51 ms·
Once a Model City, Hong Kong Is in Trouble
- throwawayasdf 9y agoof course it's in trouble. There's 1.3 billion brain-washed citizens, many of whom are working here in the bay, who believe: 1) taiwan is a part of china 2) tiannamen square didn't happen 3) the CCP is ok how can they study here for grad school, want to stay for h1-b and get the green card, have extreme nationalism for their officially communist government, yet happily participate in the fruits of capitalism and western liberalism. It's quite shocking.
- tuna-piano 9y agoI can't seem to find any studies on Chines-American or Chinese-in-the-US views on the Chinese government, but my anecdotal experiences are different than yours. I find a more typical view of, "It's a difficult situation, and there's not much we can do about it" and not "The Communist party is the best and democracy is terrible". And on the spectrum of Complete Communism->Complete Capitalism (no country is completely on either end), I'm not so sure China is too far off from some completely western countries. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, China is only slightly lower than Croatia (EU Member), South Africa and Italy[1]. [1]http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
- throwawayasdf 9y agoDude, they love their government with extreme pride. You're probably talking to them as an obvious American, and they are backing down and downplaying it to hide it, because they know it's your home turf and they'd rather not get in a fight with a 'Murica-dude over it. Try talking to them as another asian or foreigner. You will see their nationalism come out. If you don't believe me, ask your non-American non-Chinese friends for their anecdotal experiences. And yes, of course it's not all of them.
- jasonjei 9y agoMost of them that have moved to America exhibit China as a "difficult" situation. Speaking to them as someone of Chinese ethnicity (I was born in Phoenix with parents from Taiwan and I also spent time in Taiwan), I don't think they believe China is great. Many are leaving because the air is bad, some believe a bubble is going to burst, etc. I mean, that's some serious cognitive dissonance if they're living in America yet exhibit hyperpatriotic attitudes.
- justicezyx 9y ago> You're probably talking to them as an obvious American, and they are backing down and downplaying it to hide it Not sure how do you get that. I suppose you do not have the super power to read mind.
- sho 9y ago> Dude, they love their government with extreme pride I'm going to present as much evidence as you have - none - but in my experience this is categorically and absurdly untrue. And your claim that others don't see this because they're "obvious American" is the opposite of reality. The only times I have seen Chinese express "love" for their government is when it's criticised by a foreigner. Between themselves they complain non stop. The best the CCP can hope for from the vast majority of its populace is, as far as I can see, a kind of grudging respect. You really need to learn the difference between extreme pride in your country and in your government, because they are two very different things. Plenty of peoples have the former - including the Chinese and indeed Americans. I struggle to think of any large population of the latter and they certainly do not live in China.
- FooBarWidget 9y agoI concur with this. I once saw an American student, studying in Europe. A European student was critisizing her country's government. The conversation did not go well, she eventually cried out in tears. That is when I realized Americans care deeply about their country. Americans complain among themselves about their government all the time but it is a different matter if an outsider complains about your government. Probably the same thing is happening when you talk to Chinese students.
- mankash666 9y agoThe ones I've met are fairly critical of their government and know about Tienanmen. Yours is one anecdote, as is mine. Only a study can give concrete conclusions, but since the nature of life in the US is in direct contrast to that in China, I doubt they're unreasonably supportive of a authoritarian government in China
- caretoomuch 9y agoLet's just assume all what you alleged is true. Then what do you suggest we do with "the Chinese" or at least "Chinese like that" in the US/West/Wherever-you-are-referring-to?
- throwawayasdf 9y agoI suspect that their degree of extreme nationlism is inversely related to the amount of time and # of family members who are here. That's why a few other members say their anecdotal evidence hasn't seen that much extreme pride - I suspect the people they are talking about have spent 5-10 years here at least, and arrived here in the late 90's-early 2000's when China was still weak and not as rich. Try talking to new grads and mid-late 20's who are here, who arrived here when China became rich. They are very very prideful. You won't see it if you're an obvious American dude; they will not show their colors. Obviously you do not encourage westernization by blocking them off. The US strategy is probably to encourage them to be here to gradually acclimate them to western liberalism over time, where they can go back eventually as the ruling elite and gradually shift attitudes in their country.
- caretoomuch 9y agoI highly doubt there could ever be any coherent "US strategy", but let's say there is/will be one. So you are suggesting the way to "deal with the Chinese" is to let more of them move/live in the west? Looks like the US has been doing that for quite a while, so nothing seems in need of any change...
- throwawayasdf 9y agoOf course it's not an actual coherent 'strategy' per se. What I was referring to was the openness inherent in western liberalism, which together with its institutions and competitive ideals, has caused it to be adopted and spread throughout much of the world, ie, the rise of the west, since the 1500's. An example of the first to adopt such ideals, would be Japan.
- Terr_ 9y agoThe problem with your first item is that Taiwan's political orthodoxy ALSO says its part of China... the disagreement is about which government is the legitimate ruler of both zones. I personally believe Taiwan is a separate country be every objective measure, but the current mess isn't just the PRCs making, past and present Taiwanese politicians deserve some blame here too.
- xiaoma 9y agoUnless by "political orthodoxy", you mean the KMT military dictatorship in power before Taiwan became a democracy, your comment is simply false. You will not find any elected politician on the island claiming that Taiwan is a part of China. The political views of the mainland soldiers who invaded Taiwan during the 50s and the views of the people of Taiwan who were at their mercy weren't the same, even when dictatorship made it impossible to speak freely. Many had to acquiesce to the system to get by and some did for decades. A prime example would be the first Taiwanese native to succeed in the KMT. After decades of doing the party's bidding, he made it to the very top and destroyed the dictatorship from the inside by allowing opposing parties to form, participate in elections and ultimately win.
- orthoganol 9y agoNo point in talking about China from the lens of traditional communism. China is an authoritarian capitalist country, 'capitalism with Asian values' as is said with Singapore arguably the architect, so being upset about Chinese communists being invited into the country because they are communist is kind of absurd. Not wanting them in the country because they support an oppressive, racist government with more state executions than every other country in the world combined, if they do in fact actually support it, is a legitimate reason to be bothered. Anecdotally living abroad, the Chinese are deeply racist and nationalist, as are all the main East Asian countries really, even younger generations to my surprise, but immigration obviously adversely selects, and even if then, you're quickly going to lose those those views when you move to a new land as a worker.
- throwawayasdf 9y agoYour points are all pretty much valid. However, you're getting hung up on terms that misses the point. My use of 'officially communist' was to imply the fact that it's more of a authoritarian regime. I also find it funny how so many are getting hung up on the same use of the term. You're missing the forest for the trees. Anyone with half a brain knows that its not the theoretical communism.
- unityByFreedom 9y agoYes, I think comments like the above are intentionally trying to divert attention from your main points.
- vacri 9y agoMain points, like talking about all 1.3B people as if they are of the one mind? 1.3B brainwashed chinese, unlike the 300M free-thinking americans, none of whom buy into any sort of blind nationalism, amirite? Also, how does 'extreme nationalism' manifest in the expat community? Is it just talking passionately about your homeland? Or are these people actually taking physical action? I mean, 'extreme nationalism' is suggestive of more than just talking.
- swuecho 9y agochinese gov is not communist government at all as you think.
- justicezyx 9y agoDisclaimer, from mainland China, knows people live in US from Hong Kong. > There's 1.3 billion brain-washed citizens Brain-wash is a strong word. Chines people are not like some another-dimensional like minions. They think and behave reasonably and just like any other one on this planet. Please refrain from using strong word without actual evidence. > taiwan is a part of china History shows that Taiwan was forcefully severed from the national Chinese government. Taiwan government also say they belong to the national Chinese government, and thought the mainline CCP is illegal. > tiannamen square didn't happen You probably meet some people who happen to believe that. I highly doubt anyone in China now believe that did not happen, let alone those who live in Bay area. > the CCP is ok CCP is fine. They managed China in good shape. What's the problems one would have if you have such a government. > how can they study here for grad school, want to stay for h1-b and get the green card, have extreme nationalism for their officially communist government yet happily participate in the fruits of capitalism and western liberalism. It's quite shocking. 1. China does not have a socialism or communism economy. You can label it as such, but the truth is they practice a national capitalism. Such belief is not in odds with western values. People do value freedom and all such ubiquitous values, so they move to western countries. 2. "Extreme nationalism for their officially communist government" Just 3 bullet points, then this label got applied onto these people?! Bias aside, the 'extreme' part is rather exaggerating. Why nationalism is tied with the government? 3 bullet point can translate to pro-communist government? And an extension to tie 'extreme nationalism' to communist? I just cannot see the connection. 3. "happily participate in the fruits of capitalism and western liberalism." No, people do not have hidden agenda to do anything out of reach. They believe in the value of western nations. The premise of what you said is unfounded, and this contrast does not bear much meaning, IMHO.
- WillPostForFood 9y agoYou probably meet some people who happen to believe that. I highly doubt anyone in China now believe that did not happen, let alone those who live in Bay area. Why does the government go to such extreme lengths to suppress the information then? More people than you admit don't believe or admit it happens. The government is playing a long game here, as the younger you are the less likely you are to have had access to the information, and it gets worse over time.
- abiox 9y agothis seems like a straw man if not outright nonsequitur.
- paradite 9y agoI think it should be justifiable for me to downvote this on the grounds of uncivil remarks against the entire nationality. However, I am not going to do so because I acknowledge that this is a common mind sight of a Westerner and it is not really you fault to think that way. Let's keep the discussion civil and hopefully we all can get something out of this.
- quantum_state 9y agoIt is time to cut it off this type of brainwash mumbo jumbo .. when other people have different opinion, it is simply not civilized to invoke such an argument ..
- dang 9y agoWe've banned this account. Inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric is not welcome on Hacker News. (The irony of doing that while criticizing nationalism in others is also worth noting.) We understand the temptation, but please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with. Doing that will eventually get your main account banned as well.
- unityByFreedom 9y agoI prefer to think of this comment as more of a critique on the Chinese government than the people. However, with the way it is worded, you're right it seems to be a direct attack on people. It is unfortunate that people of a nation get lumped together when discussing bad government policies.
- tuna-piano 9y agoSome questions I'm thinking of in regards to this situation: -Who in the world does not agree that self-determination is good? -Britain seems to be standing up for Hong only lightly. Will they ever carry a bigger stick?[1] -What is the difference between Hong Kong/China relationship and the often criticized West Bank/Israel relationship? -Would the former colonies in Africa and Asia be in better hands if they were still part of their old master countries? Hong Kong is obviously not in a terrible spot, but certainly many former colonies in Africa are. -I think it's clear that because China-Hong Kong have close economic ties, but China is much larger, that Hong Kong needs China much more than China needs Hong Kong[2,3]. Will this power dynamic further bias decisions in favor of Beijing? [1]http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1871316/let-hong-kong-elect-its-own-leader-britains-david-cameron http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1871316/... [2]http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/chn/ http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/chn/ [3]http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/hkg/ http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/hkg/
- platinumrad 9y ago>What is the difference between Hong Kong/China relationship and the often criticized West Bank/Israel relationship? ????? Hong Kong is wealthy, developed, and cosmopolitan and the West Bank/Gaza are not?? Israel and Palestine share the same landmass and China and Britain do not?? Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East and Britian is not the most powerful nation in East Asia--in fact it's a nation in Western Europe??? Even when Britain was highly relevant in Asia they were only ever a colonial power while Israel as a nation is inextricably tied to the land that it shares with Palestine????? I'm really struggling to see where you're going with this one...
- tuna-piano 9y agoI was trying to compare the political situation, not quality of life, which as you mention is vastly different. My comparison is more that: -China controls Hong Kong with only limited local say in the government. Israel also controls the West Bank, with limited Palestinian Authority control of certain matters. -Hong Kong can't have a military or conduct foreign affairs and isn't internationally recognized (same as West Bank) -Palestinians in the West Bank are separated from Israel, and are required to enter checkpoints to cross over. Hong Kong residents also need to go through (less invasive) checkpoints to go into China. At first I thought my comparison might be unfounded, but I thought it was interesting none the less. But I'm now struggling to see real political differences in the two situations (although obviously there are many differences in scale of policy differences, and also important historical differences). I'd love to be proven wrong though. Certainly Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank is a difference. Any other major differences?
- muninn_ 9y ago1) Many people. Look at Brexit. You can argue until your face turns blue that it's bad for Britain, it most likely is, but at least they don't have unelected politicians setting rules. It's pro-self-determination no matter how you look at it. 2) Why should Britain stand up for Hong Kong? They're imperialists while they hold on to it, and then cowards when they give it back to China and say? 3) Almost invariable yes. But then that makes you an imperialist slave driver. Did bad things happen? Absolutely. Terrible, horrible things. But look at how things are now.
- pjc50 9y ago> at least they don't have unelected politicians setting rules I have some bad news for you about the House of Lords.
- holydude 9y agoOfc China does not want HK to be free. China found out how to get "rich" without losing control. They want exactly the opposite of what makes HK HK. It's just sad that many strong economies feel like they need / want the growth based on chinese consumption and trade and are feeding this undemocratic behemoth. What is scary is that China is actively promoting expansion by resettling ethnic han chinese.
- paradite 9y agoUhm... I think you forgot that ethnic han Chinese are human beings like you, capable of reasoning and driven by self-interest. I don't appreciate being treated as as a mere weapon.
- holydude 9y agoWell then complain to your government ? What is China doing in Africa is not nice.
- MachinShinn- 9y agoHuh? People in HK are already ethnic han chinese... If you're talking about Tibet/East Turkestan, sure.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago> They want exactly the opposite of what makes HK HK China is what made HK HK... It was china's economic boom that enriched and modernized china.
- j9461701 9y agoI think it should be pointed out that Hong Kong never had democracy. The British ruled the country with the same iron fist the Chinese do, and indeed many of the laws currently being used against the Hong Kong citizenry originated with them. The difference really does come down to the fact that the British, although authoritarian, ran a relatively clean ship. Meanwhile Beijing's government has been corrupt, nepotistic, vindictive, and now deadlocked. It reminds me of the old D&D alignment battle: Lawful evil vs. neutral evil. No one cared that the government was kind of evil back while it was obsessively following the rule of law, even if the law was kind of crooked, but under the Chinese it shifted away from that and became whatever is most immediately expedient to those in power. The vaunted "rule of law" became a mere mask for Beijing party politics games.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoWouldn't China's rule be more chaotic evil?
- logfromblammo 9y agoChina would be less traditional D&D alignments and more of a faction-based system where the party and the nation are at the top of the loyalty priority list.
- posterboy 9y agothat's a contradiction in terms, because rules don't exist in chaos, so neither does rule.
- RangerScience 9y agoNot to doubt you - but, what's your source? (You sound correct, but I don't know how to verify what you're saying).
- Fej 9y agoTake a look at history - India, for example, which took one of the most famous revolutionies of all time to escape Britain's rule, which they agitated for because of awful policies like the salt tax.
- blackbagboys 9y agoCompared to the reputation for far-seeing technocratic excellence that it acquired in the foreign business press, the CCP leadership has always been astonishingly short-sighted when it comes to foreign policy. The Taiwanese are taking note of what 'one country two systems' means in practice - absolute submission to the ruthless, brutal oligarchy in Beijing. The CCP will crush Hong Kong, destroying everything that made it appealing in the process, and find that in so doing they've permanently alienated Taiwan.
- Analemma_ 9y agoI mentioned this in the last thread about Hong Kong, but they're not as dumb as you think. Taiwan (both the Blue and Green coalitions) has always distrusted "one country, two systems", even way back in the 90s before Hong Kong's autonomy started getting salami-sliced away. China knows that, and knows they're not really losing anything by abandoning that approach. That's not their plan anyway. The parallel tracks for dealing with Taiwan are 1) building ever-closer economic dependency, and then punishing Taiwan every time it elects pro-independence leaders, so that Taiwan has no choice but to elect pro-reunification candidates for the sake of economic security and 2) gradually muscling the US out of the region and building naval capabilities so that if 1) doesn't work out, they can take it back by force. How Taiwan feels about "one country two systems" doesn't really matter to China.
- Gravityloss 9y agoBut maybe the better question is, why? The people of Taiwan for the most part don't want to be a part of China, and Taiwan doesn't pose a military threat to China.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoFace? Also, having that island under China's control would be militarily useful in any showdown with the US - it pushes US forces farther from the mainland.
- georgeecollins 9y ago
- throwaway29847 9y ago> the authorities have allowed problems to fester, including an affordable housing crisis, a troubled education system and a delayed high-speed rail line. So not much worse off than any major western city then? In terms of education, the entire USA's system could be described as worse than "troubled".
- nailer 9y agoThere's a lot to be gloomy about but HK is also really inspirational. At a time when a lot of young people in the west are railing against democracy, free speech, and other laws that support their freedom, HK has 20 year olds pushing China to deliver the democracy they promised before 1997.
- pjc50 9y ago> a lot of young people in the west are railing against democracy, free speech, and other laws that support their freedom [citation needed]
- sirkneeland 9y agoNot "railing against" to be fair to your original point but this study (FiveThirtyEight thinks it's sound) says millennials value democracy far less than their predecessors. As a % of people who think it is "essential" to live in a democracy: Born in 1930s - 75% millennials - 30% https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democracy-meh/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democracy-meh/
- dragonwriter 9y agoThe question is this just age (I've seen qualitatively similar things periodically about young vs. old people off and on for decades) or if it's a shift over time in attitudes of young people.
- mrighele 9y agoCould it be that democracy that people born in the '30s experienced (or at least perceived) was different from the one experienced by millennials ?
- princetontiger 9y agoThey kicked out the British, why do they want them back? lol
- abiox 9y agoafaik, british control derived from a land lease. the lease ended per the time table in the lease. as such nobody was 'kicked out'.
- sirkneeland 9y agoThe British had wanted to continue their period of rule in Hong Kong as the expiration date neared. It was a subject of negotiation between China and the UK in the 1980s. They wanted British rule or even some kind of joint administration. Even Thatcher (hardly a shrinking violet when it came to using force to get her way) couldn't get a deal to continue British rule in Hong Kong. China made it perfectly clear that the British would be leaving in 1997. And so, for better or for worse, they came to an agreement in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The British were essentially "consensually kicked out" (as the Brits might say, "mustn't make a fuss" ;) )
- khuey 9y agoIt's worth noting that the Qing Dynasty ceded Hong Kong Island and Kowloon to the UK in perpetuity. The lease was for the the New Territories, without which it was generally accepted the city would not be viable. Hong Kong was (and still is) dependent on the Chinese mainland for imports of natural resources such as fresh water, so if the Chinese decided to play hardball the British had few options. And that's not even considering the possibility of China deciding to retake Hong Kong by force.
- awkwarddaturtle 9y ago> Even Thatcher (hardly a shrinking violet when it came to using force to get her way) couldn't get a deal to continue British rule in Hong Kong. Deng actually told Thatcher that if britain didn't leave, china would invade HK and unify by force. Thatcher actually asked the US if they would protect britain from china and we said no. And that was the end of britain's hope of keeping stolen territory.
- princetontiger 9y agoBritain is the genesis of freedom. Go read the Magna Carta. Other Western European countries also spread fantastic ideals. Non-Western countries have ZERO freedoms, and people are crawling over themselves to move to the West. DESPITE, these "colonial powers" leaving 40-50 years ago, those populations want to move to Europe, the US, Australia/NZ, and Canada.
- and0 9y agoNo: - Britain's own level of freedom doesn't reflect how they've treated colonies in the past. See: all of history. - The UK isn't as free as many other Western nations. See: their track record on surveillance (although everyone is catching up there), or even Theresa May literally saying "I’ll rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation" quite recently. - Founding documents rarely mean anything when it comes to actual law. See: The US Constitution vs NSA and pretty much everything else the government does. - Non-Western countries have plenty of freedoms? I'd argue freedom has more to do with economic prosperity, which is typically dominated by colonial powers. See: Japan, Iran before US overthrew government (Iran is now lowest in Economic Freedom Index). Between this unhinged post and your previous comment "China doesn't represent Anglo Saxon culture or ideals. Canada, NZ, Australia, the UK and the US are the reason we have freedom of everything." I'm getting some really weird vibes, man. You sound delusional and racist.
- princetontiger 9y agoDude.... We (the West) wrote the Japanese and Korean constitution. Read a book. Without US soldiers in those countries, they wouldn't be where they are today. US = Japan Germany's Weimer constitution formed the basis for Korea's
- yongjik 9y agoUnless you are one of the 200 lawmakers elected in May 1948 to write the first constitution of Republic of Korea, no, you didn't write Korea's constitution.
- 9y ago
- princetontiger 9y agoI love both these comments. China doesn't have private ownership. it's still communist, right?
- justicezyx 9y agoIf "no private ownership" = communism, then correct, China is communism country. But as defined in the textbook, communism also requires highly-developed society, where citizens not work for their living, but for their aspiration, and the society provides the consumables for people's living. And many other necessary conditions to be called communism. Even for private ownership. If I bought a house in US, do I have an ownership? Then why I have to pay property tax and have a risk of been evicted if not do so.
- sho 9y agoFFS. China has private ownership of property encoded in its constitution. What are you even talking about? Very frustrating to watch these energetic discussions with strongly-held views based on pure nonsense. It's 2017 guys. You have a whole internet of information at your fingertips. Use it, please!
- justicezyx 9y ago""" According to the Constitution, land in cities is owned by the State; land in the rural and suburban areas is owned by the State or by collectives. (Constitution, art. 10.) Although individuals cannot privately own land, they may obtain transferable land-use rights for a number of years for a fee. There are a series of laws and regulations regulating the land-use rights and ownership of residential property, including: ... """ https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/03/chinese-law-on-private-ownership-of-real-property/ https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/03/chinese-law-on-private-own... I am not an expert.
- sho 9y ago> I am not an expert Well me neither, but I certainly doubt all those Shanghainese are dropping millions on apartments that they don't even own! And yes, real estate is leasehold, although the difference between auto-renewing leasehold and eminent domain-subject freehold seems to be a matter of semantics. The only country I'm aware of where a private citizen seemingly really can resist the ability of the state to seize their land, and thus actually does appear to genuinely "own" it, is Japan.
- swuecho 9y agoYou probably the typical american who think he understand china better than Chinese. In comparison, I born in China and live in US for 6 years now.
- dang 9y agoI'm sure you do know more, but I'm afraid this comment violates the HN guidelines in two ways: (1) it's a personal and national attack ("you probably the typical American") and (2) it contains no helpful information. We ban accounts that attack other users, so please don't do that, even when someone's comment is annoying or wrong. When you know more about a topic than others, the thing to do is teach them. On HN that means posting something neutral and factual that other users can learn from. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14664772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14664772 and marked it off-topic.
- caretoomuch 9y agoAs someone lived in Hong Kong for quite a while (during the tail of its heydays) but now in the US, Hong Kong is indeed in big trouble. But not for the reasons mentioned/implied in this article. It's very easy to buy into narratives such as authoritarianism vs democracy, communism vs capitalism, China vs Britain/West, tight control vs freedom as the reasons for Hong Kong's decline, but that's just short-circuited thinking for the lazy. The real reason for Hong Kong's decline, is the failure/irresponsibility of Hong Kong's elite ruling class. Maybe to many people's surprise, since its handover to China, Hong Kong has effectively been ruled by the local elites, NOT by Beijing. Sure, Beijing appoints the governor, but the governors are locals, and there was never any direct "order" from Beijing, well, sorta until recently, when Beijing began to see the failure of the local Hong Kong government. Those elites are composed of mega real estate/business tycoons. Being the elites in the most capitalist city-state in the world gives them tremendous wealth and power, but to the disappointment of Spider-man, with that great power there's no great responsibilities. The ruling class mega riches don't see income inequality as a problem, but a badge of honor for themselves, to show how "they've made it", while all the poors are just not smart/hardworking enough. Any efforts to "appease the poor" are hindered by the ruling business-politician symbiotics, because those efforts get in their way of accumulating more wealth. The frustration of the youth and the poor stems from the sense of inequality, unfairness and despair as they see no chances of upward mobility. Yet, even the poorest in Hong Kong is a capitalist at heart, so they are poor not because of the rich, and they certainly do work hard, then who's to blame? China, Beijing, the mainlanders, because they are evil, communist, denying tian'anmen square, yada yada... On the contrary, when the ruling rich saw the rebellion of lower class, without knowing/admitting themselves are to be blamed, they seek help from Beijing. What does Beijing know about governing a country? More control! That's the only thing Beijing knows, and it's been working (kinda) with them. So that's how we get where we are now.
- warcher 9y agoWould you agree that the deliberate limits on participatory democracy imposed by Beijing are limiting the ability of the non-elite factions in society to redress these imbalances, or do you think, even with universal suffrage, the citizens of Hong Kong are too fractured to come up with solutions? (Similar to the current political climate in the US.)
- princetontiger 9y agoI agree completely. In European/Anglo countries, the ruling elite give back. Check out Grand Central, Rockefeller Center, the large parks and gardens throughout the great countries of the world. The ruling elite in Asia don't care about others.
- Lordarminius 9y agoThe elite in Asia give back. They just don't give back parks and gardens.
- vitaminbandit 9y agoYou know, just today I was thinking about how positively Rockefeller Center has impacted my life.
- dang 9y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14665498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14665498 and marked it off-topic.
- eachro 9y agoWhat makes this off topic?
- posterboy 9y agonon-sequitur
- Mikeb85 9y agoThe real problem is that Hong Kong is a finance and trading hub. And it became so because it was the easiest way to do business with China. But business likes stability. The democracy protests have done nothing for Hong Kong, and now that China's eased access to their market through Shanghai, Hong Kong's entire raison d'être is at risk. Also, the article is pretty spot on in other ways. Once upon a time, Hong Kong students were guaranteed success by virtue of being born there. Now, they need to compete with mainlanders, which of course is a much larger pool. And finally, 20 years ago China wanted to build up Hong Kong as a model for it's 2 systems 1 country philosophy. However the democracy protests have all but killed that, so the Chinese will gladly simply build up Shanghai to Hong Kong's detriment, and no amount of democracy or separatism will fix it.
- pishpash 9y agoThe real problem is that Hong Kong existed as an arbitrage hub to an artificially closed hinterland during a political time warp, and when China finally opened up, Hong Kong's fate was already sealed. Hong Kong still has some first-world advantages to exploit, but the number is dwindling day by day.
- Mikeb85 9y agoThat's a nice concise way to put it, and spot on.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago> Hong Kong still has some first-world advantages to exploit, but the number is dwindling day by day. Beijing/Shanghai have yet to demonstrate the level of innovation that comes out of the Hong Kong/Shenzhen connection. And, parents still send their kids across the border in mainland China to go to school in Hong Kong. China may have opened up, and is continuing to open up more, but by no means are the gates fully open at Shanghai. Innovation still primarily comes from the south and regions that are farther from the federal government's base.
- dis-sys 9y ago
- vitaminbandit 9y agoThis article takes an economic situation and tries to frame it as a political one. Hong Kongers don't care about the ideological differences between mainland China and HK, they care about the staggering inequality and loss of economic mobility in their once vibrant city. Chinese money is flooding into Hong Kong and it's all being parked into real estate. This has sent real estate prices skyrocketing and far outside the reach of ordinary citizens. As a secondary effect, Hong Kong elites are now parking all their money into real estate with the expectation that the Chinese capital flight continues to drive up real estate prices. Real estate is the best investment available in Hong Kong right now. Bar none. With all their capital tied up in real estate, the elites don't invest in startups or R&D. No increases in productivity, no new jobs, no gains for the average citizen in a city that grows more expensive by the day. This is why Hong Kong is in decline. This is why Hong Kongers takes to the streets. It's not a backlash towards conflicting political ideology, they just want the Chinese and their damn money out.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago> Hong Kongers don't care about the ideological differences between mainland China and HK, Pretty sure some do. See the umbrella movement. > This article takes an economic situation and tries to frame it as a political one Seems short sighted to say politics and economy are unrelated. Politicians make laws that impact businesses.
- FabHK 9y ago> Real estate is the best investment available in Hong Kong right now. Bar none. Whether it still is now (prices having doubled since the 2007 bottom) is questionable, and depends hugely on political decisions. > With all their capital tied up in real estate, the elites don't invest in startups or R&D. Fully agreed. Not only that, it makes starting a small business extremely expensive. > It's not a backlash towards conflicting political ideology, they just want the Chinese and their damn money out. I'd argue the umbrella movement was borne of four related grievances: * the enormous inequality (coupled with low social mobility) * the extreme cost of getting your own flat (young workers live with their family for a long time, and have to save money for long time before they can put down a downpayment for a tiny apartment (they come in different sizes: shoebox, matchbox, coffin...)) * the gradual erosion of civil liberties * and, yes, the desire for more political self-determination, e.g. universal suffrage or even independence.
- khc 9y agoWriting as someone who left HK when he was 14 who still visit every couple years, so take what I write with a load of salt. I really think HK is over, as in it will never return to its peak glorious days. Much of the prosperity of HK came from being a middleman between China and the rest of the world. That position is eroding because China is slowly opening up. For example, of the top 5 container ports, 3 are in mainland China and HK is #5 [1]. HK was the busiest as recently as 2004. Why ship to/from HK when you can ship directly to/from China? Much of the ruling elites (many of whom are/were businessmen or have business ties) understand this, and realize China has a lot more soft power over HK than what the Basic Law guarantees. The end game is clear, HK will become just another Chinese city, the Establishment is hoping that by pandering to mainland, they can slow down the process and maintain their self-interest. The more positive way to think about it is, if China allows, HK can become the Shanghai of the south instead of a little brother to Shenzhen. Meanwhile, the poor. I grew up quite poor in HK and a family of 4 shared one studio. The kitchen and bathroom were shared with another 4-5 families. 4 of us slept in ONE bunkbed. Life got much better after I was 7, because we moved to public housing in the suburb. You see, there's always a big divide between the rich and the poor, but all the public subsidies made life bearable. A big part of HK's government revenue come from land sale [2]. And land is more valuable when it's not used for public housing. That and immigration means the wait to get public housing is getting longer and longer [3]. Immigration is supposed to increase revenue too, but as mentioned because a big part of revenue come from land sale and immigration doesn't increase the amount of developable land, the overall effect is smaller. Normally one way to deal with this is impose immigration quota, but I looked into this a few years back and apparently for family reunion, HK government does not control the quota and have to accept however many the mainland sends over. For obvious reasons many in HK have family-ties in China so politically having a smaller quota would not be popular either. I don't have numbers to prove this, but there's a general sentiment that infrastructure is not growing fast enough to accommodate population increase. I don't know what HK can do honestly. Politically it's in an impossible situation. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_ports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_port... [2]: http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp110.jsp?tableID=193&ID=0&productType=8 http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp110.jsp?tableID=193&... [3]: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/2070493/waiting-time-get-hong-kong-public-housing-shoots http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/artic...
- unityByFreedom 9y ago> The real reason for Hong Kong's decline, is the failure/irresponsibility of Hong Kong's elite ruling class Sounds like a narrative that Beijing would very much support, Mr. New Account. Get people to hate their local govt and appeal to a higher authority for support. Brilliant.
- caretoomuch 9y ago> Sounds like a narrative that Beijing would very much support, Mr. New Account. I'm offering my opinion on this issue. If you don't agree with me on the real reason for HK's decline, explain your point, or pick holes in my arguments. I don't see how labeling what I said as "approved by Beijing" - disregard how ridiculous it is - automatically disqualifies them. Also, as to Mr. New Account, I use a throwaway account for the exact reason that I figured some people would get offended by what I said. > Get people to hate their local govt and appeal to a higher authority for support. Brilliant. The snarkiness in your comments really made me hesitant to reply, but if you are still interested in a civil discussion: please recheck what I wrote, and point out exact where I suggested Hong Kong people should hate their local government, and appeal to a higher authority.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago> point out exact where I suggested Hong Kong people should hate their local government, and appeal to a higher authority. That would be the first line I quoted. Not sure how you missed it. Here's another, > there was never any direct "order" from Beijing, well, sorta until recently, when Beijing began to see the failure of the local Hong Kong government. That's an unsubstantiated and unprovable claim. Also implies Beijing is benevolent. Nobody knows exactly what strings Beijing is pulling. It's hidden behind lack of free press and habit of politicians to never quite say exactly what they mean. > when the ruling rich saw the rebellion of lower class, without knowing/admitting themselves are to be blamed, they seek help from Beijing That's completely made up. You have no source showing "HK elite" sought Beijing's guidance. Honestly, your whole post is thick with "blame HK elite" instead of Beijing for whatever ails HK. Everyone knows Beijing isn't loved, so you throw in a dash of "Beijing only knows control", yet you point to them as being capable. The narrative you're pushing is really easy to discover.
- contingencies 9y agoI just crossed back to Shenzhen from Hong Kong yesterday. A few random observations... In HK, a lot of the taxi drivers are old guys who can barely read, don't speak English or mandarin, and are a real hassle to deal with unless you are a Cantonese speaker. A lot of the taxis have weird fare manipulation lookup tables instead of correct metering. Although the mass-transit oriented stored value card, Octopus, was established decades ago, you still can't use it in taxis. Further, if you want to top it up, you literally can't top it up with anything smaller than HKD50 (USD$9) even if your fare costs less and you only have small denomination local money. There are no electric taxis, but plenty of rich people own Teslas. If you ask 20 odd Hong Kong banks about cross-border RMB payment APIs (HK is supposed to be a financial center, after all) not a single bank can offer you one. In fact, just to open a regular bank account is now so difficult standard waits can exceed 2-3 months (and success is far from guaranteed). So what does HK still have to offer? (1) A legal environment under Beijing's auspices but with nominal resistance to mainland corruption and manipulation. (2) Superior international financial connectivity and services if you can get a bank account. (3) Liberal visa-free travel policies for people from most countries. That's about it.
- larrysalibra 9y agoRight on about Hong Kong taxi drivers. They also tend to be racist opting to skip non-Chinese looking passengers. > A lot of the taxis have weird fare manipulation lookup tables instead of correct metering. The fare table is because the Transport Department raised taxi fares on April 9th and taxis that haven't had their meters adjusted are required to use the fare table. http://www.td.gov.hk/en/publications_and_press_releases/press_releases/transport_department/index_id_2706.html http://www.td.gov.hk/en/publications_and_press_releases/pres... > You literally can't top it up with anything smaller than HKD50 (USD$9) even if your fare costs less and you only have small denomination local money. This is the same as Shenzhentong card in Shenzhen which can't be loaded with less than CNY50 at a reload machine. If your fare costs less than HK$50 and you don't have more cash, buy a single trip ticket. If you really want to pay with Octopus, top up your Octopus card with HK$50 and get a refund of the value after your trip. Those of us that live here in Hong Kong never have to deal with adding value to our Octopus card because we can link it to our Hong Kong-issued credit cards. > If you ask 20 odd Hong Kong banks about cross-border RMB payment APIs (HK is supposed to be a financial center, after all) not a single bank can offer you one. Mainland China has capital controls - that is why transacting in RMB cross border is difficult. Banks aren't allowed to offer that service. > just to open a regular bank account is now so difficult standard waits can exceed 2-3 months (and success is far from guaranteed) You are right...the difficulty in opening a bank account is a huge problem for business in Hong Kong. > So what does HK still have to offer? * civil society * amazing mountains & beaches * great food * excellent sports infrastructure * public transit that is a pleasure to use * no capital gains, interest, dividends, import, VAT, or sales taxes. * territorial taxation (Hong Kong residents are only taxed on income sourced from Hong Kong) * great people both local and from abroad * ubiquitous gigabit fiber to home for < US$30/month. 10 gigabit fiber to home available in many locations.
- d_burfoot 9y agoBefore pontificating too much about the doom of Hong Kong, you should observe that compared to the US, HK has: - Far lower crime and incarceration - Better education (measured by PISA scores) - Incomparably better infrastructure (compare beautiful, clean HK subways with laughably pathetic US ones) - Better health outcomes than the US, 84 year life expectancy vs 79 for the US - Preserves an incredibly large percentage of its territory for parks (most of HK island is a park) - No natural resources like the US - All of this with far far lower taxes than the US (government % of GDP is roughly 14% compared to 38% in US)
- princetontiger 9y ago.... built by the British, not the Chinese. The British gave the local Chinese a first world place. Again, HK and Singapore were both built by British folks. Look it up. Had the British colonized more places, it would be even safer. Malaysia is still defended by Aussies and Brits to this day!
- idra 9y agoIndeed. The best things about Hong Kong are all colonial legacy.
- arniewatch 9y agoThe British did colonize more places. Places like Malaysia, India, etc., that aren't as prosperous and developed as Hong Kong and Singapore. Much of Britain itself isn't as prosperous and developed as Hong Kong and Singapore. Obviously it wasn't a case of the British simply building HK and Singapore. Singapore wasn't a very prosperous and developed place when the British left in the early 60s. It became so subsequently under local elites like Lee Kuan Yew. Hong Kong and Singapore were built by its locals, who were mostly Chinese but also included Indians, Malays, and others.
- tesators 9y agoThe British also colonized the Middle East and Africa. So why are those places hellholes?
- 9y ago
- vitaminbandit 9y agoEDIT: Nevermind. unityByFreedom is a troll https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14667581 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14667581
- unityByFreedom 9y ago> The only difference is, with the exception of Taipei, there is no political history to point to and scapegoat. Sure there is. Politicians allowed foreigners to buy residency/citizenship in Canada to a greater degree than possible elsewhere. There are plenty of political levers to pull that can adjust housing costs. Government has a major role in determining property prices. They set the tax rates and issue permits. Edit: Why don't you try responding to my argument rather than calling me names?
- vitaminbandit 9y agoEDIT: Nevermind. unityByFreedom is a troll https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14667581 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=14667581
- unityByFreedom 9y ago> Hong Kongers don't care about the ideological differences between mainland China and HK You're ignoring the umbrella movement protests, which spanned months, demanding true democracy. Many in HK also are not happy with China's ideological injections into their educational curriculum. edit: Not sure what you wish to achieve by naming me a "troll". Feel free to critique my argument, but namecalling is against HN rules, > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 9y agoI like the design of this page!
- WillyOnWheels 9y agoIf I were China I would point out the HK's entire existence is because Britain needed a staging area from which to wage war upon China so that Britain would have a market to sell all the opium it was producing in the Raj, which set the conditions for the Taiping Rebellion, which killed over 20 million people.
- dis-sys 9y agoI'd like to offer my views on the decline of HK - 1. HK was a middleman, it used to connect the mainland China to the world. That worked for HK very well after 1949, but clearly the people living in the mainland do not want to see HK to keep having its cut for the flow of capitals/goods for a very reasonable reason - there are more and more professionals/businesses in mainland China that are eager/qualified/happy to take over what HK was offering. 2. HK failed to develop its industrial base. Let's compare it to Singapore, you see different high tech companies in that city nation, but what HK has developed in the last few decades? You can also compare it to the neighbouring Shenzhen, if Shenzhen can offer companies like Tencent/DJI, why HK can not do the same in a so called free environment? FTA is long available to HK, there are numerous HK based companies doing business in mainland and making good profits, just in the wrong sector - they are all in real estate. Rather than blindly blame Beijing, there are more meaningful reasons to look at. 3. HK's retail sector is no longer comparable to what you can expect from tier-1 Chinese cities (Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen). Mobile payment, online shopping, delivery, large and easy to use e-commerce sites, you name it. Sure you can easily argue that HK has a few department stores with pretty good services, but is that enough to support the future of a city with millions of residencies? The consequence is simple - Chinese from the mainland stopped going to HK for shopping, they start to feel its out of date payment systems, 1990s style department stores are getting less and less attractive. 4. HK's Infrastructure is no longer considered as good. I first visited HK 13 years ago when HK's metro was far better than anything you could possibly expect in Shanghai. Today there is high speed rail that can get me anywhere within 200km radius of Shanghai, Shanghai metro's scale is 2-3x times larger. How fast you can get yourself from HK's central to Guangzhou? I can get myself to a nice office building or hotel in Hangzhou from my home in Shanghai door to door in 90 minutes. 5. HK is losing its financial capital status fast. Chinese Yuan will be internationalised eventually, that is probably THE biggest financial event in the next 30 years, but how many people would possibly believe that having HK dollar in HK is a smart move? Let's remember that HKD is never allowed to freely float, its exchange rate is fixed to USD. All this come to a real question here: is HK declining or just returning to where it suppose to be?
- pcr0 9y agoFunny bringing up DJI as an example of a Shenzhen company. They were actually conceived in a Hong Kong university but moved over the border due to cheaper rents and closer proximity to factories.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago> Xiaomi, Didi, Mobike and OFO are the 4 unicorns of China's internet industry, Lol. You're just going to ignore Tencent, founder of QQ, and countless other older, proven-to-be successful tech companies that aren't from anywhere near Beijing? Suffice it to say, not everyone agrees with your assessment of Beijing as being the leader in innovation [1] Being nearer the beauracracy never helps your flexibility. It helps your funding for development of things that are of interest to the state. National government, sorry. [1] http://www.allchinareview.com/chinas-emerging-silicon-valley-how-and-why-has-shenzhen-become-a-global-innovation-centre/ http://www.allchinareview.com/chinas-emerging-silicon-valley...
- dang 9y agoYou've broken the HN guidelines repeatedly in this thread by engaging in nationalistic flamewar. Please don't do that again. This is an international environment and the last thing we need is people sniping at each other's nations for either internecine or xenophobic reasons. When feeling activated, we all must take care to remain respectful. (Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14669197. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14669197.) We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14669031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14669031 and marked it off-topic.
- unityByFreedom 9y agoCertainly wasn't my intention. I'll be more careful in the future. I guess I'm not sure how to debate whether one city produces more successful startups than another. I mean, I think it's safe to say that Y Combinator and SF have been more successful than, say, Union Square Ventures and NYC, so I'm not sure where the internecine is in my above comment, but I guess I'll just sidestep this topic altogether for now and think on it. Thanks for letting me know.
- dang 9y agoBy 'internecine' I mean that sometimes people attack each other because their nations are close and sometimes ('xenophobia') because they are far. I'd give additional examples but I don't want to set anybody else off. The main thing is just to err on the side of being respectful, remembering that other people feel as much love and loyalty for their side as we each do for ours.
- abele2017 9y agoThere has also been a generational shift in the pro-democracy camp. Voters have replaced older, more pragmatic politicians with younger candidates more stridently opposed to the Communist authorities and willing to engage in all-out resistance. bullet force http://bulletforcegame.com/ http://bulletforcegame.com/
- partycoder 9y agoAfter the British Empire lost the American colonies, they tried to compensate their loss by refocusing their efforts eastwards. However the British realized they could not profit by playing fairly, so they started smuggling narcotics into China and when that failed, they invaded them, giving origin to their presence in Hong Kong. The Chinese have valid reasons to assimilate that territory.
- omegaworks 9y agoA lot of "built by the British" sloganeering but just how many British hands touched a welding torch? Moved ground with a shovel? Hauled supplies? >Hong Kong was once known for the speed and efficiency with which it built huge planned communities with ample public housing every several years. But it has not managed to do so since Britain returned it to Chinese rule on July 1, 1997. Perhaps a central government tactic. Build up a mass of wealthy entrenched home owners hell-bent on not seeing their guaranteed rent seeking threatened by cheaper public housing.
- shanwang 9y agoHongKong's rise was largely due to the decline of Shanghai and mainland China falling to communist government. Now with the rest of China rise up, I can't see how HongKong can return to its former glory
- Paul_S 9y agoI never understood why the UK didn't let Hong Kong declare independence. They could have then choosen their own protector to keep China away if the UK was too scared to do so.
- tinza123 9y agoBecause they can not? The original agreement is UK is only allowed to "rent" HK for years. They are never given ownership of the city. Plus it's politics, I don't think it would be such a simple decision made by one party.
- tim333 9y agoThe mainland Chinese government wouldn't have accepted it and would have intervened, militarily if necessary.
- shopoholic 9y ago> supporters of Beijing say the problem is too much democracy, not too little. I'm struggling to think of an example wherein a country suffered from too much democracy. However, I can think of many, many examples of the opposite situation.