome would cause a dramatic escalation in the anti-Beijing sentiment in the Western world. Trump may not care much about what Beijing does in HK but the rest of the US political forces, on both sides of the aisle, do; the resulting sanctions would make Trump's trade war look like a friendly prank. Many other countries would join the US, dealing such a serious blow to the Chinese economy that it may cause domestic problems.
In fact, things could get even worse. The outraged US politicians might send troops to Taiwan (which is likely to experience a major anti-Beijing shift, leading to fears of a Beijing military action). De-escalating such a confrontation could get very tricky indeed.
Obviously, I hope none of this happens. My point is that, from the perspective of the Beijing leadership, mistakes in HK are very dangerous. So I highly doubt that they don't care.
That's got to be a very slim chance. There's already Chinese troops in Hong Kong, and have been since handover. The change in tone was clear and noted in the handover ceremony itself. It's not going to be uncontrolled unrest. They already sent in riot police, tear gas and rubber bullets against not-rioting protesters. A real attempt to overthrow or coup would be quelled long before it was successful. So far more likely more riot police or a Tiananmen type event than a coup. To global outrage perhaps, but the West just kept on giving more trade and manufacturing after all the others.
> it may also ignite pro-democracy activism in the rest of China
That seems unlikely too, given how hard news of HK, some history and other activism is censored and firewalled in mainland China. I have no idea how much is "known" but not spoken of, nor how generally or what unofficial networks there are. Waking up sentiment in Taiwan would be the last thing they sought though, so it's a pretty clear misstep regardless of mainland.
Logic and common sense isn't always prominent in international relations, as seen everywhere from Brexit to US and China. Decades of the West not caring two hoots, or even barely officially mentioning, what oversteps they are making in HK, Tibet or Xinjiang may have given president-for-life Xi the impression he can mostly do as he likes. South Africa got years of international sanctions, trade and sport embargoes, post-Tiananmen China got a few years of minor sanctions, then ever more Western manufacturing. The US barely kept sanctions up for two years. I'm not surprised Xi could end up thinking he gets near carte blanche. I'm more surprised you think we might sanction hard this time, when so much more depends on Chinese manufacturing, even if the president did prove willing.
Yet as you say it could escalate far into unknown and globally damaging consequences if sentiment and confidence tips too far. So some people there are starting to talk of leaving again... We'll see.
eh? That's an rare statement outside of china. From Michael Pettis:
+++
Overinvestment – Its political and economic systems are now dependent on elevated levels of investment spending. Moreover, a decreasing amount of those investment dollars are able to generate net-positive financial or social returns.
Currency undervaluation – Money printing and excessive foreign reserves are creating imbalances that will be very hard for the central authorities to unwind without painful repercussions.
Over-indebtedness & low interest rates – Much of China's new borrowing is used to pay interest on current debt. Any material rise in interest rates is sure to create a cascade of insolvencies.
Asset bubbles – Much of Chinese wealth is tied up in assets that are exhibiting dangerous levels of price inflation, real estate being a prime example. (Property prices in Beijing and Shanghai are higher than Manhattan, which is astounding considering the much lower average Chinese income)
Purely speaking comparatively to Hong Kong's economic size, not that China isn't at the peak of a bubble, or couldn't tip into deep recession. Are recessions even allowed in the Chinese system? Even the deepest depression wouldn't put the imbalance back to 1980s levels, and if it were that deep it would no doubt be causing crisis in HK and elsewhere too.
>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.
You fail on two basic points.
1) You think Beijing cares about HK
2) You give too much credit to CCP propaganda
Chinese politics is totally inward facing. The CCP only worries about what Xi thinks or needs. Xi and his followers are the only people who can sack you if you are a bureaucrat.
Beijing would be happy for Hong Kong to disappear into the sea. In 1997, HK was the richest and most dynamic region in China. Now, Shenzhen is much more important and HK is becoming just another Chinese coastal city.
All of the stuff the legal and governance infrastructure that made HK a world capital for finance is dying. The rule of law and personal freedoms are dead.
HK is just a reminder of the Century of Humiliation. The quicker it dies the better for Beijing or CCP anyway.
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?
If this protest was about preserving traditional Chinese Culture and the Cantonese language, they would be pro-China and not Pro-British Hong Kong. Last I checked English was one of the nationally recognized languages, which is NOT a part of the traditional Chinese culture. Also there seems to be an exaggerated fear about who would be extradited. But based on the response, maybe a lot of the people in Hong Kong have something to hide.
29 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 64.5 ms ] thread1.) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Lam, like all Chief Execs before her, was Beijing's choice, but now HK is not as outsize an economy compared to China, Beijing feels able to breach the spirit and letter of the agreement they signed with far more impunity. So they're pushing more, harder, from relatively gentle interference in the 90s and early 00s. It's not an isolated one-off. Whether a technical breach by putting Chinese border and customs for the bridge in HK, or kidnapping and getting show confessions on TV of HK booksellers and publishers. They've got into the habit of interfering more and more, and being fairly crass about it.
I'm not nearly as well informed as I was back around handover, but my few HK friends still there are now thinking (not sure how seriously yet) about emigration yet again, just as they had after Tiananmen, and after handover. What Beijing does seem to have done is wake up the younger generation who were generally more accepting of the system they grew up with until 14's umbrella protests.
What is the reason we observe seemingly the opposite policy: irritating people in silly ways, for little if any gain, and at a large cost in public discontent?
The only thing I can think is because HK has become so much less significant compared to the size of the Chinese economy, whilst Xi has been consolidating power ever since becoming president, removing term limits and so on. Rather like Putin in Russia. I suspect they are both prioritising differently than predecessors, or even themselves at the start of their presidency.
At some point China seems to have switched from preserving the golden goose to trying to amalgamate and homogenise, so they've been steadily getting pro-Beijing Han Chinese to move to HK, and making larger changes. China's economy is fine even if HK struggles. The extradition is an odd one, as at the end of the 50 years of two systems I assume it won't be necessary, so simpler to just wait. I can't imagine it wasn't instigated by Beijing, with Lam tasked to deliver. Maybe it's a first move to compliance at all costs, more like in Tibet and Xinjiang. I sincerely hope not. Still, second guessing the why of their motives is way beyond my pay grade. :)
At the end of the 50s when China threatened to invade if the British followed through with planned democracy, they also made very plain they'd like to keep HK just as it was. That is, a non-democratic colony that gave them a key route to trade with the West. Even though it had 10 years filling with skilled anti-communist refugees who fled the civil war and aftermath and kick-started HK in the first place. That clearly doesn't matter any more.
Losing HK is unacceptable to Beijing, so if the HK unrest goes too far, it will have be quelled. Doing so without bloodshed may be impossible.
Such an outcome would cause a dramatic escalation in the anti-Beijing sentiment in the Western world. Trump may not care much about what Beijing does in HK but the rest of the US political forces, on both sides of the aisle, do; the resulting sanctions would make Trump's trade war look like a friendly prank. Many other countries would join the US, dealing such a serious blow to the Chinese economy that it may cause domestic problems.
In fact, things could get even worse. The outraged US politicians might send troops to Taiwan (which is likely to experience a major anti-Beijing shift, leading to fears of a Beijing military action). De-escalating such a confrontation could get very tricky indeed.
Obviously, I hope none of this happens. My point is that, from the perspective of the Beijing leadership, mistakes in HK are very dangerous. So I highly doubt that they don't care.
That's got to be a very slim chance. There's already Chinese troops in Hong Kong, and have been since handover. The change in tone was clear and noted in the handover ceremony itself. It's not going to be uncontrolled unrest. They already sent in riot police, tear gas and rubber bullets against not-rioting protesters. A real attempt to overthrow or coup would be quelled long before it was successful. So far more likely more riot police or a Tiananmen type event than a coup. To global outrage perhaps, but the West just kept on giving more trade and manufacturing after all the others.
> it may also ignite pro-democracy activism in the rest of China
That seems unlikely too, given how hard news of HK, some history and other activism is censored and firewalled in mainland China. I have no idea how much is "known" but not spoken of, nor how generally or what unofficial networks there are. Waking up sentiment in Taiwan would be the last thing they sought though, so it's a pretty clear misstep regardless of mainland.
Logic and common sense isn't always prominent in international relations, as seen everywhere from Brexit to US and China. Decades of the West not caring two hoots, or even barely officially mentioning, what oversteps they are making in HK, Tibet or Xinjiang may have given president-for-life Xi the impression he can mostly do as he likes. South Africa got years of international sanctions, trade and sport embargoes, post-Tiananmen China got a few years of minor sanctions, then ever more Western manufacturing. The US barely kept sanctions up for two years. I'm not surprised Xi could end up thinking he gets near carte blanche. I'm more surprised you think we might sanction hard this time, when so much more depends on Chinese manufacturing, even if the president did prove willing.
Yet as you say it could escalate far into unknown and globally damaging consequences if sentiment and confidence tips too far. So some people there are starting to talk of leaving again... We'll see.
eh? That's an rare statement outside of china. From Michael Pettis:
+++
Overinvestment – Its political and economic systems are now dependent on elevated levels of investment spending. Moreover, a decreasing amount of those investment dollars are able to generate net-positive financial or social returns.
Currency undervaluation – Money printing and excessive foreign reserves are creating imbalances that will be very hard for the central authorities to unwind without painful repercussions.
Over-indebtedness & low interest rates – Much of China's new borrowing is used to pay interest on current debt. Any material rise in interest rates is sure to create a cascade of insolvencies.
Asset bubbles – Much of Chinese wealth is tied up in assets that are exhibiting dangerous levels of price inflation, real estate being a prime example. (Property prices in Beijing and Shanghai are higher than Manhattan, which is astounding considering the much lower average Chinese income)
+++
<https://www.peakprosperity.com/michael-pettis-the-future-of-... which to be clear is from 2013 but I don't believe much has improved since (not an economist or china-watcher though)
You fail on two basic points.
1) You think Beijing cares about HK
2) You give too much credit to CCP propaganda
Chinese politics is totally inward facing. The CCP only worries about what Xi thinks or needs. Xi and his followers are the only people who can sack you if you are a bureaucrat.
Beijing would be happy for Hong Kong to disappear into the sea. In 1997, HK was the richest and most dynamic region in China. Now, Shenzhen is much more important and HK is becoming just another Chinese coastal city.
All of the stuff the legal and governance infrastructure that made HK a world capital for finance is dying. The rule of law and personal freedoms are dead.
HK is just a reminder of the Century of Humiliation. The quicker it dies the better for Beijing or CCP anyway.