Big Tech Faceoff With China Risks Sparking Exodus From Hong Kong (bloomberg.com) 141
Facebook, Google and Twitter -- all of which are blocked in the mainland -- are now headed toward a showdown with China that could end up making Hong Kong feel more like Beijing. From a report: Hours after Hong Kong announced sweeping new powers to police the internet on Monday night, those companies plus the likes of Microsoft and Zoom all suspended requests for data from the Hong Kong government. ByteDance's TikTok, which has Chinese owners, announced it would pull its viral video app from the territory's mobile stores in the coming days. Their dilemma is stark: Bend to the law and infuriate Western nations increasingly at odds with China over political freedoms, or simply refuse and depart like Google did in China a decade ago over some of the very same issues. Much like that seismic event shook the mainland in 2010, Big Tech's reaction now could have a much wider impact on Hong Kong's future as a financial hub.
"Google is pretty important to people here, and if that's cut off then it's really extremely serious," said Richard Harris, a former director at Citi Private Bank who now runs Port Shelter Investment Management in Hong Kong. "In Hong Kong we don't know where the boundaries are, and that's threatening to a lot of business people." Over the past week, Hong Kong authorities have begun explaining how they'll enforce a law that officials in Beijing called a ""sword of Damocles" hanging over China's most strident critics. The legislation, which sparked the threat of sanctions from the Trump administration and outrage elsewhere, has had a chilling effect on pro-democracy protesters who demonstrated for months last year while also raising fresh questions for businesses.
"Google is pretty important to people here, and if that's cut off then it's really extremely serious," said Richard Harris, a former director at Citi Private Bank who now runs Port Shelter Investment Management in Hong Kong. "In Hong Kong we don't know where the boundaries are, and that's threatening to a lot of business people." Over the past week, Hong Kong authorities have begun explaining how they'll enforce a law that officials in Beijing called a ""sword of Damocles" hanging over China's most strident critics. The legislation, which sparked the threat of sanctions from the Trump administration and outrage elsewhere, has had a chilling effect on pro-democracy protesters who demonstrated for months last year while also raising fresh questions for businesses.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What rubbish. The vast majority of people in the CPC are put in place as a result of people voting for them, even right at the top.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Without slavery, who's going to pick the cotton?
-jcr
The cotton picking machine was invented over 100 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For the US, a huge opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Invite all Hong Kong residents to come to the US and settle under the existing rules for political refugees, and bring the klepto-banking cabal with them. We need the injection of talent. They could buy out and restore inner cities. Their students would no longer have to travel internationally to the Ivy League.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For the US, a huge opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
This is how we swiped the entire business/professional class of Cuba and Iran. Their loss, our gain.
Re: (Score:2)
What about all the terrorist and murderers? They're the ones most likely to want to leave HK, after all...
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite.
Britain has offered a path to citizenship to anyone holding a British Origin Passport. Basically if you were living in Hong Kong before 1997, you had a BOP as it was still a British territory and everyone in Hong Kong then was a British subject.
So Britain has offered all BOP holders a path to citizenship because they were at one point in time a British subject.
Unfortunately, those born after 1997 will have a Chin
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite.
Britain has offered a path to citizenship to anyone holding a British Origin Passport. Basically if you were living in Hong Kong before 1997, you had a BOP as it was still a British territory and everyone in Hong Kong then was a British subject.
Ah, ok. Now we can see the RACISM of the Britshit who offers sanctuary to the least amount of Chinese people...
I am not surprised; Britain has been always based on racism.
So Britain has offered all BOP holders a path to citizenship because they were at one point in time a British subject.
Unfortunately, those born after 1997 will have a Chinese passport and thus not be under this.
Why would they? They were born when Hong-Kong is Chinese, so Britain doesn't want that kind of people from a former colony...
Basically all that's happening is Hong Kong is basically disappearing into China and governments are now treating it as a province of China rather than the special region it was.
Why should it be special? Because it was occupied by the largest colonial empire in History? So, just for this, it could not liberated and being a little bit more colonized by Britain than the rest of China which wa
Re:For the US, a huge opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Invite all Hong Kong residents to come to the US and settle under the existing rules for political refugees, and bring the klepto-banking cabal with them. We need the injection of talent. They could buy out and restore inner cities. Their students would no longer have to travel internationally to the Ivy League.
IIRC, Britain has already offered British citizenship to any Hong-Konger who wants it.
Only to those born before 1997. People born before 1997 hold (or can apply for) British National Overseas (BNO) status and passports. Britain has said all of them can come to Britain to live and work for five years, after which they'll be eligible to apply for nationalization.
Fuck Facebook, Google and Twitter (Score:3, Funny)
Back in the 90s (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Back in the 90s (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Taiwan is just a rebellious Chinese province that was just as dictatorial as Mao’s China and that could afford to taunt the Mainland just because it was backed by the US.
Re: Back in the 90s (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
seismic event (Score:2)
simply refuse and depart like Google did in China a decade ago over some of the very same issues. Much like that seismic event shook the mainland in 2010
In what way did that "shake the mainland"? Maybe it let Alibaba grow more? I could see it maybe being more important in Hong Kong, though.
it's a feature, not a bug (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough. The west is in a de-coupoling stage with China. Basically, I'm ok with this. I'm really glad that China has developed so far. They pulled a billion people out of poverty. Nobody else has ever done that and the accomplishment should be recognized.
But their form of government is probably going to get in the way of further development. The only people who want to get into bed with a dictatorship..... is other dictators. That puts severe limits on the amount of cooperation China will get from the rest of the world. China was supposed to give Hong Kong 50 years of autonomy but they lost patience after 25. The governments in the west have lost patience as well. No more special economic treatment - we're going to de-couple and see which system does better. I'm basically ok with this. It's the largest geopolitical experiment ever undertaken. Personally, my money is on the western governments. We went through this with Russia....... check out how that one went. I've read that China's government is intent on avoiding the mistakes of the USSR. To my eye, they're treading the exact same path.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, my money is on the western governments. We went through this with Russia....... check out how that one went.
Imagine that instead of the cold war, we had invested trillions of dollars in the USSR starting around the time that JFK was elected. Do you think it likely that the wall still falls in 1991? We've spent three decades building the PRC's economy, and along with that, we've transferred tons of technology to them AND crippled our own industry at the same time.
I make it a point not to bet against my own team, but smart money here would NOT bet on the west.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either Lenin or Stalin said that a capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with. I don't knock the Chinese for their wisdom in using the west the way they did. Anyone with half a brain would have played the situation the same way.
It's possible the situation is salvable. It's not very likely, though. This one is very much on Bill Clinton for granting China MFN back in the 90s [mit.edu], though obviously no one on the other side of the aisle did much if anything about it in the interim (other than, ironically
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point, Nixon did lay the ground work. MFN is firmly on Bill, though, and MFN is what really drove the move to China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If China sticks to dictatorship/oligarchy and we stick to capitalist/republic/federal/democracy, our win is pretty much guaranteed. It'll just take a while. It's entirely possible I'll be dead before the ref makes the call.
Re: (Score:2)
> They want to create their own national champions that will dominate in their own backyard.
LOL, inappropriate use of the past tense there. That ship has sailed...they already have their own.
In fact, their domestic services are so well established that I seriously doubt there's much value in the Great Firewall of China. I suppose it is a tool that allows them to enforce local laws on the internet...like Facebook breaking the law by facilitating terrorism, and Google not wanting to comply with the law...s
your really need bytedance apps? (Score:2)
Hong Kong Phooey (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So over 200 years ago only rich white men could vote in our system, and now everyone can vote, but in YOUR system NO ONE CAN VOTE AT ALL, even today, and that is somehow better. Now there is some logic. Hopefully people like you will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re: (Score:3)
So over 200 years ago only rich white men could vote in our system, and now everyone can vote, but in YOUR system NO ONE CAN VOTE AT ALL, even today
A really good dictatorship would arguably be better than a badly designed voting system. Just compare Singapore and the US. Voting seems like a piece of rhetoric that people use to say a country is great. A better metric would be freedom (including having the means to do things), or individual flourishing. No, I would not give up the vote, but I would gladly trade my vote for a vote in a more sophisticated election system.
Re: (Score:2)
Voting seems like a piece of rhetoric
I meant bringing up voting in conversation is often rhetoric, not voting itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The best possible government system is a benevolent dictatorship. The only problem with it is the lack of benevolent dictators.
Re: (Score:2)
This is only true for certain restricted meanings of best. It can be the most efficient. It can act quickly to correct perceived wrongs. The trick here is lies in the word "perceived". Think about it for awhile. Consider, e.g., a cloistered suburban encountering the objections of a BLM protester. They didn't even consider that such things might be going on.
Re: There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:2)
People can, and do, vote in China.
Re:There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984 [wikipedia.org] said: In accordance with the "one country, two systems" principle agreed between the UK and China, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) would not practise the socialist system in mainland China, and Hong Kong's existing capitalist system and way of life would be unchanged for 50 years until 2047. The Joint Declaration requires these basic policies to be written in the Hong Kong Basic Law. . So China has broken its agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
"way of life" is pretty broad.
Re: There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the whole point. It was an all,encompassing agreement.
Way of life.
Period.
Re: (Score:2)
So China has broken its agreement.
And there's really squat England can do about it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the West banned all commerce with China China would be bankrupt and in chaos in under a year. This is the stick to wield. No one really needs cheap chinese imports. But China desperately needs the sales.
Re: (Score:2)
But China desperately needs the sales.
And the Wall-Mardes and LIDLs of the world need the cheap shit they have China do for them.
What are they gonna do? Bring back manufacturing in the West with it's expensive salaries and onerous workers’ protections?
Re: (Score:2)
Bring back manufacturing in the West with it's expensive salaries and onerous workers’ protections?
Yes: things would cost a bit more, but we would also have fuller employment so more tax revenue that could be used for good things -- if only to pay down covid-19 debt. We could also buy things from other places like: India & Vietnam, help grow the economies of other countries as well. I would worry a bit about what China might do if its income is cut - how aggressive would it be ?
Re: (Score:2)
We could also buy things from other places like: India & Vietnam
Vietnam? Vietnam is more rabidly Communist than China...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:4, Insightful)
That is indeed the correct solution.
Unfortunately no one has the balls to do it. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
There are many arguments in favor of that action, but any quick embargo would be quite disruptive to the West, possibly more disruptive to the West than to China. I agree with that as a long term goal, as it's a tremendous vulnerability. I agree that trade treaties should favor anyone else over China. Including Somalia.
Do be aware, however, that you are limiting the range of future actions to, e.g., protect Taiwan. Every action has a trade-off cost. My first step would be strict enforcement of various
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, but this is so sad.
China is a sovereign country; it can disregard whatever treaties or agreements it doesn’t like.
Just like when Trump discarded NAFTA.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, but this is so sad.
China is a sovereign country; it can disregard whatever treaties or agreements it doesn’t like.
Just like when Trump discarded NAFTA.
Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure NAFTA had a clause that allowed the US to withdraw from the agreement after giving a certain amount of notice while the Hong-Kong treaty had no such clause.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you are wrong, though proving a negative is hard. Can you point to that part of the agreement?
Re: (Score:2)
China is a sovereign country; it can disregard whatever treaties or agreements it doesn’t like.
But if it does it will find that negotiating the next one so much harder.
The Chinese leaders must understand that ... so what are they thinking ? Do they think that they are powerful enough that they can make other countries do what they want ? Maybe they looked at the anemic response when Russia annexed Crimea [wikipedia.org]. The West was all blather & no action. I do understand that action is hard and dangerous - but if you do not stand up to bullies they will do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
But if it does it will find that negotiating the next one so much harder.
Only if it's with the US.
Re: There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:2)
Yeah, but article 23 was never enacted by HK so the agreement is void. Is it any wonder that prc decide to do it for them? They have been very patient.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. The law is so vague that nobody can tell what it really means, and that means the safe action it to withdraw.
If you want to claim that the British weren't exactly benevolent, I'm forced to agree, but that doesn't make all actions the same.
Re: There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:5, Informative)
Hello Mao, good to see you here implementing some free speech.
The ancient Greeks who defined Democracy also had limits to who could vote. We've progressed past that, just like they would eventally have.
As for the banking kleptocracy, compared to your Communist Party kleptocracy, lack of freedom of speech, and your intellectual property kleptocracy, I think we'll keep our banks.
I also think we'll keep our aircraft carriers and our full arsenal pointed squarely at you over your illegal and imperialistic expansion in the South China sea.
After freeing your country and people from Japanese imperialism, we really were hoping for a better partner. There's still time for you, but the big pivot has already begun, and it won't end well for anybody, especially you.
Re: There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be specia (Score:2)
The only reason China is putting military facilities in the scs is because the USA has militarised it. If the USA would piss off back to its side of the Pacific where it belongs, China would surely not bother. It is US agression that is the cause of the problems in the region, not Chinese agression.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a REASON in the form of a signed treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
There is a REASON in the form of a signed treaty.
The US also reneges on treaties. Like Trump reneging on NAFTA.
Treaties are just pieces of paper.
Re:There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:5, Insightful)
Only bad ideas require censorship to survive. If you need to keep people from talking about your system, your system is faulty.
Re:There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. How do you think this concept relates to the censorship of conservative speech in the US?
I see no censorship of conservative opinions in the US. Some privately-owned platforms have been removing speech that promotes violence and dangerous falsehoods, much of which is spoken by conservatives. But nothing prevents that speech from migrating to other platforms, which is the crucial difference between actual censorship and private decisions by platforms.
In HK, they're facing actual censorship, not just demonetization or even deplatforming -- they're facing people being jailed, and possibly even e
Re: (Score:2)
Oh c'mon, what did Trump do now?
Wait, why'd he want to censor conservative speech? Did the dems take over when I wasn't looking?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very foolish assertion. It's like saying that if people are free to eat what they want they'll prefer healthy food. To some extent it's true, but people will gorge on sweets and fats. And there are ideas that are, in the same way, excessively attractive. Consider the topics of rumors. You won't find many people gossiping about the latest mathematica theorum, but sex lives of the rich and famous are of compelling interest. So are scandals about their enemies or neighbors. Truth is almost irre
Re: (Score:2)
How does this equate? If anything, it means that people will eat what they want, given the choice.
"Free speech" does not mean "true speech" or "good speech", whatever "good" may mean in this context. Free speech means that they will say what they feel like saying and that also means that they are free to tell lies. That is by itself not a problem. What IS a problem, and I do agree with you here, is the shabby state of the education level in the country and people being unable to tell fact from fiction.
That'
Re: (Score:2)
It's not, or at least not entirely, a matter of education. People tend to be lazy and take short-cuts in their thinking, and also to interested in sex and things that may damage someone's reputation. The level of education is almost irrelevant. And there has been at least one professor of mathematics who have been members of the Flat Earth Society. (Well, admittedly not a very prestigious professor. IIRC it was a professor of some Florida college that I can't remember off the top of my head, and it was
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, education levels were even worse in the past and we have a problem with repressed sexuality as well. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and the Chinese nomenclatura has been the pinnacle of truth and has no use for propaganda.
Say, a question, is it true that when I say Tiananmen Square and mention the Tienanmen Square massacre [wikipedia.org] that you go away because it's censored away in your country? Kinda like a reverse "Hastur, Hastur, Hastur"?
Re:There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of horse shit, like agreements between nations mean dick.
For Trump, NAFTA meant dick, so he abolished it unilaterally.
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of horse shit, like agreements between nations mean dick.
For Trump, NAFTA meant dick, so he abolished it unilaterally.
The NAFTA agreement, from what I have read, had an exit clause.
Re: (Score:2)
An act of war against Hong Kong, yes. An act of war against Britain, well, that's arguable. An act of war against anyone else not signatory to that treaty, no.
It should mean that treaties with China are not considered durable. It should mean that China is considered an untrustworthy treaty partner. And this should always be reflected in any treaties made with China. Beyond that, though, well.... Power politics is certainly nothing new in this world. This is a clear statement "We can do what we want an
Re: (Score:2)
An act of war against Hong Kong, yes. An act of war against Britain, well, that's arguable. An act of war against anyone else not signatory to that treaty, no.
ALL free people in existence have a duty to stand up for one another, so yes, it's an act of war against the entire developed world. Free nations exist because we don't tolerate tyranny, and for no other reason.
Re: There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:2)
What bollocks. It is an act of war that resulted in Hong Kong becoming a colony. It wasn't independent. It wasn't even a democracy. It's only become a democracy since it was returned to China, and part of that agreement was that they enact national security laws...article 23...did they? Did they Heck. No wonder PRC has done it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't think Beijing astroturfers cared about Slashdot.
At any rate, whatever the right or wrong of either side, the Peoples Republic of China and the United Kingdom signed a treaty that guaranteed that once Hong Kong was returned to China, that it would enjoy a special status within the Peoples Republic. Now it's true enough that few believed Beijing would hold to that commitment for very long, and I imagine many are surprised it took nearly a quarter of a century before Beijing began to roll back the particular rights guaranteed under the treaty, but let's make no bones about it, this is a clear violation of that treaty, and Britain and its allies are now fully within their rights under international law and their domestic laws to start rolling back, in turn, the particular privileges that Hong Kong enjoyed because of that special status which Beijing has clearly signaled is going to either ultimately be outright terminated, or rendered so impotent as to have the same effect.
China is within its rights to do what it will with Hong Kong, and other countries are within their rights to revoke any special trade and political status which they had conferred on Hong Kong. If China doesn't like that, well, it could always repeal the Security Act. But frankly, I don't think China cares anymore. Hong Kong is an important point of trade, but it has diminished mightily in the last couple of decades. But what's likely coming, as consensus among the Western allies that China has no intention of the political liberalizations which China inferred were coming in the 1990s as part of its pact to gain favored trade partner status, and that, so far as I am concerned, frees up the United States, Canada, Britain, Europe and their Asian and Pacific allies to start the process of revoking that status. COVID-19 has demonstrated the unreliability of China in every respect; as a reliable trade partner, as a reliable contributor to the general welfare of humanity, and as a decent, honorable and accountable government to its own citizens.
To my view, we need to bring back the Trans-Pacific Partnership, on steroids. The US and its allies need to ringfence the South China Sea and make it clear that Maritime Law applies in that body of water, and the rule of international law will be defended there, and they need to start bringing up the barriers to China's trade, and economic and political influence in Western nations and their allies. China can choose to be cooperative, but if it does not, then it should cost it that which it now values most of all; coin.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't think Beijing astroturfers cared about Slashdot.
No astroturfer here, but an early Slashdotter who has lived in China and seen first hand what it can do without being sucked dry by the Wall Street/City klepto-banking cabal for which, we in the West, have to work harder and harder every year. The CCP may well be the last bastion that prevents the cabal from taking over the whole world.
Re:There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1997, the LEASE that gave Britain Hong-Kong EXPIRED, so Hong-Kong reverts back to it's LAWFUL owner, China,
In fact, "China" did not exist when the lease was taken out. "China" was a new country founded by Mao in 1949 using elements of the old Middle Kingdom. Modern "China" specifically disavowed any connection to the government that leased Hong Kong back in 1897. So there wasn't really any lawful requirement to hand it back to the thugs in Bejing - just political reasons. Not that the people in charge of "China" care at all about the law. They are fascists and only believe in strength and what they cat take off those weaker than them.
There is NO REASON for Hong-Kong to have a political system that aims at subverting the political system of China
Everyone has a reason to subvert the political system of any fascist state anywhere there's nothing special about the people who run "China" that distinguishes them from the people we hanged after Nuremberg.
with British-style "democracy" whose sole aim is to surrender all power to bourgeois (it is only for a century or so that every adult can vote in that bourgeois "democratic" system; previously, it was only rich white men who could vote).
In fact that's not exactly true. Firstly, you didn't have to be white; voting to the Westminster Parliament has never been restricted on the basis of race and the composer Ignatius Sancho voted in the 1700's when most white people could not because, secondly, you didn't have to be "rich", just not "poor".
But in any case you're trying to have it both ways, British democracy (without the quote marks that should properly be used around Peoples "Republic" of China) can't both have the aim to surrender all power to bourgeois and at the same time have been reformed to extended the franchise to everyone a century ago.
I also note that no one who lives in "China" has a vote in who runs the country, regardless of the colour of their skin. I suppose that's a type of racial equality - everyone's subjugated.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, "China" did not exist when the lease was taken out. "China" was a new country founded by Mao in 1949 using elements of the old Middle Kingdom.
and which inherited all the treaties and obligations of it’s predecessors since 1847.
Besides, treaties can be cancelled unilaterally, and it’s been done all the time, like when Trump cancelled NAFTA.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, "China" did not exist when the lease was taken out. "China" was a new country founded by Mao in 1949 using elements of the old Middle Kingdom.
and which inherited all the treaties and obligations of it’s predecessors since 1847.
Why? Because you say so? There was a complete revolution which rejected everything connected to the old regime. It's nice if you get to pick and choose what "everything" means, but there's no law saying anyone else has to pay you any attention.
Re:There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:4, Insightful)
In 1997, the LEASE that gave Britain Hong-Kong EXPIRED, so Hong-Kong reverts back to it's LAWFUL owner, China,
I would say that the ROC has at least as good a claim over the territory compared to the PRC, better in fact. It's LAWFUL owner is Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your You've been told over and over that there was an exist clause in NAFTA, whereas there was no such thing in the China/UK treaty.
Every treaty has a default exit clause: you ignore it’s terms. It’s up to the other party to enforce his “rights”. I can’t wait to see the UK trying to pick on China about Hong-Kong
Re: There is no reason for Hong-Kong to be special (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Taiwan is a rebel province of China.
ITYM that China is a rebel province of Taiwan.
Re: (Score:3)
As a proud lefty who is highly critical of our system and our history, can I just say, go fuck yourself? Fuck China and the CCP, you fascist fuckwad. Nobody is buying what you are selling here, pack it in.
What you are doing isn't communism, and it does not benefit the proletariat. It's fascism, nothing more.
Y'all need to get the fuck out of Ladakh too. Stop with the salami slicing.
China is about to find out the western world isn't as weak and toothless as they assume.
Re: (Score:2)
China, which is then free to apply whatever policies it sees fit to protect itself against western colonialism
That western colonialism expired in the 20th century, and anyhow, it actually turned out pretty good for Hong Kong, didn't it?
What we are seeing these days, in the 21st century, is Chinese imperialism.
Re: (Score:3)
It was only good for the bourgeois who milked it.
Really? I think it's pretty clear that the average Hong Kong citizen is much better off than the average Chinese mainlander. And I'm not just referring to material wealth, but overall quality of life and especially the most important things: freedoms - of speech, religion and expression. Modern China is an authoritarian dictatorship right out of 1984. The government can make or break you at a moments notice. I'll take "western colonialism" any day of the week before being completely at the mercy of the auth
Re: (Score:2)
How much did you pay to buy this 5-digit account?
Nothing, I just registered my account 20+ years ago.
How much does the CCP pay you to pedal their propaganda? Or do you do it for free?
I’m not paid; I’m just defending a very good country that is the source of Civilization whose history goes much further than any Western nation and that has done tremenduous achievements throughout History.
How do you sleep at night with the screams of the non-Han oppressed people ringing in your ears?
You’re talking about the Uighurs that blow, on the average, one bomb every week? I sleep very well knowing that they are being taken care of.
Never mind, it will be over soon when you have killed, sterilised, or 'assimilated' all the non-Han 'inferiors'. Then their screams will be silenced for ever.
What bollocks; you have no idea what is the Chinese policy towards minorities. For example, the
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean there's not treaty or law barring the action, you're correct. That's very different, however, from saying there's "NO REASON". There are lots of reasons why it's a bad idea. From the government of China's viewpoint there appear to be more reasons why it's a desirable action. But there will be, and should be, consequences. Were I doing business in Hong Kong, I'd have pulled out nearly a decade ago. The writing was clear on the wall then. If I lived there, I'd have wanted to move to Britain
Re: (Score:2)
In 1997, the LEASE that gave Britain Hong-Kong EXPIRED,
No, HK was ceded in perpetuity by the Qing dynasty. It was only the New Territories that were leased, hence the negotiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Of course Google is important over there... (Score:2)
No one gives a shit about google or fb. It's when Hong Kong loses special trade status that things start breaking.
When that happens globally it will be the official day one of the next Cold War.
Re: (Score:2)
May the CCP be the ultimate barrier against the complete takeover of the planet by bankers!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and HK has had that long to try to comply with the agreement, but still hasn't...so it's no surprise that PRC decides to implement the requirements of article 23 for them - if they had done so as agreed, perhaps they wouldn't have had the riots in the first place.
IMO, PRC has been very patient...even during the riots they kept their distance.