China to enact Article 23 National Security Law in Hong Kong

[jaichind]

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.

[jaichind]

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.

[jaichind]

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.   

[jaichind]

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.

[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.

[jaichind]

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.

[jaichind]

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.

[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.

[jaichind]

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

[jaichind]

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.   

[jaichind]

I always felt the great Chinese political divide was over the issue "Has the Chinese civilization failed?"  The Taiping rebellion was explicitly over that issue which is why I always felt that the Taiping rebellion is the demarcation line for beginning of modern Chinese history.  How a political force views the Taiping is the best way to get their view on "Has the Chinese civilization failed?"

The battle lines over since the 1850s on the question "Has the Chinese civilization failed?"

1850s-1860s.  Ching dynasty: No.  Taiping: Yes
1890s-1910s:  Ching dynasty: No (negative view of Taiping)   KMT: Yes (positive view of Taiping)
1910s-1920s:  Beiyiang: No (negative view of Taiping)   KMT: Yes (positive view of Taiping)
1930s-1970s:  KMT: No (negative view of Taiping)   CCP: Yes (positive view of Taiping)
1990s-now:     CCP: No (negative view of Taiping)   Various Lib/Dem opposition: Yes

I think these days CCP should really stand for Chinese Civilization Party.   For me the answer to the question is clearly and any point in time I always back the political force that is negative on the Taiping which these days is the CCP when it comes to anti-Chinese civilization alternatives.  

What I find really encouraging is that since the dark days of 1950s-1960s now there is a massive Chinese majority for "No" to that key question  "Has the Chinese civilization failed?" which the CCP now needs to tap into and encourage to keep power.

[jaichind]

I know Trump won’t do this but Biden really needs to put some sort of refugee/visa plank for HKers in his platform

This is what Britain has announced: it will extend the Immigration rights of BN(O) passport holders (a residual form of British nationality granted to many HK'ers pre handover without, until now, the right to Immigrate to the UK; similar to Taiwan's NWOHR) including a path to full British Citizenship. There are some 2.9 Million people with BN(O) status in Hong Kong, who are eligible for the Passport, and this is not counting many immediate Family Members (esp. post 1997 born Children) with the right to join them.

While China is quite content with the Joshua Wong's and similar problematic types emigrating, they strongly opposed this, because such a wide expansion of Immigration rights will mean a massive brain drain to the UK, especially when combined with the abolition of HK's special economic status as confirmed by President Trump today. The Structure of how/when BN(O) status was awarded, means that it's holders are more likely than not to be middle aged with higher education and professional experience (due to pre-1997 connection), and upper/middle class with english fluency (due to the exclusion of newer mainland Immigrants). In short this will be a massive boost for the UK economy, especially the City of London. And interestingly this seems to be winning the support of both the most ardent Brexiteers and Remainers. The stage for the decline of Hong Kong is now completely set.

I thought BNO does not allow you to work in the UK.  Also my impression of what is being proposed is that the BNO allowance of visit visa free to the UK to go from 6 months to 12 months which makes this change mostly symbolic. 

ROC DPP Prez Tsai also claimed that ROC will take actions to take in HK residents.  But what seems to be coming out is way more limited in nature and pretty much a slight relaxation on the definition of political refugees.  Again a lot of noise with very little action.

As for USA act on HK special status, so far it is all talk and nothing Trump said commits the USA to any real action.

On the whole I feel the HK population at the core will still be about the money.  For them to jump the the UK US or anywhere else they will have to be allowed to work and they will have to feel that economic rate of return is higher in those other places than HK of the future.  I am sure some of them will leave depending on what the circumstances are but the size of migration will not be clear for a while.

Still I agree that on the long run HK will just converge toward just another middle sized PRC city as its unique economic position will disappear due to changes in its status as well as its relative economic decline vis-a-vis the rest of the Pearl River Delta region.

[jaichind]

 
BNO lets you stay without working for six months now. The changes would allow for people to renew annually and eventually become full citizens. I watched the press conference and got the impression they’re still working out the finer details.

Thanks for clarifying . Question is in the meantime will they be allowed to work during this path to citizenship.  If not then this is not very useful.  So I guess we cannot know until more details comes out so the net impact will be unknown.    If a lot of talent does move out of HK that will also impact a lot of international firms plans to keep a significant part of their APAC workforce in HK out of HK to places with more talent (Singapore ?) which in turn will create more economic incentive for people to move out.  With all these details to be worked out and implemented,  I suspect in the short run nothing changes and we will know the economic impact only a few years from now.

[jaichind]

Latest poll by 明報 (Ming Pao) which has a slight pro-Democratic Bloc tilt.  My main problem with the 明報 (Ming Pao) polls is that they are only conducted in Cantonese which will be biased it in favor of the pro-Democratic bloc.  Still the bias should not be that large.

Support/Oppose the latest Security law: 24.3/64.0


Political bloc identification:

Pan-Localism: 12.7%
Pan-Democratic Radical: 4.6%
Pan-Democratic Moderate: 34.6%   
Moderate: 15.7%
Pan-Establishment: 6.3%
Economic Right: 1.8%
Pro-Beijing: 4.3%

The Moderates de facto are moderate Pan-Establishment so the Anti-Establishment/Pan-Establishment breakdown are:  51.9%/28.1%.  Historically the Pan-Democratic/Pan-Establishment vote shares tend to be 60/40 until it became 55/45 in the early 2010s.  The latest 2019 local elections it shifted back to 58/42.

明報 (Ming Pao) reports that the relative sizes of each political bloc has not shifted but the Pan-Democratic Moderate bloc has become more radicalized due to the latest events.  It also points out some of the Pan-Establishment supporters also disapprove of the most recent events.

As for approval in institutions of (1) Central Government implementation of One Country Two systesms  (2) HKR government,  (3) Central Government, (4) Police, (5) Faith in the future on a scale of 0 to 10



The latest events only made the numbers slightly worse than March is still somewhat above the low point of Oct 2019 right before the 2019 local elections.

[jaichind]

Given the latest USA moves on HK turns out to be nothing-bergers there seems to be a surge of capital into HK
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-05/hong-kong-dollar-sees-inflow-surge-staring-down-capital-flight

In the meantime the HK protesters seems to be running out of cash as victory seems further and further away
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-04/hong-kong-s-protest-movement-is-running-out-of-cash

What is also interesting is the HK protest community seems to be divided on how to view the USA protests.  Most are keeping silent and along the way exposing their hypocrisy but a vocal minority does seems to come out to back the USA protests and linking the protest cause with their own.

[jaichind]

Pro-PRC 文匯報 (Wen Wei Po) decided to interview key Pan-Democratic bloc and Pan-Localism Bloc MLAs to get their view on the USA protests.  Of course they did this on purpose because they know it will show them up.   They asked the key MLAs 2 questions

1. Do you support the USA cracking down on the violent protests ?
2. Do you support the USA protests against police violence ?

Other 1 MLA that supported the protests everyone else was "No comment."



Comments these MLA gave included:

"I will know more and will have a view once we go on a face finding trip to USA"
"I am late for a meeting"
"I am not in USA so it is hard for me to say"
"I hope both sides work this out"
"I hope the violence ends"
"The USA government has to confront this problem of violent protests"
"This is USA, it has nothing to do with me"

Of course these same MLAs wanted international support even though in their own words if you flip USA and HK "these international supporters does not live in HK so why should they have an opinion"

[jaichind]

https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/hong-kong-pro-democracy-unions-seek-support-for-general-strike

"Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Unions Won’t Call for General Strike"

Pro-Democratic bloc Hong Kong labor unions and students held a "referendum" over the weekend hoping to get 60K signatures for a general strike to protest the new security law.   Only about 9K Union and around 10K student in person or electronic votes were cast.

The anti-government "referendum" was a total flop at the weekend. Protesters set up stalls in multiple locations, but you could see pretty much everyone just walking past them.

If is funny that this new security law is much more far reaching than the extradition law last year yet it seems protest fatigue is finally settling in.  The protest movement should have taken the win last summer when the new extradition law was withdrawn.  It seems they overplayed their hand and the Beijing regime played hardball and now the protesters are themselves folding.   

Since late May the HK stock market has actually out-performed Tokyo, Taipei and Seoul so it seems smart money also is pricing in the new law and looking past it.