19 ms·

each time, HK will lose a few more rights they used to have. Very likely. Sucks for HK people though :( Same story everywhere - nothing much changed after the

each time, HK will lose a few more rights they used to have. Very likely. Sucks for HK people though :( Same story everywhere - nothing much changed after the Arab spring protests, for example. As impressive as they are, how long can Hong Kong people keep up this level of protests? Beijing can keep the pressure forever and play the long game

nailer 7y ago
Hong Kong needs people in the PRC to start demanding their own representation. The CCP has might, but not enough to take on the Chinese people a second time. You can't be a people's republic if the people didn't vote for you.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  Is this sarcasm? While no authoritarian government can exist with no consent of the government, the PRC has no legal vehicle for citizens to disagree with the state.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Huh? If we're strict, it has plenty of avenues, including courts and elections [1]. They might be nominal, but legally they do exist and operate: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China
    - i_am_proteus 7y ago
      Elections are meaningless if the public can't decide who runs.
      - StreamBright 7y ago
        You are too hard on US elections. People wanted Bernie and got HRC.
        beat 7y ago
        More people wanted HRC, though. That's how elections work. It doesn't mean the loser is unpopular or broadly disliked. It means there's another candidate voters like better (or dislike less).
        StreamBright 7y ago
        Nope, they did not. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/11/democrat-primary-elections-need-reform https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/11/democr... Even Warren agrees DNC was rigged against Sanders. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2... https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fposteverything%2fwp%2f2016%2f11%2f10%2fhillary-clinton-lost-bernie-sanders-could-have-won%2f%3f https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2f...
        beat 7y ago
        My eyes are rolling so hard right now. Primaries/caucuses are managed at the state level, and are not controlled directly or indirectly by the DNC. "Bias" means nothing without action, and the claims of "cheating" are completely unfounded (and insulting to the countless thousands of party volunteers who run caucuses and serve as election judges). Bernie lost by three million votes. Not because of cheating, but because more voters wanted HRC. Period. edit: Bernie has been languishing at 12-18% or so in the polls since the 2020 race really got rolling. That's Bernie's real base. Losing 2-1 to a colorless apparatchik like Biden does not suggest a revolutionary groundswell for Bernie. Rather, it suggests that the success he had in 2016 was due to other factors. I'd argue that more than half his votes weren't pro-Bernie, but rather anti-Hillary, a symbol of defiance and frustration against her near-coronation by the DNC, without giving actual rank and file voters a say (basically, by discouraging other A-list candidates from running against her).
        StreamBright 7y ago
        >> Bernie lost by three million votes. Just like Obama lost by couple of hundred thousand votes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presiden... "What’s a political party for, anyway? It’s easy to bash the DNC’s joint fundraising agreement with Clinton, or the leaked emails showing that DNC staffers were supportive of Clinton and frustrated by Sanders. The DNC is meant to be a neutral presence in party primaries, and even minor deviations from that position are affronts. The harder question in the larger one: What role should party elites play in primaries? It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that they fully decided primaries, meeting in smoky back rooms during the political conventions to hash out the next nominee. Before 2016, the reigning political science theory of primaries was called “the party decides,” and it argued that political elites still largely decided party primaries, albeit through influencing voters rather than controlling convention delegates." https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/... I think it is quite obvious that the DNC did everything in their power to get rid of Sanders and put HRC into position. The problem was that she was unelectable and many Bernie voters just decided that Trump will be a better president than HRC (and many unfortunate other things, like HRC's popularity went down after every public appearance, all the left leaning social media declared HRC president, etc.).
      - guerrilla 7y ago
        By public, do you mean the party elites and corporate newsmedia, like here in the west?
    - pimmen 7y ago
      If you cannot vote for a different party that doesn’t share the values of the CCP, and can’t form one yourself, elections are meaningless rubber stamps.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        You don't need parties to have elections, just like how elections within a single community or organization don't have political parties, just candidates and fractions (voters/executives with different opinions). As for the values of the CCP, consider them like the Constitution in the US or the values of the "founding fathers". People don't get to change those either in any direct democratic way (but through a slow, ideological and legal process). Besides, 1 party vs 2 parties alternating seems hardly much of a difference...
        pimmen 7y ago
        Of course you don’t need parties to hold elections, that’s not what I said. I said they become meaningless rubber stamps since all the different factions are curated by the party establishment to the best of their abilities making any challenge to the establishment at best painfully slow (as in people have to be replaced through death or expulsuon for any blockage to stop) and at worst impossible. I’m not talking about changing the constitution or policy in a direct democratic way, changing them in a representative way through Western style democracy would be a vast improvement. Because the constitutions of Western governments still leave a lot of political room to manouver, such as taxation. In the US, stuff like that was left out of the constitution because the founding fathers knew they didn’t have all the answers, no one does. Especially not the CCP. Instead, things like basic human rights such as the right to not get locked up and brainwashed because of your religion is enshrined in the constitutions of Western style democracies because unlike taxation or government ownership of enterprises that is really important to make sure all individuals matter. And yes, changing the constitution is very slow, but if you have a multitude of differences with the government and the majority population, you can still progress politically and change one thing about the constitution where you do find common ground if you’re a competent politician. That’s far faster, more efficient and meritocratic than having to share the vast majority of policy with just one arbitrary party leadership to even be elligeble to run. All of these advantages are still present even with a two party system, but I prefer the multiparty, parliamentary system we have here in the Nordic countries.
  - andrekandre 7y ago
    that’s basically true, but it does seem china does have some nominal democracy at local levels, which then in turn elect upper levels and so on [1] so, while indirect, there does seem some nominal way to disagree as you say [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China
    - analognoise 7y ago
      You say disagree, I say disappear. Tomato, authoritarian regime.
    - wyuenho 7y ago
      One thing you do have to realize is, the Chinese are very good at keeping up the appearances. While there are local elections, there's usually no right to stand for elections. These so-called elections, generally has only 1 candidate, or a few that are all communist members, with pretty much the same views. "Elections" where people can't stand to be elected freely are not elections, they are just some elaborate ceremony to rubber-stamp government official appointments.
      - andrekandre 7y ago
        thanks for the reply that is unfortunate, it seems anywhere you go people try to subvert democracy (to different degrees of success)... i guess that’s why they call it “eternal vigilance”
  - nailer 7y ago
    Why would it be sarcasm? > PRC has no legal vehicle for citizens to disagree with the state. Yes that's true. There should be one. People in Beijing and Shanghai and everywhere else deserve leaders that actually represent them too. Do you think otherwise?
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    Although it's nothing like China, by what means can the average citizen in the UK, for example, raise an issue if their representative is of another party? Example: I care about issue x, but the people I live around don't. So I create a petition on the parliament petition website. Just like every other petition to date (to my knowledge) no change comes about because of it. How can I, as an individual citizen, disagree? Some philosophers of democracy argue that voting isn't worth the cost of actually voting, since your vote is unlikely to make a change in the first place.
    - CalRobert 7y ago
      You can run for office. Of course, you need to convince enough other people to agree with you.
    - pimmen 7y ago
      Lots of things beside petitions. You can run for office. If you find no parties that share any of your values, form one. You can raise the issue in the media which would pressure the government. You would probably not get kidnapped while on vacation in Thailand, and then get locked up without a trial and a forced confession through torture, just for criticizing the UK government. If it's something that affects an entire class of people, such as a certain profession, you could organize something like a labor strike or a protest. And if all else fails, you could actually just break an existing law you think is unfair. You would get an actual trial administered by an independent justice system where you get to defend your actions, you can then argue that the law is unfair and restricted your life in a cruel way. Sadly, it had to come to measures like this for LGBT rights to improve in the UK. You also mentioned "but the people I live around don't". In China it wouldn't matter if everyone around you care about the issue, something will only happen if the CCP deems it necessary.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Every party member can petition the state to make changes.
    - pimmen 7y ago
      Can I join the party if I fundamentally do not agree with its values? Such as, I think the party should have absolutely no control over the army, the judicial process, the selection of ministers, influence over state controlled media and many, many other presumably big points of contention? Because in the West you can form a party even if you fundamentally disagree with the parties already in power. If you go back a few decades the green parties and the nationalistic parties as we know them today didn't exist in most of Europe and were formed as reactions to feeling of the government not sharing the same fundamental values.
  - incognition 7y ago
    Well to paraphase, governments are people too.. most middle class folks in China are nominally CCP members themselves.. operationally CCP maps to a corporation in org chart then a democracy of course..
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      Same difference apparently: https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/file/472/download?token=Bdon5_Pf https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/file/472/download?token=Bd... > Every single day in China, depending on which statistic from the Chinese government is used, an average of 16 to 76 people are placed into the new liuzhi detention system and, by definition, disappeared. [..] > For decades, the Chinese Communist Party’s powerful anti-graft watchdog, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), used the shuanggui detention system to hold suspects for up to six months without charge. Enforcers were not answerable to any state laws. The use of shuanggui has been a strictly internal affair for the members of the CCP, it is completely separate from the state or judicial system. The meant that the normal protections afforded to those detained within the judicial system and rights, such as access to legal counsel, were not available to shuanggui detainees. Once in these facilities, you have no right to have your family informed of your whereabouts. You simply disappeared. > At the National People’s Congress in March 2018, China introduced a constitutional amendment to establish the National Supervision Commission (NSC), based on the new National Supervision Law (NSL), effectively replacing shuanggui with liuzhi. In practical terms, the biggest change was the NSC has authority over not just the 90 million or so CCP members but state employees and anyone working for an organization that manages public affairs or is involved in public affairs in any manner, right down to the village level. The style of Investigation and detention, despite the change in name, remain the same.
autarch 7y ago
> Same story everywhere - nothing much changed after the Arab spring protests, for example. Except in Tunisia, which is the one success story from that time period. It's now a functioning democracy. Of course the real test is how it does over the long term, but at least so far it's an example of real change in the region.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Revolutions don't produce democracies.
  - LevGoldstein 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
    - riffraff 7y ago
      also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution there have been quite a few "successful" revolutions.
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      First sentence: "The Velvet Revolution or Gentle Revolution was a non-violent transition of power in what was then Czechoslovakia, occurring from 17 November to 29 December 1989. When I say that "Revolutions don't produce democracies", I'm talking about violent revolutions. A "non violent revolution" is a contradiction on terms to me.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    I disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
    - gdhbcc 7y ago
      That was an utter and complete failure in every sense of the word. And in any case the reasons behind it had nothing to do with a desire for democracy
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>As impressive as they are, how long can Hong Kong people keep up this level of protests? Beijing can keep the pressure forever and play the long game As long as they have food, water and the will to fight. They can play the long game too if they are so inclined. Eventually the CCP will get tired of the expensive, resource sucking bridge to nowhere. Sure, China could carpet bomb HK but the more you destroy it the less it's worth and the harder it is to justify involvement.
- refurb 7y ago
  China has far too much to lose to back down on this one. One could argue the HK protests threaten the survival of the Chinese Communist Party. Far better for them to lose HK and be condemned globally than lose the all of China.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    But the question is how far are both sides willing to go with the violence? The further the CCP goes the more they risk deepening the resolve of your opponent (especially with a highly united population as in the case in HK). So far it appears that all escalations have done just that. The crux of the issue is that the people of HK do not want to be ruled over by the iron fisted CCP that drives tanks on people. Any escalation by the CCP confirms to the people of HK that the CCP is in fact the iron fisted CCP that drives tanks on people, not the new friendly CCP that does not drive tanks on people. So what does the CCP do then? They either back down or try to up the violence hoping it'll be too much for them. By upping the violence the CCP is gambling that they draw throw in the towel before HK does. At some point (only recognizable in hindsight) the line between protests/riot and open revolt will be crossed. Beyond that point it's fundamentally a gamble that a strong majority of people in HK would rather accept subjugation than die. Since this is somewhat an existential issue for them they may very well choose the latter. How does the CCP "win" against that? People who accept that they are probably going to die resisting are un-govern-able. Your soldiers can patrol the streets and they will still take pot-shots at you. Every time you get one another will pop up. There is no way to "win" against that unless your definition of "win" includes complete eradication. The only historical occurrence I can think of where a people who had resigned to death wound up surrendering involved strong central leadership telling them to surrender. Obviously it's a shit situation no matter how you look at it with outcomes ranging from bad to worse in the short and medium term.
sametmax 7y ago
It works in our countries too. Try to pass a terrible bill. Get rejected. Try again. Rejected. Again. Again. Again. They only have to get it through once, since laws are very rarely removed, only added.
- concerned_user 7y ago
  I also notice trend of adding some ridiculous/controversial paragraphs to the bill that you can "give up" later. When people are tired after first couple of rejections and general public is annoyed by same bill being constantly mentioned, new one gets thrown into the spotlight and latter one passes without much attention.
- otakucode 7y ago
  It has bothered me for decades that this seems to be a 'bug' in the design of the US government system. ~500 people whose job is to create new laws. 9 people who can effectively remove them (SCOTUS), and who have a very limited schedule. Plus if they are ever too busy and pass on hearing a case because others are more pressing, that immediately cements the law into place and establishes it as having 'survived Supreme Court challenge' since refusing to hear is equivalent to accepting the lower court ruling and establishes it as precedent. I do not see how you can run a system with ~500 'inputs' and 9 low-flow 'outputs' for a long time without resulting in an overflow of oppressive tyranny.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Congress should generally be removing laws, SCOTUS based law invalidation is sort of the last chance removal and ideally wouldn't happen very often, it should be reserved for cases where laws are internally inconsistent (and thus inapplicable) or are trying to invalidly overrule laws that require a stronger majority to change (to prevent constitutional amendments from being passed as regular laws just 'cause). I think the intent of SCOTUS was originally to decipher laws into a workable framework - given that some laws could potentially interact weirdly with decade or century old laws... and to help highlight incongruities in laws that law makers may have overlooked during their original writing in an effort to spur congress to correct said law.
Aperocky 7y ago
Well, things did change after Arab String. For worse.

nailer 7y ago

Hong Kong needs people in the PRC to start demanding their own representation. The CCP has might, but not enough to take on the Chinese people a second time. You can't be a people's republic if the people didn't vote for you.

i_am_proteus 7y ago
Is this sarcasm? While no authoritarian government can exist with no consent of the government, the PRC has no legal vehicle for citizens to disagree with the state.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Huh? If we're strict, it has plenty of avenues, including courts and elections [1]. They might be nominal, but legally they do exist and operate: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China
  - i_am_proteus 7y ago
    Elections are meaningless if the public can't decide who runs.
    - StreamBright 7y ago
      You are too hard on US elections. People wanted Bernie and got HRC.
      - beat 7y ago
        More people wanted HRC, though. That's how elections work. It doesn't mean the loser is unpopular or broadly disliked. It means there's another candidate voters like better (or dislike less).
        StreamBright 7y ago
        Nope, they did not. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/11/democrat-primary-elections-need-reform https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/11/democr... Even Warren agrees DNC was rigged against Sanders. https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2... https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fposteverything%2fwp%2f2016%2f11%2f10%2fhillary-clinton-lost-bernie-sanders-could-have-won%2f%3f https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2f...
        beat 7y ago
        My eyes are rolling so hard right now. Primaries/caucuses are managed at the state level, and are not controlled directly or indirectly by the DNC. "Bias" means nothing without action, and the claims of "cheating" are completely unfounded (and insulting to the countless thousands of party volunteers who run caucuses and serve as election judges). Bernie lost by three million votes. Not because of cheating, but because more voters wanted HRC. Period. edit: Bernie has been languishing at 12-18% or so in the polls since the 2020 race really got rolling. That's Bernie's real base. Losing 2-1 to a colorless apparatchik like Biden does not suggest a revolutionary groundswell for Bernie. Rather, it suggests that the success he had in 2016 was due to other factors. I'd argue that more than half his votes weren't pro-Bernie, but rather anti-Hillary, a symbol of defiance and frustration against her near-coronation by the DNC, without giving actual rank and file voters a say (basically, by discouraging other A-list candidates from running against her).
        StreamBright 7y ago
        >> Bernie lost by three million votes. Just like Obama lost by couple of hundred thousand votes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presiden... "What’s a political party for, anyway? It’s easy to bash the DNC’s joint fundraising agreement with Clinton, or the leaked emails showing that DNC staffers were supportive of Clinton and frustrated by Sanders. The DNC is meant to be a neutral presence in party primaries, and even minor deviations from that position are affronts. The harder question in the larger one: What role should party elites play in primaries? It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that they fully decided primaries, meeting in smoky back rooms during the political conventions to hash out the next nominee. Before 2016, the reigning political science theory of primaries was called “the party decides,” and it argued that political elites still largely decided party primaries, albeit through influencing voters rather than controlling convention delegates." https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/... I think it is quite obvious that the DNC did everything in their power to get rid of Sanders and put HRC into position. The problem was that she was unelectable and many Bernie voters just decided that Trump will be a better president than HRC (and many unfortunate other things, like HRC's popularity went down after every public appearance, all the left leaning social media declared HRC president, etc.).
    - guerrilla 7y ago
      By public, do you mean the party elites and corporate newsmedia, like here in the west?
  - pimmen 7y ago
    If you cannot vote for a different party that doesn’t share the values of the CCP, and can’t form one yourself, elections are meaningless rubber stamps.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      You don't need parties to have elections, just like how elections within a single community or organization don't have political parties, just candidates and fractions (voters/executives with different opinions). As for the values of the CCP, consider them like the Constitution in the US or the values of the "founding fathers". People don't get to change those either in any direct democratic way (but through a slow, ideological and legal process). Besides, 1 party vs 2 parties alternating seems hardly much of a difference...
      - pimmen 7y ago
        Of course you don’t need parties to hold elections, that’s not what I said. I said they become meaningless rubber stamps since all the different factions are curated by the party establishment to the best of their abilities making any challenge to the establishment at best painfully slow (as in people have to be replaced through death or expulsuon for any blockage to stop) and at worst impossible. I’m not talking about changing the constitution or policy in a direct democratic way, changing them in a representative way through Western style democracy would be a vast improvement. Because the constitutions of Western governments still leave a lot of political room to manouver, such as taxation. In the US, stuff like that was left out of the constitution because the founding fathers knew they didn’t have all the answers, no one does. Especially not the CCP. Instead, things like basic human rights such as the right to not get locked up and brainwashed because of your religion is enshrined in the constitutions of Western style democracies because unlike taxation or government ownership of enterprises that is really important to make sure all individuals matter. And yes, changing the constitution is very slow, but if you have a multitude of differences with the government and the majority population, you can still progress politically and change one thing about the constitution where you do find common ground if you’re a competent politician. That’s far faster, more efficient and meritocratic than having to share the vast majority of policy with just one arbitrary party leadership to even be elligeble to run. All of these advantages are still present even with a two party system, but I prefer the multiparty, parliamentary system we have here in the Nordic countries.
- andrekandre 7y ago
  that’s basically true, but it does seem china does have some nominal democracy at local levels, which then in turn elect upper levels and so on [1] so, while indirect, there does seem some nominal way to disagree as you say [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China
  - analognoise 7y ago
    You say disagree, I say disappear. Tomato, authoritarian regime.
  - wyuenho 7y ago
    One thing you do have to realize is, the Chinese are very good at keeping up the appearances. While there are local elections, there's usually no right to stand for elections. These so-called elections, generally has only 1 candidate, or a few that are all communist members, with pretty much the same views. "Elections" where people can't stand to be elected freely are not elections, they are just some elaborate ceremony to rubber-stamp government official appointments.
    - andrekandre 7y ago
      thanks for the reply that is unfortunate, it seems anywhere you go people try to subvert democracy (to different degrees of success)... i guess that’s why they call it “eternal vigilance”
- nailer 7y ago
  Why would it be sarcasm? > PRC has no legal vehicle for citizens to disagree with the state. Yes that's true. There should be one. People in Beijing and Shanghai and everywhere else deserve leaders that actually represent them too. Do you think otherwise?
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  Although it's nothing like China, by what means can the average citizen in the UK, for example, raise an issue if their representative is of another party? Example: I care about issue x, but the people I live around don't. So I create a petition on the parliament petition website. Just like every other petition to date (to my knowledge) no change comes about because of it. How can I, as an individual citizen, disagree? Some philosophers of democracy argue that voting isn't worth the cost of actually voting, since your vote is unlikely to make a change in the first place.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    You can run for office. Of course, you need to convince enough other people to agree with you.
  - pimmen 7y ago
    Lots of things beside petitions. You can run for office. If you find no parties that share any of your values, form one. You can raise the issue in the media which would pressure the government. You would probably not get kidnapped while on vacation in Thailand, and then get locked up without a trial and a forced confession through torture, just for criticizing the UK government. If it's something that affects an entire class of people, such as a certain profession, you could organize something like a labor strike or a protest. And if all else fails, you could actually just break an existing law you think is unfair. You would get an actual trial administered by an independent justice system where you get to defend your actions, you can then argue that the law is unfair and restricted your life in a cruel way. Sadly, it had to come to measures like this for LGBT rights to improve in the UK. You also mentioned "but the people I live around don't". In China it wouldn't matter if everyone around you care about the issue, something will only happen if the CCP deems it necessary.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Every party member can petition the state to make changes.
  - pimmen 7y ago
    Can I join the party if I fundamentally do not agree with its values? Such as, I think the party should have absolutely no control over the army, the judicial process, the selection of ministers, influence over state controlled media and many, many other presumably big points of contention? Because in the West you can form a party even if you fundamentally disagree with the parties already in power. If you go back a few decades the green parties and the nationalistic parties as we know them today didn't exist in most of Europe and were formed as reactions to feeling of the government not sharing the same fundamental values.
- incognition 7y ago
  Well to paraphase, governments are people too.. most middle class folks in China are nominally CCP members themselves.. operationally CCP maps to a corporation in org chart then a democracy of course..
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    Same difference apparently: https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/file/472/download?token=Bdon5_Pf https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/file/472/download?token=Bd... > Every single day in China, depending on which statistic from the Chinese government is used, an average of 16 to 76 people are placed into the new liuzhi detention system and, by definition, disappeared. [..] > For decades, the Chinese Communist Party’s powerful anti-graft watchdog, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), used the shuanggui detention system to hold suspects for up to six months without charge. Enforcers were not answerable to any state laws. The use of shuanggui has been a strictly internal affair for the members of the CCP, it is completely separate from the state or judicial system. The meant that the normal protections afforded to those detained within the judicial system and rights, such as access to legal counsel, were not available to shuanggui detainees. Once in these facilities, you have no right to have your family informed of your whereabouts. You simply disappeared. > At the National People’s Congress in March 2018, China introduced a constitutional amendment to establish the National Supervision Commission (NSC), based on the new National Supervision Law (NSL), effectively replacing shuanggui with liuzhi. In practical terms, the biggest change was the NSC has authority over not just the 90 million or so CCP members but state employees and anyone working for an organization that manages public affairs or is involved in public affairs in any manner, right down to the village level. The style of Investigation and detention, despite the change in name, remain the same.

autarch 7y ago

> Same story everywhere - nothing much changed after the Arab spring protests, for example. Except in Tunisia, which is the one success story from that time period. It's now a functioning democracy. Of course the real test is how it does over the long term, but at least so far it's an example of real change in the region.

BurningFrog 7y ago
Revolutions don't produce democracies.
- LevGoldstein 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
  - riffraff 7y ago
    also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution there have been quite a few "successful" revolutions.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    First sentence: "The Velvet Revolution or Gentle Revolution was a non-violent transition of power in what was then Czechoslovakia, occurring from 17 November to 29 December 1989. When I say that "Revolutions don't produce democracies", I'm talking about violent revolutions. A "non violent revolution" is a contradiction on terms to me.
- icebraining 7y ago
  I disagree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
  - gdhbcc 7y ago
    That was an utter and complete failure in every sense of the word. And in any case the reasons behind it had nothing to do with a desire for democracy

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>As impressive as they are, how long can Hong Kong people keep up this level of protests? Beijing can keep the pressure forever and play the long game As long as they have food, water and the will to fight. They can play the long game too if they are so inclined. Eventually the CCP will get tired of the expensive, resource sucking bridge to nowhere. Sure, China could carpet bomb HK but the more you destroy it the less it's worth and the harder it is to justify involvement.

refurb 7y ago
China has far too much to lose to back down on this one. One could argue the HK protests threaten the survival of the Chinese Communist Party. Far better for them to lose HK and be condemned globally than lose the all of China.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  But the question is how far are both sides willing to go with the violence? The further the CCP goes the more they risk deepening the resolve of your opponent (especially with a highly united population as in the case in HK). So far it appears that all escalations have done just that. The crux of the issue is that the people of HK do not want to be ruled over by the iron fisted CCP that drives tanks on people. Any escalation by the CCP confirms to the people of HK that the CCP is in fact the iron fisted CCP that drives tanks on people, not the new friendly CCP that does not drive tanks on people. So what does the CCP do then? They either back down or try to up the violence hoping it'll be too much for them. By upping the violence the CCP is gambling that they draw throw in the towel before HK does. At some point (only recognizable in hindsight) the line between protests/riot and open revolt will be crossed. Beyond that point it's fundamentally a gamble that a strong majority of people in HK would rather accept subjugation than die. Since this is somewhat an existential issue for them they may very well choose the latter. How does the CCP "win" against that? People who accept that they are probably going to die resisting are un-govern-able. Your soldiers can patrol the streets and they will still take pot-shots at you. Every time you get one another will pop up. There is no way to "win" against that unless your definition of "win" includes complete eradication. The only historical occurrence I can think of where a people who had resigned to death wound up surrendering involved strong central leadership telling them to surrender. Obviously it's a shit situation no matter how you look at it with outcomes ranging from bad to worse in the short and medium term.

sametmax 7y ago

It works in our countries too. Try to pass a terrible bill. Get rejected. Try again. Rejected. Again. Again. Again. They only have to get it through once, since laws are very rarely removed, only added.

concerned_user 7y ago
I also notice trend of adding some ridiculous/controversial paragraphs to the bill that you can "give up" later. When people are tired after first couple of rejections and general public is annoyed by same bill being constantly mentioned, new one gets thrown into the spotlight and latter one passes without much attention.
otakucode 7y ago
It has bothered me for decades that this seems to be a 'bug' in the design of the US government system. ~500 people whose job is to create new laws. 9 people who can effectively remove them (SCOTUS), and who have a very limited schedule. Plus if they are ever too busy and pass on hearing a case because others are more pressing, that immediately cements the law into place and establishes it as having 'survived Supreme Court challenge' since refusing to hear is equivalent to accepting the lower court ruling and establishes it as precedent. I do not see how you can run a system with ~500 'inputs' and 9 low-flow 'outputs' for a long time without resulting in an overflow of oppressive tyranny.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Congress should generally be removing laws, SCOTUS based law invalidation is sort of the last chance removal and ideally wouldn't happen very often, it should be reserved for cases where laws are internally inconsistent (and thus inapplicable) or are trying to invalidly overrule laws that require a stronger majority to change (to prevent constitutional amendments from being passed as regular laws just 'cause). I think the intent of SCOTUS was originally to decipher laws into a workable framework - given that some laws could potentially interact weirdly with decade or century old laws... and to help highlight incongruities in laws that law makers may have overlooked during their original writing in an effort to spur congress to correct said law.

Aperocky 7y ago

Well, things did change after Arab String. For worse.