China to enact Article 23 National Security Law in Hong Kong
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:23:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  China to enact Article 23 National Security Law in Hong Kong
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: China to enact Article 23 National Security Law in Hong Kong  (Read 2880 times)
The Simpsons Cinematic Universe
MustCrushCapitalism
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 737
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2020, 03:46:52 AM »

imagine supporting high rents and human rights violations over such things as t e r r i t o r i a l i n t e g r i t y

You know what would solve the massive economic issues of HK? Integration into the mainland. The central government cannot and does not seem to want to rush that, because it's politically infeasible, Hong Kongers do not want to give up their special position despite the basis of it - its economic significance within China - being greatly diminished.

I think issues of censorship are a genuine concern preventing that, I don't expect Hong Kongers to just all buy a VPN overnight. I think it's reasonable to expect certain changes to have to take place before a greater degree of integration and freedom of movement between Hong Kong and the rest of China can begin.

Short answer: Orientalism.

A little elaboration: this is an American forum, and Americans are used to a manner of speaking about international affairs where its privilege and interests are just kind of "assumed", if not as "good", at least as "not evil."

Quote
Why would I imagine that? I'm trying to masturbate less, not more.

same tbh good visual
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,849
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2020, 04:09:00 AM »

You know what would solve the massive economic issues of HK? Integration into the mainland. The central government cannot and does not seem to want to rush that, because it's politically infeasible, Hong Kongers do not want to give up their special position despite the basis of it - its economic significance within China - being greatly diminished.

That's completely backwards. Hong Kong's economic privilege comes from the fact that it is (rather, was) a stable jurisdiction with rule of law, an independent judiciary, and relatively low corruption that international businesses can trust. In other words, not being China. If Hong Kong was just another Chinese city, it would be completely eclipsed by Shanghai.
Logged
urutzizu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 587
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2020, 05:31:06 AM »
« Edited: May 22, 2020, 05:55:31 AM by urutzizu »

I don't disagree in principle Santander, but It is already being re-eclipsed by Shanghai, isn't it? In what Dashushu was responding to specifically - the Allegation that HK integration into China means somehow supporting "higher rents", it is pretty obvious that the opposite is the case. I mean some of the protesters even live in Shenzhen for crying out loud. 1C2S - almost as unfettered neoliberalism as one can get - is responsible for the grotesque situation where a very small section of the City has almost complete monopolistic control over its Housing and ensures that usual mechanisms to increase supply cannot be utilized, because - unlike in the mainland - it has effective control over the levers of Government as well, and ensures Zoning laws remain extremely restrictive. And Pan-Democrats are perfectly fine with this arrangement, because they need to protect the narrative that the only reason for high rents are the evil mainlanders that come to live in HK. When in fact freer mobility between Mainland China and HK would force HK property owners to keep their prices in tack with those on the Mainland - the end to Border Controls would also make commuting into the City far easier. Integration would mean a very visible and clear improvement on one of the main underlying Issues that led to the protests in the first place.  

Also on the point that comparing these Laws to their equivalnents in Western Countries is invalid because they are far more overreaching - and you are not wrong, they are, actually to the point that I am also uncomfortable with them. But ultimately, that it had to come to this is single-handedly the responsibility of the Pan-Democrats. Once again these people, out of pure recalcitrance, refuse any compromise with the Mainland, allowing a bad situation to deteriorate out of some sort of accelerationist Idea that the longer things are bad in Hong Kong the more support they are going to get, and then are full surprised pikachu face when they end up shafting themselves - and Hong Kong - worse for it.

Same thing happened with the Chief Executive election, for instance. The Pan-Democrats had the option of the universal sufferage election with a nomination committee as accepted by the Central Government - that while still controlled by the pro-peking camp would have still effectively forced the nomination of a moderate pro-peking politican with popular appeal - or they could own the Chinese nats in the LegCo epic style and keep the current system where people have no say what so ever and that will always ensure the election of a pro-peking hardliner. They chose the latter obviously.

And same here. Everyone knew that Hong Kong needed some form of security law, like every other jurisdiction in the World. They could have worked with Beijing to implement the relatively moderate 2003 draft which had Hong kong input and was mostly in line with those of stricter democratic countries like France or South Korea. But no, they blocked everything. So the Central Government said ok, if implementing the offences into HK law is too much, then there must at least be a way to try those offenders in China. But everyone got angry, the City was burned, and we know the rest. And eventually Beijing ran out of patience and bypassed hong kong altogether and is now going to railroad it's preferred draft which is going to be far more authoritarian than the 2003 Draft, and most likely the de facto end to One Country Two Systems.

Hong Kong has been destroyed by the very people who claim to be fighting for her. Who, of course can and will always just emigrate - but that is a option that most in Hong Kong don't have. They have been sold down the river for some sweet USA university scholarships for Joshua Wong and his friends, and will be the ones facing the very real consequences of this.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,120
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2020, 05:37:05 AM »

I don't disagree in principle Santander, but It is already being re-eclipsed by Shanghai, isn't it? In what Dashushu was responding to specifically - the Allegation that HK integration into China means somehow supporting "higher rents", it is pretty obvious that the opposite is the case. I mean some of the protesters even live in Shenzhen for crying out loud. 1C2S - almost as unfettered neoliberalism as one can get - is responsible for the grotesque situation where a very small section of City has almost complete monopolistic control over it's Housing and ensures that usual mechanisms to increase supply cannot be utilized, because - unlike in the mainland - it has effective control over the levers of Government as well, and ensures Zoning laws remain extremely restrictive. And Pan-Democrats are perfectly fine with this arrangement, because they need to protect the narrative that the only reason for high rents are the evil mainlanders that come to live in HK. When in fact freer mobility between Mainland China and HK would force HK property owners to keep their prices in tack with those on the Mainland - the end to Border Controls would also make commuting into the City far easier. Integration would mean a very visible and clear improvement on one of the main underlying Issues that led to the protests in the first place. 

Also on the point that comparing these Laws to their equivanents in Western Countries is invalid because they are far more overreaching - and you are not wrong, they are, actually to the point that I am also uncomfortable with them. But ultimately it, the fact that it had to come to this is down single-handedly to the responsibility of the Pan-Democrats. Once again these people, out of pure recalcitrance, refuse any compromise with the Mainland, allowing a bad situation to deteriorate out of some sort of accelerationist Idea that the longer things are bad in Hong Kong the more support they are going to get, and then are full surprised pikachu face when they end up shafting themselves - and Hong Kong - worse for it.

Same thing happened with the Chief Executive election, for instance. The Pan-Democrats had the option of the universal sufferage election with a nomination committee as accepted by the Central Government - that while still controlled by the pro-peking camp would have still effectively forced the nomination of a moderate pro-peking politican with popular appeal - or they could own the Chinese nats in the LegCo epic style and keep the current system where people have no say what so ever and that will always ensure the election of a pro-peking hardliner. They chose the latter obviously.

And same here. Everyone knew that Hong Kong needed some form of security law, like every other jurisdiction in the World. They could have worked with Beijing to implement the relatively moderate 2003 draft which had Hong kong input and was mostly in line with those of stricter democtratic countries like France or South Korea. But no, they blocked everything. So the Central Government said ok, if implementing the offences into HK law is too much, then there must at least be a way to try those offenders in China. But everyone got angry, the City was burned, and we know the rest. And eventually Beijing ran out of patience and bypassed hong kong altogether and is now going to railroad it's preferred draft which is going to be far more authoritarian than the 2003 Draft, and most likely the de facto end to One Country Two Systems.

Hong Kong has been destroyed by the very people who claim to be fighting for her. Who, of course can and will always just emigrate - but that is option that most in Hong Kong don't have. They have been sold down the river for some sweet USA university scholarships for Joshua Wong and his friends, and will be the real ones facing the consequences of this.
I guess it is only fitting that the tradegy of Hong Kong is heavily contributed to by well-intentioned but ultimately inept and naive people who do not really understand the art of compromising for tactical reasons.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2020, 05:41:10 AM »

From the PRC point of view this act does not violate the underlying deal that was made.  Deng famously said that after 1997 in HK "馬照跑,舞照跳" "horse racing will continue, dancing parties will go on" which is a promise of the preservation of the social and economic status quo.  Deng nor the PRC has never promised that on issues of national security there will be any compromise as symbolized by the PLA garrison in HK.

The main difference between this time and 2003 when the PRC backed down is frankly the PRC does not need HK as much as the 1990s and 2000s,  The size of the HK economy as the driver of economic development of the Pearl Delta economic zone has declined much relative to Guangdong to the point that if the PRC faced 1997 with the current economic balance of forces they would consider a Goa like solution in 1961 where India's Operation Vijay annexed Goa via military means.   Also the PRC was hoping that a compromising  approach with respect to HK might enticed the real price, Taiwan Province, to play ball.  Now that has not worked out the PRC has to prioritize reintegration of HK.

The current opposition in brought this on and now will suffer the consequences.  They could have taken the loyal opposition line and fought the PRC on issue of policy priorities while insisting that HK is part of China and HK are every as Chinese as any other Chines province.  They choose to use a separate ethnic identity for HK as political line of attack which would just trigger a counter reaction along the lines of "well, that's treason and we know how to deal with traitors." 

For me the HK opposition crossed my line, which is similar to but not the same as the PRC.  I am happy for the HK opposition to challenge the PRC regime (with my support on an issue by issue basis) but their challenge must be based on their assertion that HK is part of China is as Chinese as any other province and they policy changes they seek by the PRC regime should also be applicable for the rest of PRC.  Namely  if what you want is so great why not ask for it for the rest of your Chinese compatriots.  And if you want it for yourself only then you are not thinking of the rest of Greater China as your compatriots and to me that is treason and my approach will then converge with what the PRC response is. 

I think the relative economic decline of HK will continue regardless.  It will still serve as a buffer zone for enterprises that want to be in PRC but not completely within the PRC but the relative value of that proposition both in terms of supply and demand will continue to go down.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2020, 06:07:05 AM »

This youtube video is quite illuminating on the relative economic decline of HK.  It is a video of GDP comparisons of USA states and Chinese provinces (PRC and ROC provinces plus HK) from 1993 to 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxUnPE7038s

In 1993 Taiwan Province and HK are way ahead of other PRC provinces.  By 2018 Taiwan Province has been overtaken by several advanced PRC provinces (Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shangdong, Zhejiang) and will be soon overtaken by various middle tier PRC provinces (Hubei, Hunan, Fujian, Anhui).  HK which was also way ahead of other PRC provinces will soon just have the economic weight of backward or small PRC province.

I remember in 1991 in college I read a Mainland China newspaper article which talked about a Fujian Province plan to over take Taiwan Province in total GDP by 2030. There always have been a rivalry between Fujian and Taiwan Province since both speak the Hoklo dialect and Taiwan Province was part of Fujian Province until 1885 when it was broken out.  Anyway when I read that, my own Taiwanese regional pride told myself "well, I am sure Fujian Province will take off economically but we on Taiwan Province will also advance rapidly economically so I doubt this plan will work out."  Bear in mind that the early 1990s was the peak ROC relative economic power.  I had totally overestimated the economic potential of Taiwan Province over the coming decades.  It seems that Fujian Province will achieve its goal by 2025 at the latest and 5 years ahead of schedule.
Logged
The Simpsons Cinematic Universe
MustCrushCapitalism
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 737
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2020, 06:27:43 AM »

I remember in 1991 in college I read a Mainland China newspaper article which talked about a Fujian Province plan to over take Taiwan Province in total GDP by 2030. There always have been a rivalry between Fujian and Taiwan Province since both speak the Hoklo dialect and Taiwan Province was part of Fujian Province until 1885 when it was broken out.  Anyway when I read that, my own Taiwanese regional pride told myself "well, I am sure Fujian Province will take off economically but we on Taiwan Province will also advance rapidly economically so I doubt this plan will work out."  Bear in mind that the early 1990s was the peak ROC relative economic power.  I had totally overestimated the economic potential of Taiwan Province over the coming decades.  It seems that Fujian Province will achieve its goal by 2025 at the latest and 5 years ahead of schedule.

A lot of Taiwanese go to other provinces of China for economic opportunities now. Happy to say that in my city, many fantastic and innovative businesses are run by Taiwanese entrepreneurs.

My girlfriend went to university in Fuzhou and my best friend is in Taiwan Province right now, I can say from experience Fujian is wonderful, and from everything I've heard of Taiwan, this can only be attributable to fantastic management on the mainland side of the strait, because Taiwan Province is itself is, like Macau SAR, and in contrast to Hong Kong SAR, governed quite effectively.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2020, 06:31:11 AM »


Same thing happened with the Chief Executive election, for instance. The Pan-Democrats had the option of the universal sufferage election with a nomination committee as accepted by the Central Government - that while still controlled by the pro-peking camp would have still effectively forced the nomination of a moderate pro-peking politican with popular appeal - or they could own the Chinese nats in the LegCo epic style and keep the current system where people have no say what so ever and that will always ensure the election of a pro-peking hardliner. They chose the latter obviously.


I made the point before that the HK Pan-Democrat position is similar to the Okinawa anti-base opposition.  They both reject compromises that will move meaningfully toward their position for fear that the compromise will diffuse the issue and move them further away their ideal solution which is never in the cards anyway.  Both rather have the issue than any real meaning progress toward their goals.

The Okinawa base stalemate reminds me a lot of the HK Chief Execute Election stalemate. 

Current the HK Chief Executive is elected by an electoral college whose selection is by the PRC government.  The Democratic and Localist blocs demand the selection of the HK  Chief Execute is based on direct election by the HK population.  PRC says "Yes we can agree to that  but we get to vet the candidates ahead of time."  The Democratic and Localist blocs reject this proposal even as a interim  solution because they fear that if this solution is implemented the population support for their ideal solution would dissipate.     

The USA Futenma base in Okinawa is in Naha and right in the middle of a heavily populated area which is the cause of many problems and incidents. 


The anti-base activist bloc wants the USA completely out of Okinawa.  The government of Japan and USA are offering to move the base to a remote location with no inhabitants.  The anti-base bloc reject this proposal even as an interim  solution because they fear that if this solution is implemented the population support for their ideal solution would dissipate.   


Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,120
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2020, 06:37:40 AM »


Same thing happened with the Chief Executive election, for instance. The Pan-Democrats had the option of the universal sufferage election with a nomination committee as accepted by the Central Government - that while still controlled by the pro-peking camp would have still effectively forced the nomination of a moderate pro-peking politican with popular appeal - or they could own the Chinese nats in the LegCo epic style and keep the current system where people have no say what so ever and that will always ensure the election of a pro-peking hardliner. They chose the latter obviously.


I made the point before that the HK Pan-Democrat position is similar to the Okinawa anti-base opposition.  They both reject compromises that will move meaningfully toward their position for fear that the compromise will diffuse the issue and move them further away their ideal solution which is never in the cards anyway.  Both rather have the issue than any real meaning progress toward their goals.

The Okinawa base stalemate reminds me a lot of the HK Chief Execute Election stalemate. 

Current the HK Chief Executive is elected by an electoral college whose selection is by the PRC government.  The Democratic and Localist blocs demand the selection of the HK  Chief Execute is based on direct election by the HK population.  PRC says "Yes we can agree to that  but we get to vet the candidates ahead of time."  The Democratic and Localist blocs reject this proposal even as a interim  solution because they fear that if this solution is implemented the population support for their ideal solution would dissipate.     

The USA Futenma base in Okinawa is in Naha and right in the middle of a heavily populated area which is the cause of many problems and incidents. 


The anti-base activist bloc wants the USA completely out of Okinawa.  The government of Japan and USA are offering to move the base to a remote location with no inhabitants.  The anti-base bloc reject this proposal even as an interim  solution because they fear that if this solution is implemented the population support for their ideal solution would dissipate.   


That is an apt comparison and one I never really thought of before, but it works.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2020, 06:40:16 AM »

If does seems that this act will most likely energize the opposition and the 2020 Legco election will most likely seen high turnout of the Pan-Democrat blocs and Pan-Localist blocs.  Now there is a meaningful chance that the Pan-Establishment bloc will lose their majority in the 2020 Legco elections.
 A replication of the 2019 HK local elections most likely gives the Pan-Establishment bloc a very narrow majority but it is possible  Pan-Democrat blocs and Pan-Localist blocs turnout might surge even beyond 2019 levels.

Of course for the PRC it does not matter since their bottom line is more about national security issues than exactly how to "divide up the plunder."  Even of the Pan-Establishment bloc lose their majority the internal divisions between the Moderate and Radical Pan-Democrats as well as Pan-Localist bloc will make the anti-Pan-Establishment bloc narrow majority hard to stay wield so there will be all sorts of multi-way backroom deals to get anything passed.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2020, 07:06:44 AM »
« Edited: May 22, 2020, 08:53:39 AM by jaichind »

I remember in 1991 in college I read a Mainland China newspaper article which talked about a Fujian Province plan to over take Taiwan Province in total GDP by 2030. There always have been a rivalry between Fujian and Taiwan Province since both speak the Hoklo dialect and Taiwan Province was part of Fujian Province until 1885 when it was broken out.  Anyway when I read that, my own Taiwanese regional pride told myself "well, I am sure Fujian Province will take off economically but we on Taiwan Province will also advance rapidly economically so I doubt this plan will work out."  Bear in mind that the early 1990s was the peak ROC relative economic power.  I had totally overestimated the economic potential of Taiwan Province over the coming decades.  It seems that Fujian Province will achieve its goal by 2025 at the latest and 5 years ahead of schedule.

A lot of Taiwanese go to other provinces of China for economic opportunities now. Happy to say that in my city, many fantastic and innovative businesses are run by Taiwanese entrepreneurs.

My girlfriend went to university in Fuzhou and my best friend is in Taiwan Province right now, I can say from experience Fujian is wonderful, and from everything I've heard of Taiwan, this can only be attributable to fantastic management on the mainland side of the strait, because Taiwan Province is itself is, like Macau SAR, and in contrast to Hong Kong SAR, governed quite effectively.

Back in the late 1980s the entrepreneurs in my family wanted to invest into Mainland China with a goal of moving their operations there.  I was in high school and I thought it was a bad idea.  I said "are you guys crazy, you cannot trust the CCP, they will have you under their thumb and take all your money."  They said "we went to the Mainland, it looks lot like Taiwan in the early 1960s. We made a lot of money under that environment and we can do it again."  I said "OK, good luck."  Of course they were right and I was wrong.  I guess that is why they are  entrepreneurs and I am just a corporate bureaucrat working for Megacorp.

One of the great what ifs was the 1990 陳立夫 (Chen Lifu) plan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chen_Lifu)

陳立夫 (Chen Lifu) was an elder in the KMT and with his older brother was the leader of the CC (or Chen-Chen) Clique of the KMT back in the 1940s and 1950s.  The CC Clique was the most extreme Right wing of the KMT and was critical in the breakdown of KMT-CCP talks in the mid 1940s.  The CC Clique was for no compromise with the "Communist vermin" and insisted on a renewal of the KMT-CCP civil war to wipe out the CCP.  Of course that did not work out with the KMT losing and retreating to its final base on Taiwan Province.  But in 1990 陳立夫 (Chen Lifu) at age 90 and diehard anti-Communist and enemy of the CCP for decades saw the potential of the PRC economic reforms and advocated that the ROC dump $10 billion to invest in Mainland China which clearly needed funds after the post-Tienanmen era when a lot of Western business pulled out.   His plan was not adopted.  Imagine the amount of money $10 billion in 1990 would be worth today had it been invested in Mainland China.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2020, 08:26:55 AM »

It is my hope, which will most likely not be realized, that these security laws will focus on actions and not speech or thoughts. Just like I object to hate speech and hate crime laws, if HK protesters commit vandalism and arson in the name of being anti-PRC, it still should be just vandalism and arson and no extra punishment applied because of their thoughts.  If they want to shout anti-PRC slogans they should be free to do so as long as they do not impede others or else that will be racketeering.

In many ways I was pro-Taiwan Independence back in the 1980s because of my objection to the ROC laws against pro-Taiwan Independence speech. Once those laws went away I was able to revert my true political self of extreme Chinese nationalism and pro-Chinese unification stance.   

For me there are plenty to stuff the HK protesters did last year to lock up a bunch of them for a while just based on vandalism, arson and racketeering.  I will back HK and PRC authories to persecute them to the fullest extent of the law.   My fear which will most likely be realized is that the PRC will do their version of hate speech and hate crime laws which I view as completely bogus and will object to it rearing its head here.
 
I hope that the focus should be on actions on HK lawmakers where if they take action (like passing as law separating HK sovereignty from that of the PRC) then there should be legal action.  There should also be Logan Act like laws that will criminalize HK residents from colluding for foreign governments since for me that represent actions and not speech or thought. 

I doubt this is what will happens.  The PRC will come up with their version of the bunch of stupid hate speech or hate crime laws which I find so objectionable in the West.  If and when they do this I will continue in my vocal opposition to those variants of the laws they will pass.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2020, 11:08:32 AM »

If does seems that this act will most likely energize the opposition and the 2020 Legco election will most likely seen high turnout of the Pan-Democrat blocs and Pan-Localist blocs.  Now there is a meaningful chance that the Pan-Establishment bloc will lose their majority in the 2020 Legco elections.
 A replication of the 2019 HK local elections most likely gives the Pan-Establishment bloc a very narrow majority but it is possible  Pan-Democrat blocs and Pan-Localist blocs turnout might surge even beyond 2019 levels.

Of course for the PRC it does not matter since their bottom line is more about national security issues than exactly how to "divide up the plunder."  Even of the Pan-Establishment bloc lose their majority the internal divisions between the Moderate and Radical Pan-Democrats as well as Pan-Localist bloc will make the anti-Pan-Establishment bloc narrow majority hard to stay wield so there will be all sorts of multi-way backroom deals to get anything passed.

I thought the functional seats (I think those are the ones elected by corporations and what not) essencially made it close to impossible for the Pan-Democrats to win a majority?

Like the Democrats would need almost a clean sweep of all the democratically elected seats? (or in other words something like 80-85% of the vote, which seems unlikely to me?)
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2020, 11:15:48 AM »


I thought the functional seats (I think those are the ones elected by corporations and what not) essencially made it close to impossible for the Pan-Democrats to win a majority?

Like the Democrats would need almost a clean sweep of all the democratically elected seats? (or in other words something like 80-85% of the vote, which seems unlikely to me?)


Here was my back-of-the-envelope seat calculations based on the 2019 local election results.  Note that the Pan-Democrats have been making slow gains in the functional seats over the last few cycles as the Pan-Establishment bloc has been getting more competitive in the district seats in 2012 and 2016 relative to the early 2000s.  

Note that even with a anti-Establishments majority elected it will be a very narrow one mainly due to the PR nature of the district seats and the strength the Pan-Establishment bloc have in the functional seats.

Isn't LegCo only 50% elected with the other using a corporativist type of election?

No way the Chinese let the pro-democracy camp ever be in control of Hong Kong

35 Multi-member districts, 5 PR seats, 30 functional seats.

If today's vote were transplanted into Legco it should be something like:

35 Multi-member districts I figure will go 21-14 in favor of Pan-Democratic bloc.  5 PR will got 3-2 in favor of Pan-Democratic bloc, 30 functional seats would be 21-9 in favor of Pan-Establishment bloc. This should produce:  37-33 in favor of Pan-Establishment.

The reality is the the Pan-Democratic bloc has been making inroads into the 30 functional seats so the gerrymander is not what it used to be but enough to keep the Pan-Establishment bloc in the majority.  

And of course there is the issue that next year it is not clear the Pan-Democratic bloc will hold or splinter into Moderates, Radicals and Localism like in 2016.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2020, 04:47:43 PM »
« Edited: May 23, 2020, 09:18:56 AM by jaichind »

Speaking of the Sept 2020 LegCo elections I did start to take a look at the likely candidate list and like I hoped the Pan-Democratic and Pan-Localism blocs now risk significant over-nomination of candidates and throwing away their clear vote share advantage.

There are 35 district seats split up into Hong Kong island: 5, Kowloon West: 6,  Kowloon East:5, New Territories West: 9 and New Territories East: 9

Back in 2016 it was Pan-Establishment bloc 16 Pan-Democratic Bloc 13 and Pan-Localism bloc 6.  A good number of Pan-Democratic Bloc and Pan-Localism bloc winners refused to be sworn pledging loyalty to the PRC and lost their seats.

                                          Pan-Establishment    Pan-Democratic    Pan-Localism      Total
Hong Kong island                          3                               2                      1                 5
Kowloon West                               2                               2                      2                 6
Kowloon East                                3                               2                      0                 5
New Territories West                      5                               2                      2                9
New Territories East                      3                               5                       1                9
Total                                          16                             13                       6               35


For 2020, I looked at the candidate list and grouped them into
a) MLC (incumbents or former MLCs)
b) Quality candidate (either a District Council member, or leader of a party or appointed successor of a current MLC)
c) Minor candidates.

If you go with with categorization the candidate list seems to be
                                  
                                    MLC         Quality             Minor         Total
Pan-Establishment           16               2                    4             22
Pan-Democratic               14             21                    5             40
Pan-Localism                    2             10                    6             18

Just like I hoped, the massive Pan-Democratic landslide in 2019 local elections produced a large number of District Council members and are looking take a step up into Legco and leading to an explosion of candidates.  

Back in 2016 the number of candidates by bloc were

                             Total   Quality     Minor
Pan-Establishment   33        21           12
Pan-Democratic       36        23           13
Pan-Localism           15        11            4

It seems the Pan-Establishment Bloc is looking to be be disciplined and will be fighting to keep their 16 seats or perhaps keep their losses to one seat.   It is certain that some of the Pan-Democratic and Pan-Localism candidates will drop out but with so many Quality candidates last minute tactical voting might be tough.  

Going district by district it seems that the Pan-Establishment bloc will lose a seat each in Hong Kong Island, Kowloon East and New Territories West due a turnout surge but over-nomination by the  Pan-Democratic and Pan-Localism blocs could allow them to get away with not losing them.  On the flip side the Pan-Establishment bloc could potentially pickup a seat in Kowloon West and New Territories East  if the Pan-Democratic and Pan-Localism blocs do not coordinate their vote well.  Looking at the way the Pan-Establishment bloc nominated so far it seems they are looking to make gains in  Kowloon West and mostly given up making gains in New Territories East.  In Kowloon West the Pan-Establishment bloc actually saw a vote share surge relative to 2012 but did not nominate enough candidates to take advantage of it.  This time they are calculating that part of their vote share surge in  Kowloon West remain intact to flip a seat despite a worse 2020 environment relative to 2016.

One way to look at the Pan-Establishment strategy is to look at the number of MLC + Quality candidates by district relative to the number of seats it won in 2016

                                                 2016                           2020
                                         Pan-Establishment     Pan-Establishment
                                               Seats              MLC + Quality candidates
Hong Kong island                          3                                3              
Kowloon West                               2                                4
Kowloon East                                3                                3
New Territories West                      5                                5
New Territories East                      3                                3

The number of Pan-Establishment MLC+Quality candidates is the same as the number of Pan-Establishment winners in 2016 with the exception of Kowloon West  where the Pan-Establishment has 4 MLC+Quality candidates versus 2 winners 2016 representing its offensive posture there versus a defensive posture in the other districts.

Of course Sept 2020 is far away so the strategies of all 3 blocs might change.

Unless the Pan-Democratic and Pan-Localism bloc can get organized to slim down their candidates into a series of winnable candidates and weed out the vote splinters their clear  advantage will be thrown away when election day comes.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2020, 09:56:53 PM »

tl;dr
Logged
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,981


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2020, 10:52:41 PM »
« Edited: May 23, 2020, 01:10:25 PM by PSOL »

Go f••• yourself; urutzizu, Dashushu, and Jaichind are putting a lot of effort into their posts. Either read and then state your case on any opposing or affirming statement, if you wish to at all, or lay quiet. Things don’t and shouldn’t get dumbed down these parts.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,849
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2020, 01:13:56 PM »

Go f••• yourself; urutzizu, Dashushu, and Jaichind are putting a lot of effort into their posts. Either read and then state your case on any opposing or affirming statement, if you wish to at all, or lay quiet. Things don’t and shouldn’t get dumbed down these parts.

The posts themselves are bad, though.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2020, 08:37:56 AM »

First poll I could find on the new National Security Law.  It is by the pro-PRC NGO Out HK Foundation.

http://www.orangenews.hk/news/system/2020/05/24/010150138.shtml



The wording clearly is leading and biased but does produce a narrow majority can in theory would back the new law (although is vague enough that that support could be more about wanting LegCo to pass such a naw.)

1) Do you agree that the Basic Law plays a key role in the promotion of peace and prosperity of HK:
Yes 71.7 No 18.6

2) As an SAR of PRC, does HK have the responsibility to help protect national security:
Yes 64.7 No 26.2

3) Do you think there is a real danger of a foreign backed HK independence movement:
Yes 54.1 No 37.7

4) The Basic Law says there should be laws that govern national security,  Does it make sense not to have one:  Yes 31.3 No 52.0

I would be interested in what more pro-opposition outfit polls produce
Logged
PSOL
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,981


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2020, 02:33:27 PM »

They’re threatening to bring in the troops
Logged
urutzizu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 587
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2020, 05:00:42 PM »
« Edited: May 27, 2020, 06:43:26 PM by urutzizu »

The United States has certified that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from Mainland China, which is a major step towards, as Congress and the President may now determine, ending Hong Kong's preferential economic treatment under the Hong Kong policy act and the application of trade restrictions and sanctions including higher trade tariffs, tougher investment rules, asset freezes and more restrictive visa rules. This will have a very real impact on the economic situation of the people of Hong Kong. I think you will see the end of Hong Kong as a financial centre on par with New York or London. But that is evidently a price that Beijing is willing to pay.

The NPC is set to Vote on the resolution within Hours. The general outcome of the Vote is entirely clear, of course, but there may well be dissent from the Hong Kong deputies, consisting of pro-Peking camp Hong Kong politicians, some of which have expressed opposition to it (Michael Tien Puk-sun for instance). Overall a majority of Hong Kong deputies are expected to vote in favour.  
The exact Wording of the Law will then be drafted by the NPCSC, but from the statements of various officials, it would appear the law is likely to ban anything from the flying of foreign flags and advocating Hong Kong independence, to the annual Virgil to commemorate the 1989 Protests. The latter is problematic in my eyes, because, unlike the others it cannot even be justified for nationalist reasons (in fact many Protesters in Hong Kong are against the Virgil, because the 1989 Movement was essentially nationalist in nature, and much of them are basically fine with the premise of having the Mainland Chinese, whom they view as foreign, rot in hell as long as HK gets independence.) It would also appear that in the interim the law would still be enforced by Hong Kong authorities, but Mainland forces will be allowed to intervene if they deem it necessary. This is currently, except in the strictest of circumstances, forbidden.

In short, not entirely a annexation as it has been variously described, the political and economic climate will still be somewhat more liberal relative to the Mainland, but likely more restrictive then Macau for instance which passed its own security law by itself, and where patriotic political opposition is still more or less possible within a stringent legal framework. Perhaps, in hindsight, that was the way to go from the start.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 27, 2020, 07:46:06 PM »

Looks like Hong Kong will now join PRC and Russia as places I avoid investing in. It's not because of any intended solidarity against repressive regimes, but because the lack of financial transparency they have make investing there far riskier than elsewhere and I have neither the time nor the expertise to adequately judge the risks. (I've been largely avoiding Hong Kong for a while, but that had been intended as a temporary pause until trade issues were resolved caused by the heavy involvement of most Hong Kong companies with the PRC.) I can't see Hong Kong remaining a generally better choice for investing than the PRC once it becomes little more than a copy of Macau.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 27, 2020, 08:04:41 PM »

Short answer: Orientalism.

A little elaboration: this is an American forum, and Americans are used to a manner of speaking about international affairs where its privilege and interests are just kind of "assumed", if not as "good", at least as "not evil."

I've put quite a bit of thought into how I perceive issues pertaining to China and it's not based on knee-jerk jingoism or mere perceived self-interest that I'm inclined to distrust its government and oppose efforts to geographically extend the authority of that government. However, I agree with you that many Americans do think and talk about China (and other Asian countries with big, domineering state apparatuses) in Orientalist and racist ways, and I'm happy to accept that there might be elements of that in my own thinking about the place that I don't notice because I'm not Chinese.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2020, 06:49:53 AM »

The United States has certified that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous from Mainland China, which is a major step towards, as Congress and the President may now determine, ending Hong Kong's preferential economic treatment under the Hong Kong policy act and the application of trade restrictions and sanctions including higher trade tariffs, tougher investment rules, asset freezes and more restrictive visa rules. This will have a very real impact on the economic situation of the people of Hong Kong. I think you will see the end of Hong Kong as a financial centre on par with New York or London. But that is evidently a price that Beijing is willing to pay.

The NPC is set to Vote on the resolution within Hours. The general outcome of the Vote is entirely clear, of course, but there may well be dissent from the Hong Kong deputies, consisting of pro-Peking camp Hong Kong politicians, some of which have expressed opposition to it (Michael Tien Puk-sun for instance). Overall a majority of Hong Kong deputies are expected to vote in favour.  
The exact Wording of the Law will then be drafted by the NPCSC, but from the statements of various officials, it would appear the law is likely to ban anything from the flying of foreign flags and advocating Hong Kong independence, to the annual Virgil to commemorate the 1989 Protests. The latter is problematic in my eyes, because, unlike the others it cannot even be justified for nationalist reasons (in fact many Protesters in Hong Kong are against the Virgil, because the 1989 Movement was essentially nationalist in nature, and much of them are basically fine with the premise of having the Mainland Chinese, whom they view as foreign, rot in hell as long as HK gets independence.) It would also appear that in the interim the law would still be enforced by Hong Kong authorities, but Mainland forces will be allowed to intervene if they deem it necessary. This is currently, except in the strictest of circumstances, forbidden.

In short, not entirely a annexation as it has been variously described, the political and economic climate will still be somewhat more liberal relative to the Mainland, but likely more restrictive then Macau for instance which passed its own security law by itself, and where patriotic political opposition is still more or less possible within a stringent legal framework. Perhaps, in hindsight, that was the way to go from the start.

I am not sure I would agree that the 1989 protests were nationalist in nature.  It would depend on the definition of nationalist.  Certainly what became of the 1989 student protest became mostly non-nationalist and perhaps anti-nationalist.  Key student leaders like 吾爾開希(Wu'erkaixi) and 王丹(Wang Dan) ended up on Taiwan Province and mostly espoused pro-Taiwan independence positions. The main intellectual basis of the pro-Western liberal faction of the CCP in the late 1980s before they were purged after the 1989 protests was the mini-series 河殤(River Elegy).  When I watched it in 1988 I felt it was Marxism II with yet another universalist ideology (which was rejection of Chinese civilization values for an Oceanic Western liberal consensus) on top of a failed CCP attempt to imposed a universalist Marxist ideology.  For me it was clearly anti-nationalist and as much I was hostile to their opponents  within the CCP back then I for sure objected to their political narrative.

What happen to the leaders of the 1989 protest movement completely discredited them with some of them backing Taiwan Independence and others turning on each other.  For example 柴玲(Chai Ling) then claimed she was raped by fellow leader 遠志明 (Yuan Tse-Ming) who was the main architect of the 河殤(River Elegy).  The CCP could not asked for a better opposition.  These days the neo-Maoist New Left is far more dangerous enemy of the CCP regime. 

Now in HK protesters are pushing the HK Independence line.  I almost feel that they have been infiltrated by the CCP  since the CCP like nothing better than pose the battle for their domestic audience as CCP vs HK independence.  I have suggested this for a couple of decades now and will continue my advice for the HK radical opposition which is if they really want to hit the CCP they should go for Guangdong Independence not HK Independence.   That will be a real threat to the CCP regime.   Of course the window for that is closing as well.  Mass intra-provincial migration have changed the nature of urban Guangdong although I guess the old Cantonese Guangdong still persist in rural parts of Guangdong.   
Logged
urutzizu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 587
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2020, 09:57:07 AM »

The Resolution has been passed. 2878 For, 1 Against, 6 Abstention. I guess Michael Tien was the only no.
US, UK, Australia and Canada have released a joint statement in Reaction: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-from-the-uk-australia-canada-and-united-states-on-hong-kong

They are not subtle in their Criticism and accuse China of Violating the 1984 Sino-British Joint declaration. It is not surprising that US and Australia would do this, but that especially the UK does so is a significant step, because UK-Chinese relations were until recently quite good. It is their strongest statement yet on the Issue. I wonder what the Reaction in Europe will be. Many in the EU, incl. Josep Borrell the EU de facto foreign minister, backed by Countries like Netherlands or Sweden want to react strongly, but much of the southern/eastern European states are more pro-china. I don't think the EU will come out as critically against the law.

jaichind, I agree with much of what you said. 1989 Movement was a very diverse group with many different aims, including those aligned with baizuo liberalism and disdain for confucian values (who perhaps viewed themselves as patriotic in the sense of wanting what they saw was best for China, but ultimately most Chinese would disagree with that). But a large part also, especially the ones who were against the corruption of the CCP and the lavish lifestyle/nepotism in their ranks, and especially those with sentiments which originated in the 1988 Nanjing protests against the preferencial treatment of African students, were very much nationalist in orientation. The nationalist parts of the democracy movement largely disappeared after 1989, and as you said many of them became aligned with Taiwan/Hong Kong independence or became loyal citizens of Western Countries, as there was little hope of democratisation in China. Other nationalists in the movement in the Mainland eventually became content with the nationalist course of the CCP. I think the SCMP did a interview a while back with some of the Children of some of the more nationalistic minded of the 1989 protesters, who now viewed the protests as futile and support the CCP as it shifted more nationalist and acted against corruption.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.087 seconds with 11 queries.