6 ms·

I expected the Beijing government would (a) continuously improve its image in Hong Kong, and (b) monitor HK public opinion to ensure they don't push its agenda

by _cs2017_ 7y ago

I expected the Beijing government would (a) continuously improve its image in Hong Kong, and (b) monitor HK public opinion to ensure they don't push its agenda to the point where it would risk instability. How in the world did they mess up so badly? It looks like a completely unforced error: prior to the extradition proposal, there was no social unrest, and barely any political activism. The time was on the Beijing side. It seems that someone is terrible at their job. If I was Xi, I would fire Carrie Lam, and appoint someone more capable in her place. Someone who can understand and relate to the public, who can earn the respect of the population, who recognizes the long term interests of Beijing and yet knows how to trade them off against the need for stability. I know it's easy to criticize, but I think it's reasonable to have high expectations from HK Chief Executive. And it's very sad to watch a great city threatened by the leader's incompetence.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
One of the problems with power is that the more power you have, the less truth you hear. Xi has grabbed total control of power in China, and one of the results is that people almost certainly tell him what they think he wants to hear, rather than what he needs to hear.
- _cs2017_ 7y ago
  If that's the case, hopefully, he can learn from the clear screwups like this that his team fails at keeping him informed. And hopefully he can still find people who can do more than flatter and kowtow, and get them to advise him. I do think though that things are not as bad as in ancient China. I think people are trying to inform him, they are just not very good at it.
  - kenneth 7y ago
    So you want him to succeed?
    - rshawshaw 7y ago
      why not?
      - pertymcpert 7y ago
        Why do you want him to? Why do you support the CCP? Why the new account?
        _cs2017_ 7y ago
        (Answering a parent post) > So you want him to succeed? Xi pursues many different objectives, and I don't know what most of them are. I suspect I would support some but not all of his objectives, and some but not all of the methods he's using to achieve those objectives. (I would say the same if you asked about almost any other world leader or political movement.) Therefore, I cannot answer your question with a simple yes or no. However, the relevant question is much simpler: do I want Xi to follow policies that endanger stability and prosperity across Asia? The answer is a very clear no. So I really hope that his advisors will help him avoid such policies.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Well it wasn't exactly unprecedented. Far from it. Every Chief Executive election, from the very first, has had some smell of corruption about it - threats of finding trouble makers, or Beijing interference etc. Not forgetting Beijing immediately threw out the system and produced their own electoral college, and IIRC required votes to be public before casting - how perfect for applying pressure. Carefully built an electoral college to be pro Beijing but that appears independent on the surface. They are show elections. Lam, like all Chief Execs before her, was Beijing's choice, but now HK is not as outsize an economy compared to China, Beijing feels able to breach the spirit and letter of the agreement they signed with far more impunity. So they're pushing more, harder, from relatively gentle interference in the 90s and early 00s. It's not an isolated one-off. Whether a technical breach by putting Chinese border and customs for the bridge in HK, or kidnapping and getting show confessions on TV of HK booksellers and publishers. They've got into the habit of interfering more and more, and being fairly crass about it. I'm not nearly as well informed as I was back around handover, but my few HK friends still there are now thinking (not sure how seriously yet) about emigration yet again, just as they had after Tiananmen, and after handover. What Beijing does seem to have done is wake up the younger generation who were generally more accepting of the system they grew up with until 14's umbrella protests.
- _cs2017_ 7y ago
  When managing a special territory like Hong Kong, I think Beijing's goal is to promote its interests as much as possible, at the lowest possible cost in terms of instability. What is the reason we observe seemingly the opposite policy: irritating people in silly ways, for little if any gain, and at a large cost in public discontent?
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    You would think so, wouldn't you? The only thing I can think is because HK has become so much less significant compared to the size of the Chinese economy, whilst Xi has been consolidating power ever since becoming president, removing term limits and so on. Rather like Putin in Russia. I suspect they are both prioritising differently than predecessors, or even themselves at the start of their presidency. At some point China seems to have switched from preserving the golden goose to trying to amalgamate and homogenise, so they've been steadily getting pro-Beijing Han Chinese to move to HK, and making larger changes. China's economy is fine even if HK struggles. The extradition is an odd one, as at the end of the 50 years of two systems I assume it won't be necessary, so simpler to just wait. I can't imagine it wasn't instigated by Beijing, with Lam tasked to deliver. Maybe it's a first move to compliance at all costs, more like in Tibet and Xinjiang. I sincerely hope not. Still, second guessing the why of their motives is way beyond my pay grade. :) At the end of the 50s when China threatened to invade if the British followed through with planned democracy, they also made very plain they'd like to keep HK just as it was. That is, a non-democratic colony that gave them a key route to trade with the West. Even though it had 10 years filling with skilled anti-communist refugees who fled the civil war and aftermath and kick-started HK in the first place. That clearly doesn't matter any more.
aussiegreenie 7y ago
>I expected the Beijing government would (a) continuously improve its image in Hong Kong, and (b) monitor HK public opinion to ensure they don't push its agenda to the point where it would risk instability. You fail on two basic points. 1) You think Beijing cares about HK 2) You give too much credit to CCP propaganda Chinese politics is totally inward facing. The CCP only worries about what Xi thinks or needs. Xi and his followers are the only people who can sack you if you are a bureaucrat. Beijing would be happy for Hong Kong to disappear into the sea. In 1997, HK was the richest and most dynamic region in China. Now, Shenzhen is much more important and HK is becoming just another Chinese coastal city. All of the stuff the legal and governance infrastructure that made HK a world capital for finance is dying. The rule of law and personal freedoms are dead. HK is just a reminder of the Century of Humiliation. The quicker it dies the better for Beijing or CCP anyway.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

One of the problems with power is that the more power you have, the less truth you hear. Xi has grabbed total control of power in China, and one of the results is that people almost certainly tell him what they think he wants to hear, rather than what he needs to hear.

_cs2017_ 7y ago
If that's the case, hopefully, he can learn from the clear screwups like this that his team fails at keeping him informed. And hopefully he can still find people who can do more than flatter and kowtow, and get them to advise him. I do think though that things are not as bad as in ancient China. I think people are trying to inform him, they are just not very good at it.
- kenneth 7y ago
  So you want him to succeed?
  - rshawshaw 7y ago
    why not?
    - pertymcpert 7y ago
      Why do you want him to? Why do you support the CCP? Why the new account?
      - _cs2017_ 7y ago
        (Answering a parent post) > So you want him to succeed? Xi pursues many different objectives, and I don't know what most of them are. I suspect I would support some but not all of his objectives, and some but not all of the methods he's using to achieve those objectives. (I would say the same if you asked about almost any other world leader or political movement.) Therefore, I cannot answer your question with a simple yes or no. However, the relevant question is much simpler: do I want Xi to follow policies that endanger stability and prosperity across Asia? The answer is a very clear no. So I really hope that his advisors will help him avoid such policies.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Well it wasn't exactly unprecedented. Far from it. Every Chief Executive election, from the very first, has had some smell of corruption about it - threats of finding trouble makers, or Beijing interference etc. Not forgetting Beijing immediately threw out the system and produced their own electoral college, and IIRC required votes to be public before casting - how perfect for applying pressure. Carefully built an electoral college to be pro Beijing but that appears independent on the surface. They are show elections. Lam, like all Chief Execs before her, was Beijing's choice, but now HK is not as outsize an economy compared to China, Beijing feels able to breach the spirit and letter of the agreement they signed with far more impunity. So they're pushing more, harder, from relatively gentle interference in the 90s and early 00s. It's not an isolated one-off. Whether a technical breach by putting Chinese border and customs for the bridge in HK, or kidnapping and getting show confessions on TV of HK booksellers and publishers. They've got into the habit of interfering more and more, and being fairly crass about it. I'm not nearly as well informed as I was back around handover, but my few HK friends still there are now thinking (not sure how seriously yet) about emigration yet again, just as they had after Tiananmen, and after handover. What Beijing does seem to have done is wake up the younger generation who were generally more accepting of the system they grew up with until 14's umbrella protests.

_cs2017_ 7y ago
When managing a special territory like Hong Kong, I think Beijing's goal is to promote its interests as much as possible, at the lowest possible cost in terms of instability. What is the reason we observe seemingly the opposite policy: irritating people in silly ways, for little if any gain, and at a large cost in public discontent?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  You would think so, wouldn't you? The only thing I can think is because HK has become so much less significant compared to the size of the Chinese economy, whilst Xi has been consolidating power ever since becoming president, removing term limits and so on. Rather like Putin in Russia. I suspect they are both prioritising differently than predecessors, or even themselves at the start of their presidency. At some point China seems to have switched from preserving the golden goose to trying to amalgamate and homogenise, so they've been steadily getting pro-Beijing Han Chinese to move to HK, and making larger changes. China's economy is fine even if HK struggles. The extradition is an odd one, as at the end of the 50 years of two systems I assume it won't be necessary, so simpler to just wait. I can't imagine it wasn't instigated by Beijing, with Lam tasked to deliver. Maybe it's a first move to compliance at all costs, more like in Tibet and Xinjiang. I sincerely hope not. Still, second guessing the why of their motives is way beyond my pay grade. :) At the end of the 50s when China threatened to invade if the British followed through with planned democracy, they also made very plain they'd like to keep HK just as it was. That is, a non-democratic colony that gave them a key route to trade with the West. Even though it had 10 years filling with skilled anti-communist refugees who fled the civil war and aftermath and kick-started HK in the first place. That clearly doesn't matter any more.

aussiegreenie 7y ago

>I expected the Beijing government would (a) continuously improve its image in Hong Kong, and (b) monitor HK public opinion to ensure they don't push its agenda to the point where it would risk instability. You fail on two basic points. 1) You think Beijing cares about HK 2) You give too much credit to CCP propaganda Chinese politics is totally inward facing. The CCP only worries about what Xi thinks or needs. Xi and his followers are the only people who can sack you if you are a bureaucrat. Beijing would be happy for Hong Kong to disappear into the sea. In 1997, HK was the richest and most dynamic region in China. Now, Shenzhen is much more important and HK is becoming just another Chinese coastal city. All of the stuff the legal and governance infrastructure that made HK a world capital for finance is dying. The rule of law and personal freedoms are dead. HK is just a reminder of the Century of Humiliation. The quicker it dies the better for Beijing or CCP anyway.