9 ms·

its sad. when Sun Yat-sen the father of modern China take on the Qing dynasty. Hong Kong was the base. It wasn't part of China and a lot of Chinese who is educa

its sad. when Sun Yat-sen the father of modern China take on the Qing dynasty. Hong Kong was the base. It wasn't part of China and a lot of Chinese who is educated under the British rule understand what Sun try to achieve. a modern and free country. Hong Kong have been a base for a lot of progressive Chinese. Now that Hong Kong is fully back into China and the 50 years of no changes (for Hong Kong) promised by Deng Xiaoping is gone with Xi, basically a emperor for life. There is no hope for China to turn into a democratic country. Taiwan is the last place for the progressive Chinese. After Chiang's family, Taiwan have progressed to be the most democratic and open minded country. It elected a first female president in Taiwan, allowed gay marriage...etc. While American left Taiwan to have a business relationship with China (CCP) for more than 40 years. I fear Taiwan will soon be conquered by China, not by force but suppression and economic ties. After Taiwan is gone, there is no more place for any open minded and progressive Chinese.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jeswin 5y ago
> I fear Taiwan will soon be conquered by China, not by force but suppression and economic ties. A majority in Taiwan (two-thirds) are against unification, and that's hardended further after what's happened in HongKong. This is especially so among young people, who mostly also identify as being exclusively Taiwanese. Support for unification mostly comes from KMT, who are older and identify as Taiwanese and Chinese. As that generation fades away, these ratios will tilt even further. For most young Taiwanese, Mainland China has nothing to offer for them to want unification.
etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
There's still Singapore, and it is not in the line of fire of China.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > Singapore, and it is not in the line of fire of China. ... Please keep watch of news. They already started "tickling" Singapore since a few years ago. Not to mention, Mao been sending his subvertionists to Malaysia, and Singapore through sixties, and seventies
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > There's still Singapore, and it is not in the line of fire of China. Isn't Singapore already pretty authoritarian?
  - bakuninsbart 5y ago
    Singapore does not significantly differ in its authoritarianism from the PRC. They are however much richer, much smaller, and decided to follow a "capitalist" model, so they get less hate in our political discourse.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      That is the most ridiculous hyperbole I have ever heard. Yes, Singapore does have strict limitations on freedom of speech, but at the same time have separation of powers, free elections and a national identity separate to the PAP.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        Singapor only has "Free Elections™" where the opposition is strictly controlled and not allowed to win more than a token number of seats. See also: Nicaragua, Venezuala, etc... > That is the most ridiculous hyperbole I have ever heard. That's an ironically hyperobolic statment itself.
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        >Singapor only has "Free Elections™" where the opposition is strictly controlled and not allowed to win more than a token number of seats. Through limitations on campaigning, gerrymandering and defamation suits. Not ideal, but no threats, no bullets, no bribing the electoral commission. A far cry from China where they crush entire populations with police brutality. (In regards to my original comment, SG's elections are free in the sense that all citizens can vote without fear of backlash, but they are not fair because the PAP rig things in their favour) >That's an ironically hyperobolic statment itself That's the joke.
baybal2 5y ago
> There is no hope for China to turn into a democratic country. With enough ammunition, any country can be made a democracy
- tjpnz 5y ago
  In name only perhaps.
- rmujica 5y ago
  turned out alright for Afghanistan
  - howaboutnope 5y ago
    Turned out alright for Nazi Germany. As a German, I'm absolutely grateful the Nazis were crushed militarily, rather than, you know, still reigning.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      A question out of curiosity: would you prefer DDR to be crushed militarily as well, instead of just giving up the ghost in 1989? As a fellow European, I can see that communists are somehow still considered better than the Nazis, and part of the difference might be that their gulags were never conquered by an external force and photos of their skeletal prisoners never made it to the media. They mostly dismantled them themselves once Stalin was dead and the regimes behind the Iron Curtain turned from outright murderous to just oppressive.
      - howaboutnope 5y ago
        > would you prefer DDR to be crushed militarily as well, instead of just giving up the ghost in 1989? Why are you assuming I wouldn't have prefered the Nazis to have "given up the ghost" as well? Are there any signs of the CCP "giving up the ghost" anytime soon? Given the choices that actually existed, I prefer, as the White Rose put it in one of their leaflets, an end with terror rather than terror without end. Human mortality is a given either way, the dignity that comes with agency and intellectual integrity is what the struggle is about. I don't ask for how long someone lived, but as who they lived.. or as Hannah Arendt put it: > Once upon a time, there was a happy time when people were free to choose; better to die dead than to be a slave, better to die standing than to live on one's knees. Once upon a time there was a wicked time when imbecile intellectuals declared that life was the highest of goods. Today the terrible time has come, when it is proved every day that death begins its reign of terror exactly when life has become the highest good; that he who prefers to live on his knees dies on his knees; that no one is easier to murder than a slave. We the living have to learn that one cannot even live on one's knees, that one does not become immortal by chasing life, and that when one no longer wants to die for anything, one dies even though one has done nothing. -- Hannah Arendt via DeepL > As a fellow European, I can see that communists are somehow still considered better than the Nazis That's still like saying something with a lethal dose of 50g is better food than something with a lethal dose of 5g. I don't see the point of even ranking them.
JackeJR 5y ago
Some think that if the US extended their protection to Taiwan, Beijing would not attempt to take Taiwan. Let's just assume for a moment that the US will fight off attacks by China to take Taiwan. And that US successfully ward off an attack. What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again? Will the US be prepared to ward off attacks after attacks after attacks? This is unlikely to happen. With this, lets again assume that China eventually successfully takes Taiwan. What next? They would have taken over an island with a large number of people who resents their rule. There will be a persistent resistance group as long as Beijing continues her ways and Beijing is aware of this and is trying to shape the education of the younger generations so that the resentment does not cross generations. Even if all these were to take place and all hope seems to be lost. There is a glimmer of hope. A totalitarian state has one major fault. There is no effective feedback mechanism and to assume that this one man can make the right call, the right decision all the time is a stretch. At some point, be it internal infighting, or a policy misstep creating intense misery amongst the people, there will be discontent and if the history of China is any indication, the discontent can trigger uprisings and eventually a change of regime. The only way the regime can be changed is from the inside.
- rackjack 5y ago
  > Let's just assume for a moment that the US will fight off attacks by China to take Taiwan. And that US successfully ward off an attack. What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again? Will the US be prepared to ward off attacks after attacks after attacks? This is unlikely to happen. America did this in Korea and it split the country in half. > With this, lets again assume that China eventually successfully takes Taiwan. What next? They would have taken over an island with a large number of people who resents their rule. There will be a persistent resistance group as long as Beijing continues her ways and Beijing is aware of this and is trying to shape the education of the younger generations so that the resentment does not cross generations. Also, brainwashing via complete control of the media, disappearing dissidents... They're doing it to the Falun Gong and the Muslims and others and they'll have no problem doing it to more. > Even if all these were to take place and all hope seems to be lost. There is a glimmer of hope. A totalitarian state has one major fault. There is no effective feedback mechanism and to assume that this one man can make the right call, the right decision all the time is a stretch. At some point, be it internal infighting, or a policy misstep creating intense misery amongst the people, there will be discontent and if the history of China is any indication, the discontent can trigger uprisings and eventually a change of regime. Also possible for there to be enough bureaucratic momentum that those within it have enough skin in the game to want to install a new head. But once China's growth starts to slow down I wouldn't be surprised at the CCP losing the Mandate of Heaven and the Ouroboros eating its tail again.
justicezyx 5y ago
> It wasn't part of China HK was sold to Britain as part of the corrupted and weak China's humiliation. What do you want to say? Are you trying to depict the image that HK has been forcefully claimed by China? Please stop this type of propaganda behavior. I don't like CCP, but that does not make HK not part of China. We Chinese eventually will get rid of CCP, but we don't want the great nation get split. Just like any patriot in US would not want this great nation get split.
- blkhp19 5y ago
  Who cares what it was / wasn't part of. The majority of people in HK don't want to be part of China. That's all that matters. > We Chinese eventually will get rid of CCP, but we don't want the great nation get split. Dude, what? HK hasn't been part of China for years. What possible justification could you have for re-integrating it. This isn't about preventing a split, this is about undoing a split, and destroying a democracy in the process. For someone who is anti-CCP, you don't seem to empathize with the people in HK who tasted democracy and have had it ripped away.
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    > Who cares what it was / wasn't part of You can wipe it away like that, but it is the entire point of Chinese leadership since a long time, even opposing parties, that what once was China will be China again. So the 'who cares' is the vital point in why they are doing this; they care very much, not about the pieces of land or the people, but just the simple fact that they consider it China because it was taken from them (and they always said they will get it back) no matter who say they own it now (Taiwan is not uniformly recognised as a state). And I believe many (majority?) on the mainland agree with this, even if they don't agree with the CCP.
  - krageon 5y ago
    > HK hasn't been part of China for years HK was always a part of China, just under specific rules.
  - justicezyx 5y ago
_tik_ 5y ago
Based on Stilwell's Biography by Barbary Tuchman. Sun Yat-Sen never has strong power support. His party Kuomintang and his protege Chiang Kai Shek is a fascist authoritarian party. Kuomintang is corrupt, xenophobic, and abusive. CCP is more idealistic, less corrupt, and discipline. Both party did not trust British and wanted HK back.
Bayart 5y ago
>It elected a first female president in Taiwan, allowed gay marriage...etc It's a trap to equate "progressive" social change with democracy. It's perfectly possible to have a socially liberal society that's also very authoritarian. In fact the Western world is going in that direction. The rule of law is a better example of an artifact of democracy.
krageon 5y ago
Of course there are places, they'll just be outside of China.
justicezyx 5y ago
You'll be startled to know that Sun Yat-sen was a favorite of USSR and Comintern, better than CCP and Mao. And Mao has been the propaganda department head of KMT... Thinking of politics as some random personal preference, what a showing of naivate...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jeswin 5y ago

> I fear Taiwan will soon be conquered by China, not by force but suppression and economic ties. A majority in Taiwan (two-thirds) are against unification, and that's hardended further after what's happened in HongKong. This is especially so among young people, who mostly also identify as being exclusively Taiwanese. Support for unification mostly comes from KMT, who are older and identify as Taiwanese and Chinese. As that generation fades away, these ratios will tilt even further. For most young Taiwanese, Mainland China has nothing to offer for them to want unification.

etaioinshrdlu 5y ago

There's still Singapore, and it is not in the line of fire of China.

baybal2 5y ago
> Singapore, and it is not in the line of fire of China. ... Please keep watch of news. They already started "tickling" Singapore since a few years ago. Not to mention, Mao been sending his subvertionists to Malaysia, and Singapore through sixties, and seventies
tablespoon 5y ago
> There's still Singapore, and it is not in the line of fire of China. Isn't Singapore already pretty authoritarian?
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  Singapore does not significantly differ in its authoritarianism from the PRC. They are however much richer, much smaller, and decided to follow a "capitalist" model, so they get less hate in our political discourse.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    That is the most ridiculous hyperbole I have ever heard. Yes, Singapore does have strict limitations on freedom of speech, but at the same time have separation of powers, free elections and a national identity separate to the PAP.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      Singapor only has "Free Elections™" where the opposition is strictly controlled and not allowed to win more than a token number of seats. See also: Nicaragua, Venezuala, etc... > That is the most ridiculous hyperbole I have ever heard. That's an ironically hyperobolic statment itself.
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        >Singapor only has "Free Elections™" where the opposition is strictly controlled and not allowed to win more than a token number of seats. Through limitations on campaigning, gerrymandering and defamation suits. Not ideal, but no threats, no bullets, no bribing the electoral commission. A far cry from China where they crush entire populations with police brutality. (In regards to my original comment, SG's elections are free in the sense that all citizens can vote without fear of backlash, but they are not fair because the PAP rig things in their favour) >That's an ironically hyperobolic statment itself That's the joke.

baybal2 5y ago

> There is no hope for China to turn into a democratic country. With enough ammunition, any country can be made a democracy

tjpnz 5y ago
In name only perhaps.
rmujica 5y ago
turned out alright for Afghanistan
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  Turned out alright for Nazi Germany. As a German, I'm absolutely grateful the Nazis were crushed militarily, rather than, you know, still reigning.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    A question out of curiosity: would you prefer DDR to be crushed militarily as well, instead of just giving up the ghost in 1989? As a fellow European, I can see that communists are somehow still considered better than the Nazis, and part of the difference might be that their gulags were never conquered by an external force and photos of their skeletal prisoners never made it to the media. They mostly dismantled them themselves once Stalin was dead and the regimes behind the Iron Curtain turned from outright murderous to just oppressive.
    - howaboutnope 5y ago
      > would you prefer DDR to be crushed militarily as well, instead of just giving up the ghost in 1989? Why are you assuming I wouldn't have prefered the Nazis to have "given up the ghost" as well? Are there any signs of the CCP "giving up the ghost" anytime soon? Given the choices that actually existed, I prefer, as the White Rose put it in one of their leaflets, an end with terror rather than terror without end. Human mortality is a given either way, the dignity that comes with agency and intellectual integrity is what the struggle is about. I don't ask for how long someone lived, but as who they lived.. or as Hannah Arendt put it: > Once upon a time, there was a happy time when people were free to choose; better to die dead than to be a slave, better to die standing than to live on one's knees. Once upon a time there was a wicked time when imbecile intellectuals declared that life was the highest of goods. Today the terrible time has come, when it is proved every day that death begins its reign of terror exactly when life has become the highest good; that he who prefers to live on his knees dies on his knees; that no one is easier to murder than a slave. We the living have to learn that one cannot even live on one's knees, that one does not become immortal by chasing life, and that when one no longer wants to die for anything, one dies even though one has done nothing. -- Hannah Arendt via DeepL > As a fellow European, I can see that communists are somehow still considered better than the Nazis That's still like saying something with a lethal dose of 50g is better food than something with a lethal dose of 5g. I don't see the point of even ranking them.

JackeJR 5y ago

Some think that if the US extended their protection to Taiwan, Beijing would not attempt to take Taiwan. Let's just assume for a moment that the US will fight off attacks by China to take Taiwan. And that US successfully ward off an attack. What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again? Will the US be prepared to ward off attacks after attacks after attacks? This is unlikely to happen. With this, lets again assume that China eventually successfully takes Taiwan. What next? They would have taken over an island with a large number of people who resents their rule. There will be a persistent resistance group as long as Beijing continues her ways and Beijing is aware of this and is trying to shape the education of the younger generations so that the resentment does not cross generations. Even if all these were to take place and all hope seems to be lost. There is a glimmer of hope. A totalitarian state has one major fault. There is no effective feedback mechanism and to assume that this one man can make the right call, the right decision all the time is a stretch. At some point, be it internal infighting, or a policy misstep creating intense misery amongst the people, there will be discontent and if the history of China is any indication, the discontent can trigger uprisings and eventually a change of regime. The only way the regime can be changed is from the inside.

rackjack 5y ago
> Let's just assume for a moment that the US will fight off attacks by China to take Taiwan. And that US successfully ward off an attack. What next? What is there to prevent China from trying again and again and again? Will the US be prepared to ward off attacks after attacks after attacks? This is unlikely to happen. America did this in Korea and it split the country in half. > With this, lets again assume that China eventually successfully takes Taiwan. What next? They would have taken over an island with a large number of people who resents their rule. There will be a persistent resistance group as long as Beijing continues her ways and Beijing is aware of this and is trying to shape the education of the younger generations so that the resentment does not cross generations. Also, brainwashing via complete control of the media, disappearing dissidents... They're doing it to the Falun Gong and the Muslims and others and they'll have no problem doing it to more. > Even if all these were to take place and all hope seems to be lost. There is a glimmer of hope. A totalitarian state has one major fault. There is no effective feedback mechanism and to assume that this one man can make the right call, the right decision all the time is a stretch. At some point, be it internal infighting, or a policy misstep creating intense misery amongst the people, there will be discontent and if the history of China is any indication, the discontent can trigger uprisings and eventually a change of regime. Also possible for there to be enough bureaucratic momentum that those within it have enough skin in the game to want to install a new head. But once China's growth starts to slow down I wouldn't be surprised at the CCP losing the Mandate of Heaven and the Ouroboros eating its tail again.

justicezyx 5y ago

> It wasn't part of China HK was sold to Britain as part of the corrupted and weak China's humiliation. What do you want to say? Are you trying to depict the image that HK has been forcefully claimed by China? Please stop this type of propaganda behavior. I don't like CCP, but that does not make HK not part of China. We Chinese eventually will get rid of CCP, but we don't want the great nation get split. Just like any patriot in US would not want this great nation get split.

blkhp19 5y ago
Who cares what it was / wasn't part of. The majority of people in HK don't want to be part of China. That's all that matters. > We Chinese eventually will get rid of CCP, but we don't want the great nation get split. Dude, what? HK hasn't been part of China for years. What possible justification could you have for re-integrating it. This isn't about preventing a split, this is about undoing a split, and destroying a democracy in the process. For someone who is anti-CCP, you don't seem to empathize with the people in HK who tasted democracy and have had it ripped away.
- tluyben2 5y ago
  > Who cares what it was / wasn't part of You can wipe it away like that, but it is the entire point of Chinese leadership since a long time, even opposing parties, that what once was China will be China again. So the 'who cares' is the vital point in why they are doing this; they care very much, not about the pieces of land or the people, but just the simple fact that they consider it China because it was taken from them (and they always said they will get it back) no matter who say they own it now (Taiwan is not uniformly recognised as a state). And I believe many (majority?) on the mainland agree with this, even if they don't agree with the CCP.
- krageon 5y ago
  > HK hasn't been part of China for years HK was always a part of China, just under specific rules.
- justicezyx 5y ago

_tik_ 5y ago

Based on Stilwell's Biography by Barbary Tuchman. Sun Yat-Sen never has strong power support. His party Kuomintang and his protege Chiang Kai Shek is a fascist authoritarian party. Kuomintang is corrupt, xenophobic, and abusive. CCP is more idealistic, less corrupt, and discipline. Both party did not trust British and wanted HK back.

Bayart 5y ago

>It elected a first female president in Taiwan, allowed gay marriage...etc It's a trap to equate "progressive" social change with democracy. It's perfectly possible to have a socially liberal society that's also very authoritarian. In fact the Western world is going in that direction. The rule of law is a better example of an artifact of democracy.

krageon 5y ago

Of course there are places, they'll just be outside of China.

justicezyx 5y ago

You'll be startled to know that Sun Yat-sen was a favorite of USSR and Comintern, better than CCP and Mao. And Mao has been the propaganda department head of KMT... Thinking of politics as some random personal preference, what a showing of naivate...