5 ms·

‘ No one on either side of the conflict , then or now, has a satisfactory theory of why Carrie Lam won’t form an independent inquiry into police violence, the d

‘ No one on either side of the conflict , then or now, has a satisfactory theory of why Carrie Lam won’t form an independent inquiry into police violence, the demand that is the emotional core of the protests.’ Does China have anything to loose with an independent inquiry into police violence ? The Hong Kong situation is still quite baffling. I initially thought that the emotional motivation was independence. But it seems like that’s not the crux of the issue

pgeorgi 7y ago
> I initially thought that the emotional motivation was independence. More like autonomy: apparently Hong Kong citizens don't mind being part of China as long as they can keep their self-governance. And that ties in to your question: > Does China have anything to loose with an independent inquiry into police violence ? Such an inquiry would emphasize HK's autonomy (and also paint government as potentially fallible, something the party doesn't like to see discussed). On the other hand: does China have anything to win with such an inquiry? I can't see anything (there are four more demands and giving in on this would likely increase support for demanding the rest), so for them it's all risk and no gain.
- jandrese 7y ago
  > More like autonomy: apparently Hong Kong citizens don't mind being part of China as long as they can keep their self-governance. So they don't mind being a part of China so long as they aren't actually a part of China. I can't blame them either, the current system has worked out well for the island, and China's internal polices have not had quite as much success on the mainland. But Chinese officials were pretty clear from the start that they intended to integrated HK eventually and that the semi-detached existence was only temporary. They see this as inevitable and the HL population is just dragging their heels on something that has to happen in the end.
  - nailer 7y ago
    I think some folk in the west naively assumed that a wealthy populace on the mainland would get tired of corruption and rule by self appointed officials, and eventually liberalise. Harmony would be achieved this way. Instead China is implementing totalitarianism on a first world region and the Cantonese hate it.
    - bllguo 7y ago
      HK is largely cantonese but not all cantonese are from hong kong. let's use accurate language
samstave 7y ago
There is nothing baffling about this. CLam is clearly under the duress of the CCP - and not just for the simplistic reasons of her maintaining her own face/position/power/etc... She is the lynchpin of CCP control in HK. So, lets assume she caves to the protesters... (wont happen), she would wreak the ire of the CCP - and obv, she is as much of a leach oligarch as the rest - so she clearly cant choose the cup in front of her. Now, if she were to take the strong arm of the CCP against the protesters, she would wreak the havoc of the international sanction prospects of the world abroad. So she clearly cannot choose the cup in front of you... What she does know is that the global authoritarian regimes have spent the last few years building an immunity to Protester-Murder Requiring-Protester-Backlash-in-the-face-of-economic-and-geo-political-gains.
Danieru 7y ago
A commission would mean giving ground. It would mean China is no longer 100% protecting the thugs dressed in "police" uniforms. Thuggery is not a new thing, common to all crime families is a "protection" for the foot soldiers. If a foot soldier messes up the boss takes responsibility, admonishes the criminal, and the criminal is thankful for getting off without justice. We see this common behaviour in the American mafia, the Japanese Yakuza, and currupt police departments, and clearly China's Hong Kong occupiers.
bobthepanda 7y ago
At this point it’s to save face. Xi’s China and its media basically backed itself into a corner by painting the protests as instigated by foreign-funded terrorists. Accepting the demands would be seen as major backpedaling, and might - cause PRC citizens to also start demanding accountability - cause nationalistic protests about kowtowing to what was described as terrorists
- idlewords 7y ago
  A problem with that analysis is that they already caved on the chief demand (formal withdrawal of the bill), after saying all summer it wouldn't happen.
  - DonaldFisk 7y ago
    It's worth pointing out that the bill was introduced in order to extradite someone who was accused of murdering his girlfriend in Taiwan, with which Hong Kong didn't have an extradition treaty, but it wasn't sufficiently narrow in scope to do just that, which caused fear that it could have been used in future to extradite citizens to mainland China.
    - gwd 7y ago
      Yes. One of the side effects of being a liar is that nobody trusts you even when you're telling the truth; one of the side effects of having a corrupt legal system is that nobody trusts you, even with actual murderers. EDIT: It's worth pointing out that this is why Ecuador gave Assange asylum: it was clear that the UK and US legal systems were being politically corrupted. The political corruption of the legal system is just much more systematic in China.
  - mrob 7y ago
    It's not really withdrawn, it's just postponed for 28 years. "One country, two systems" expires in 2047, and the mainland government takes the long view.

pgeorgi 7y ago

> I initially thought that the emotional motivation was independence. More like autonomy: apparently Hong Kong citizens don't mind being part of China as long as they can keep their self-governance. And that ties in to your question: > Does China have anything to loose with an independent inquiry into police violence ? Such an inquiry would emphasize HK's autonomy (and also paint government as potentially fallible, something the party doesn't like to see discussed). On the other hand: does China have anything to win with such an inquiry? I can't see anything (there are four more demands and giving in on this would likely increase support for demanding the rest), so for them it's all risk and no gain.

jandrese 7y ago
> More like autonomy: apparently Hong Kong citizens don't mind being part of China as long as they can keep their self-governance. So they don't mind being a part of China so long as they aren't actually a part of China. I can't blame them either, the current system has worked out well for the island, and China's internal polices have not had quite as much success on the mainland. But Chinese officials were pretty clear from the start that they intended to integrated HK eventually and that the semi-detached existence was only temporary. They see this as inevitable and the HL population is just dragging their heels on something that has to happen in the end.
- nailer 7y ago
  I think some folk in the west naively assumed that a wealthy populace on the mainland would get tired of corruption and rule by self appointed officials, and eventually liberalise. Harmony would be achieved this way. Instead China is implementing totalitarianism on a first world region and the Cantonese hate it.
  - bllguo 7y ago
    HK is largely cantonese but not all cantonese are from hong kong. let's use accurate language

samstave 7y ago

There is nothing baffling about this. CLam is clearly under the duress of the CCP - and not just for the simplistic reasons of her maintaining her own face/position/power/etc... She is the lynchpin of CCP control in HK. So, lets assume she caves to the protesters... (wont happen), she would wreak the ire of the CCP - and obv, she is as much of a leach oligarch as the rest - so she clearly cant choose the cup in front of her. Now, if she were to take the strong arm of the CCP against the protesters, she would wreak the havoc of the international sanction prospects of the world abroad. So she clearly cannot choose the cup in front of you... What she does know is that the global authoritarian regimes have spent the last few years building an immunity to Protester-Murder Requiring-Protester-Backlash-in-the-face-of-economic-and-geo-political-gains.

Danieru 7y ago

A commission would mean giving ground. It would mean China is no longer 100% protecting the thugs dressed in "police" uniforms. Thuggery is not a new thing, common to all crime families is a "protection" for the foot soldiers. If a foot soldier messes up the boss takes responsibility, admonishes the criminal, and the criminal is thankful for getting off without justice. We see this common behaviour in the American mafia, the Japanese Yakuza, and currupt police departments, and clearly China's Hong Kong occupiers.

bobthepanda 7y ago

At this point it’s to save face. Xi’s China and its media basically backed itself into a corner by painting the protests as instigated by foreign-funded terrorists. Accepting the demands would be seen as major backpedaling, and might - cause PRC citizens to also start demanding accountability - cause nationalistic protests about kowtowing to what was described as terrorists

idlewords 7y ago
A problem with that analysis is that they already caved on the chief demand (formal withdrawal of the bill), after saying all summer it wouldn't happen.
- DonaldFisk 7y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the bill was introduced in order to extradite someone who was accused of murdering his girlfriend in Taiwan, with which Hong Kong didn't have an extradition treaty, but it wasn't sufficiently narrow in scope to do just that, which caused fear that it could have been used in future to extradite citizens to mainland China.
  - gwd 7y ago
    Yes. One of the side effects of being a liar is that nobody trusts you even when you're telling the truth; one of the side effects of having a corrupt legal system is that nobody trusts you, even with actual murderers. EDIT: It's worth pointing out that this is why Ecuador gave Assange asylum: it was clear that the UK and US legal systems were being politically corrupted. The political corruption of the legal system is just much more systematic in China.
- mrob 7y ago
  It's not really withdrawn, it's just postponed for 28 years. "One country, two systems" expires in 2047, and the mainland government takes the long view.