5 ms·

So my HK team had the week off to protest. Luckily I didn't get any calls at 2am to bail anyone out of jail. This result- where the government backed down, was

So my HK team had the week off to protest. Luckily I didn't get any calls at 2am to bail anyone out of jail. This result- where the government backed down, was not expected by anyone. Ever since the Beijing-picked government stared down the Umbrella Protests in 2014, it's been a death by a thousand cuts to Hong Kong's autonomy. After talking to a friend who works for one of the pro-Beijing parties, it turns out the biggest fear for the Chinese authorities wasn't related to HK at all, but Taiwan. China has spent so much resources to promote friendly candidates for office in Taiwan and this HK debacle has instead emboldened the incumbent president of Taiwan, who is not at all friendly towards Beijing. In fact, she won her party primary and is now well positioned for the elections next year. As it turns out, as important as HK is, Taiwan is more important to Beijing and anything that provides fodder for Taiwan's independence leaning party is not allowed.

loyukfai 7y ago
The damage is done. It will take quite some time for the opinions of the Taiwanese people to change again, if ever.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  We’re used to Beijing thinking for the long term. When they rotated leaders, this was largely true. With Xi as leader for life, however, the short-term decision making and incompetent bureaucracies that characterises dictatorships are beginning to emerge. Hong Kong shouldn’t have been a problem. Most Hong Kongers, until recently, identified as Chinese moreso than Hong Konger. The transition in 2047 would have been uneventful. Now, Hong Kong pissed off. Taiwan has seen the writing on the wall. China’s multi-decade integration strategy must be rethought because Xi didn’t think he could survive Hong Kongers criticising his leadership (including its corruption).
  - trappist 7y ago
    This is the sort of thing predicted by Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed", the basic premise of which is that short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property The evidence shows the opposite. Political leaders (in any system) want to act in the short term. Democracies simply constrain them. No “lifetime leaders” are guaranteed a life term. They must continuously fight for political survival. (And with that, often, actual survival.) Dictatorships deploy, with limited constraint, their immortal nation’s power on mortal time scales. (Democracies’ rotation of leaders also allows for fixing mistakes. Dictators are constrained in terms of backing away from bad decisions. They thus have a bad habit of doubling down on stupid decisions.)
      - majewsky 7y ago
        > Dictators are constrained in terms of backing away from bad decisions. They thus have a bad habit of doubling down on stupid decisions. I find this to match the behavior of the dominant parties in my country.
        JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > I find this to match the behavior of the dominant parties in my country It characterises humans in general. It’s difficult for leaders to admit mistake. Political change generally increments when leaders are removed from power.
        Retric 7y ago
        The difference is when one party doubles down on unpopular choices they become more likely to be voted out of office. This is direct communication between the populace and rulers. In single party systems, dictatorships, etc leaders are frequently acting on really bad information or simply don’t feel the need to back down. Thus, such things tend to build up and compound over time.
      - XuMiao 7y ago
        Unfortunately Capitalism is not Democracy. Capitalism serves a set of dictators instead of one dictator.
  - griffinkelly 7y ago
    There's been a stronger identity as being a Hong Konger recently, but my family has always identified as being from Hong Kong. Looks like young people have dramatically shifted in their views. Found this saying the same: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/06/21/hku-poll-3-1-young-hongkongers-identify-chinese-marking-20-year-low/ https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/06/21/hku-poll-3-1-young-hon...
    - scruple 7y ago
      The last of my wife's family left HK in 1997. They've always strongly identified as being Hongkongers / Cantonese, rather than just Chinese, and will often correct people who don't understand the difference. My wife refers to our twins as half-Cantonese, so do I and the rest of our family. This whole situation is very unfortunate to me, but as my wife's mother said this morning, the writing was on the wall way back in 97.
baybal2 7y ago
Yep, pretty much it. Saying the way HN readers can understand, the fear of Beijing is nor "people hearing" as much as "people talking" Just every political commotion starts with people coming and talking with each other, forming groups, and confirming their views and positions, and not simply passively receiving information. Central Propaganda Department works a lot to prevent negative sentiments from becoming rallying points for political opposition exactly for the reason above.

loyukfai 7y ago

The damage is done. It will take quite some time for the opinions of the Taiwanese people to change again, if ever.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
We’re used to Beijing thinking for the long term. When they rotated leaders, this was largely true. With Xi as leader for life, however, the short-term decision making and incompetent bureaucracies that characterises dictatorships are beginning to emerge. Hong Kong shouldn’t have been a problem. Most Hong Kongers, until recently, identified as Chinese moreso than Hong Konger. The transition in 2047 would have been uneventful. Now, Hong Kong pissed off. Taiwan has seen the writing on the wall. China’s multi-decade integration strategy must be rethought because Xi didn’t think he could survive Hong Kongers criticising his leadership (including its corruption).
- trappist 7y ago
  This is the sort of thing predicted by Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed", the basic premise of which is that short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > short term leaders as found in democracies will try to get as much as they can in the short time they have, whereas lifetime leaders as in monarchies will treat the country more like a property owner would his own property The evidence shows the opposite. Political leaders (in any system) want to act in the short term. Democracies simply constrain them. No “lifetime leaders” are guaranteed a life term. They must continuously fight for political survival. (And with that, often, actual survival.) Dictatorships deploy, with limited constraint, their immortal nation’s power on mortal time scales. (Democracies’ rotation of leaders also allows for fixing mistakes. Dictators are constrained in terms of backing away from bad decisions. They thus have a bad habit of doubling down on stupid decisions.)
    - majewsky 7y ago
      > Dictators are constrained in terms of backing away from bad decisions. They thus have a bad habit of doubling down on stupid decisions. I find this to match the behavior of the dominant parties in my country.
      - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
        > I find this to match the behavior of the dominant parties in my country It characterises humans in general. It’s difficult for leaders to admit mistake. Political change generally increments when leaders are removed from power.
      - Retric 7y ago
        The difference is when one party doubles down on unpopular choices they become more likely to be voted out of office. This is direct communication between the populace and rulers. In single party systems, dictatorships, etc leaders are frequently acting on really bad information or simply don’t feel the need to back down. Thus, such things tend to build up and compound over time.
    - XuMiao 7y ago
      Unfortunately Capitalism is not Democracy. Capitalism serves a set of dictators instead of one dictator.
- griffinkelly 7y ago
  There's been a stronger identity as being a Hong Konger recently, but my family has always identified as being from Hong Kong. Looks like young people have dramatically shifted in their views. Found this saying the same: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/06/21/hku-poll-3-1-young-hongkongers-identify-chinese-marking-20-year-low/ https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/06/21/hku-poll-3-1-young-hon...
  - scruple 7y ago
    The last of my wife's family left HK in 1997. They've always strongly identified as being Hongkongers / Cantonese, rather than just Chinese, and will often correct people who don't understand the difference. My wife refers to our twins as half-Cantonese, so do I and the rest of our family. This whole situation is very unfortunate to me, but as my wife's mother said this morning, the writing was on the wall way back in 97.

baybal2 7y ago

Yep, pretty much it. Saying the way HN readers can understand, the fear of Beijing is nor "people hearing" as much as "people talking" Just every political commotion starts with people coming and talking with each other, forming groups, and confirming their views and positions, and not simply passively receiving information. Central Propaganda Department works a lot to prevent negative sentiments from becoming rallying points for political opposition exactly for the reason above.