Vandals spray-painted “Liberate Hong Kong” and a white flower that resembles Hong Kong’s flag on Warren Towers and Boston University Hillel on Friday.
The buildings surrounding Beijing Cafe were also marked with “Xinnie the Pooh” — in reference to the president of China — and “Save the Uyghers.” The sidewalk in front of the restaurant has the phrases “Tiananmen Square 2.0 in Hong Kong,” “5 Demands, not 1 less” and “Hong Kongers add oil. Resist. Revenge.”
This comes after multiple protests in Hong Kong and other cities including Boston which began against a proposed amendment to allow the arrest and extradition of Hong Kong residents to mainland China.
Victoria is studying Economics and International Relations in the College of Arts and Sciences in the Class of 2022. Aside from The Daily Free Press, they're involved in WTBU Radio and Greek life on campus and are a Dean’s Ambassador in the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies. When Victoria's not writing or editing, they're listening to podcasts and trying new coffee. Find them on twitter at @victoriagbond
The white flower is a bauhinia
Thank you for mentioning that. The Bauhinia flower in the center of Hong Kong flag represented the indivisible relationship between Hong Kong and China. Although the flowers are bright pinkish in color, the government uses white for the petal and red for the background, symbolized the “one country two system” political principle applied to the region. The red flag represents the motherland and the bauhinia represents Hong Kong. It always implies that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China and prospers in the embrace of the motherland China.
Is it not allowed? It is pro-democracy, in Hong Kong, US government supported us to set school on fire! In fact, the Congress just pass the bill.
Ridiculous behaviors
So funny lmao
Whoever did this owes apology to the staff that cleaned it.
Democracy in action. I don’t agree with spray painting buildings, but glad Hong Kong Terriers are spreading the message. Screw the Chinese Communist Party.
#StandWithHongKong
#StandWithUyghurs
#StandWithTibet
#StandWithTaiwan
#StandWithMuslims
#StandWithMexicansChildrenInDetentionCenters
#StandWithAfricanAmericans
#StandWithLGBTQWorkers (where is equality act)
#StandWithRepublicansBulliedByLiberals
#StandWithChineseBusinessesHurtByTrump
#StandWithTheEarth
……
Thank you for the democracy in action
Sit Down when you know nothing
very vivid message ur sending”shut up! we are talking about democracy!” how bravo. how about stand with chile protesters or the ones in spain?
And you know that he/she isn’t doing that because….oh, you don’t? Thought so.
Textbook whataboutism.
Hello, I would like to know what do you mean by Pro Hong Kong? Supporting peace or violence? Please do news reporting without prejudice and political point of views. This is not only public for Boston University community but also publicly available across the internet.
I found the article below to be a very useful, publicly available look at the repressive, authoritarian tactics of the Chinese Government.
https://www.nytimes.com/zh/2019/11/16/world/asia/xinjiang-documents-chinese.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
These action has certainly mistranslated “democracy” into madness and violence. The HK issue is more than complicated. I just hope people can obtain thorough information and think radically before jumping into conclusion. BU student body is so diverse. Such way to communicate personal political viewpoint is just so inappropriate.
Don‘t use freedom of speech as an excuse for vandalism
HK students: Vandalism? This is free of speech!
Those graffiti make me have a very bad impression on them. If people from Hong Kong are all so uncivilized like them, it’s not hard to imagine what is truly going on in Hong Kong.
It’s not hard to imagine what the people in Hong Kong are afraid of either…The Chinese Government is a repressive, authoritarian regime. There is no freedom of speech or expression. The Internet is policed by a system of mass surveillance, which filters out critical viewpoints and sources of dissent. Chairman Mao killed upwards of 50 million (or more) in the pursuit of his “Great Leap Forward.” If it wasn’t for the Communist Party’s embrace of modest reform and acceptance of market principles in the 90s, there’s no telling how much more suffering would have taken place.
No one should condone vandalism, but open your eyes. Suggesting the graffiti is evidence that people in Hong Kong are “uncivilized” is an appalling viewpoint.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-muslims-detention.html
Many of the HongKong students are just over sensitive and they don’t even know what they are doing. Please explain to me what you want to get from protesting in such a violent way back in HongKong? So sorry to see that there are few rational thoughts during this whole event.
Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!
Seriously? “Add oil” Gave me a good laugh.
It’s not only the warren tower, the CAS and Beijing cafe. If you walk around the campus, there are graffiti on the Law building, alley next to Questrom and several other places. Basically the whole BU campus management was out today doing nothing but cleaning these graffitis + some contractors as well. It might take one person 3mins to do a spray, but a whole team of 3-5 workers few full hours to wipe them clean. Many of these places have still left with traces you can see.
I don’t care how you ruined your campus back home. Don’t come here and ruin BU.
The courage and determination of the Hong Kong students is amazing. Their position is dire yet they keep fighting against the CCP tyrants, never flinching, always standing up for their freedom. Better to die a free people than live under despotic rulers.
Remember Churchills words “never, never, never, never give up’.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/ThePrimaryFundamentalRight/posts/
First, sit down when you know nothing. Second, what we are discussing here is vandalism on public properties. Stick to the topic and stop mumbling nonsense.
This is actually a small example of what is happening in HK. The protesters destroy everything – block subway, highways, to force normal people to participate in the protest. If you don’t agree with them, you can be set on fire or hitting by brick to death. Unfortunately these were not reported in most western media.
This is pure and simple vandalism. In the end, it is our tuition will cover the bills for cleaning it. Sad! I don’t see the necessity that Hong Kong students have to did it here.
Nobody knows who did the graffiti, right? Could have been a woke, privileged white person, for all we know.
Vandalism is wrong, and should not be condoned. But let’s not insinuate that the protesters in Hong Kong have no reason to protest. They have very good reason to fear China.
Did anyone read the leaked documents obtained by the New York Times this week? They show the CCP’s plans and efforts to silence the Uighur community – how to detain children, how to lie to the families. It’s a really compelling glimpse into how the CCP deals with dissent.
https://www.nytimes.com/zh/2019/11/16/world/asia/xinjiang-documents-chinese.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
wonder what beijing cafe has to do with any of the situation right now? are they secretly supporting violence? or it,s ok to just hate something for its origin or bec of expressing different idea? HK protesters have an interesting take on freedom and democracy
I am Questrom Student, and have analogy for the debate:
You work for a small start up and your company is running out of cash and cannot survive. Luckily your company is acquired by a corporation who provide all sorts of resources for FREE to help you grow and stay in business. But the condition is you have to perform under some type of rule and compliance within the corporate guideline. Corporate also wants to appoint a president to run your company.
You have the choice to leave if you want. But if you have no better options, would you try to remove the president from the position and fighting against the corporate guideline?
Ridiculous! Running a country (or a city) is never like running a startup! The fundamental difference is that a company’s president can be appointed by a parent company but a political leader got delegated powers from the people. Making this analogy shows how much innocent you are about democracy and human rights.
Ridiculous! Running a country (or a city) is not like running a startup. The fundamental difference is that a company’s president can be appointed by its parent company but a political leader gets delegated powers from the people. Making this analogy shows how innocent you are about democracy and modern societies because your brain was washed by the Chinese propaganda.
For those of you who supported Hong Kong’s “democratic movement” for the past few months, do you realize this graffiti at BU is a shadow of that? Protestors use democracy to justify their violent behavior and public vandalism. It’s lucky that BU doesn’t need to close because of protest for 2 months unlike what those HK universities are doing right now.
The protesters are resisting an authoritarian, repressive, government on mainland China. They are protesting on the side of freedom and democracy, because they don’t wish to be subsumed into a non-democratic, brutal dictatorship.
If someone don’t agree them, they will beat you, set fire on your body, throw brick to you, block the road to stop you go to work. Are these behaviours is what you mentioned “freedom and democracy “??
The Chinese government‘s trolls are out in force here, I see….
Your corporate analogy to state actions Isn’t completely valid. Hong Kong cannot be compared to “small start up running out of cash and cannot survive.” While in the corporate example you provided individuals have the option to jump ship to a more sustainable company, Hong Kong residents an citizens can’t simply immigrate to another country; it’s not just their jobs that are under threat, their whole lifestyle is under threat.
Further, if you really want to compare the HK – China issue through a corporate analogy, perhaps the example that comes the closest is the case of Valeant. Much like how Valeant’s business model was to forcibly acquire smaller pharmaceutical companies and use predatory tactics to boost Valeant investors returns, China is using predatory tactics to “acquire” HK prematurely to benefit mainland Chinese.
I appreciate the rational debate, as opposed to some other posts above there, simply calling anyone with different opinions a “Troll”.
You are right that in the company analogy, former employee has the opportunity to jump ship. But you have to consider what other choices Hong Kongers have? Do they want to become independent, and stop accepting financial and resource support from mainland China? They don’t even produce enough drinking water or electricity to support their citizen. Is U.S. and other countries going to provide this type of practical support for free? No.
I agree for the Hong Konger, it might not be the optimum solution they’d like to have, but what else options do they have? Would you accept your second best option rather than crying like a baby, and destroying everything just to express your disappointment not to get your best option? How immature that behavior is?
The root cause of the issue in Hong Kong is economically not politically in my opinion. Hong Kong is a small small island with 7 Million people. They use to be economically leading in Asia. But the strong emerge of China economically now threatens their economical leading position; and they are on the downward slop and actually already entering the recession. The youngsters cannot see a future in Hong Kong economically. Instead of looking for solutions to grow themselves, they choose to blame everyone else. And it’s easiest to point their finger at government.
Do you know the leader of this movement only receive 19 points on college entrance exam (where a total is 100)?
Sophia, let’s go with you “analogy” if you deem that as valid. Let’s take a step back to 1997, Chinese government had promised HK that nothing will change for the next 50 years, yet they have implemented a system that does not represent the people of HK, and it was not the same as promised in ‘97. While the economy situation might have been a catalyst for the protest, but the “protest” has technically been going on since the Chinese government took control.
Now, back to your analogy, if the larger corporation which acquired the start-up has promised the start-up a bunch of rights and benefits but subsequently strip away their rights, what do you think would happen? They will likely to lose their employees, just like how the Chinese government have lost the trust from the people in HK. However, HK is not a company and the citizen has no where to go, exactly to your point that they have “no choice”, therefore to protest. None of the 5 demands is asking for independence if you even know what they are, they were more than reasonable before the violence escalated. What is interesting is that the government had absolutely no interested in opening a communication channel with the protestors, this, in my opinion is in a way even worse than 6.4.1989, which there were at least a communication channel between the protestors and the government, although it ended tragically.
Lastly, is a college entrance exam a good indication of ones ability? If so, the Chinese president Xi Jing Ping only had formal education to 6th or 7th grade ( look it up if you don’t believe it). Does that make him less of a leader for you?
So those HK protestors “fight tyranny” by pouring gasoline on a pedestrian and burning him alive? I’d rather live under the “CCP tyranny” rather than a regime established by people burning and killing random people on the street.
With all the above said and this is what you focus on? It is absolutely terrible that the situation has escalated to the current stage. I believed a much much better solution would be letting the people vote for their own government…maybe the majority of HK people would stand with the CCP just like the CCP claimed. You can make the case that the rest of China is not “suitable” for democracy, I don’t believe HK falls under that category though. Or a silent and peaceful protest would work too? 4 million people on the streets and zero response from the government, so much for “people’s” republic of China.
Our nation can certainly do without this destructive vandalism to university facilities under the guise of a ‘democratic protest’. If feelings are so strong, suggest the vandal go and express their outrage in China. America can do without this nonsense. We need to focus on building America, not co feeling ourselves with these interest groups.
I also appreciate rational debate, but I believe some of your comparisons are off the mark. As Kevin stated, this isn’t analogous to a corporation. And it is just as much about political issues, as it is economical. Hong Kong may be nearing a recession (I don’t really know, for sure), but they have long had a thriving free-market system, which propelled them to be an international hub of commerce and business. It is for that very reason that they pose a risk to Beijing. As a Communist regime, Beijing is threatened by having a highly successful, free, capitalist neighbor. To offer a different analogy, perhaps it’s something more akin to West Germany prior to reunification, or even West Berlin. It was this beacon of growth, freedom, and opportunity in the midst of the Soviet Union’s grip on eastern Europe. The Soviets didn’t want their own citizens to know about life in the ‘West,’ for fear that it would be more attractive — politically and economically — because, well, it was. When given the choice, people tend to choose political and economic freedom over the opposite. Hong Kong offers an island — literally and figuratively — of freedom in a sea of repression. As Beijing has made moves to exert more influence and power over Hong Kong, the tensions have risen. Obviously, the culminating factor with these protests was the new law proposed by Beijing, which would have given China the right to hold trials for Hong Kong residents on the mainland. It effectively would have given Beijing increased jurisdiction in Hong Kong legal matters. Given how Beijing treats those that make the Communist Party look bad, it’s understandable that this would have a chilling effect on Hong Kong’s cherished liberties. It’s already known that dissidents living in Hong Kong faced the possibility of being kidnapped and held without trial on the mainland — this has gone on for years. See Foreign Policy article from last year, but there are many stories about this practice.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/29/the-disappeared-china-renditions-kidnapping/
More than that, take a look at how China treats dissidents that live within the mainland’s borders. The leaked documents from the Chinese Communist Party lay bare all of the practices that to many are well known. This was a rare glimpse, a rare leak of information from inside the Party apparatus. This series of documents details how the Chinese Government surveilled, persecuted, and eventually rounded up hundreds of thousands of ethnic Uighurs, shipping them off to concentration camps.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/11/18/stunning-new-evidence-chinas-dictatorial-repression/
It is no wonder why Hong Kong residents are resisting increased control from Beijing. That doesn’t excuse violence, but the protests themselves are completely understandable. China may have a large economy, but that doesn’t mean it’s a better economy or that Hong Kong couldn’t survive without it. Hong Kong was a thriving international business hub long before the surge of China’s economy in the 90s (a surge that was brought on when the Communist Party realized some market principles were needed to prevent a collapse like their neighbors in Moscow ). China needs a subservient Hong Kong more than Hong Kong needs a paternalistic China.
Mike, thank you for this rational argument. Again, I welcome all type of opinions with backed evidences.
Yes. Your statement is rational and factual. But it’s not the entire fact. Because you never have the chance to see the full fact. None of us do. China definitely have its propaganda, but who does not? I hope you would not be surprised to see how Facebook, Instagram delete accounts and contents coming from mainland to express different voices? How CNN, BBC edit the news purposely to show the propaganda on their side? All media are biased, and you are seeing what media want you to see only.
If you have a chance to visit China and Hong Kong yourself, talk to variety of local people, or perhaps live there for a couple of years, then you would be at a better place to make unbiased judgement. You would start to understand, why a majority of mainlander overseas still support Chinese government, even if we already “skipped” from the regime? A lot of people would say because we are brainwashed, or because we have family-ties etc.
I cannot represent everyone else. But as to myself, after living in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, France, Germany, Switzerland and U.S. all for more than 2 years, I do not see a reason to think Chinese government is better or worse than any other government in the world.
Sophie – I’m not claiming to know all the facts about China, or the Hong Kong protests. But there seems to be a thread running through these comments that seeks to gloss over some of the completely justified criticisms of Beijing. China has created a massive surveillance state aimed at quelling dissent. As you said yourself, many websites and social media apps are not even allowed to operate inside China for fear that damaging information will get in or out. If you were unlucky enough to be born of a certain ethnic group — such as the Uighurs- you can be be persecuted and placed in a detention camp. If you speak ill of the government on the internet or popular chat services like WeBo, you are likely to be monitored and warned, if not worse. Dissidents abroad are kidnapped. That’s not a free society. It may appear so in certain situations, especially if you are living there and you aren’t doing anything to bring attention to yourself. But beneath that veneer, voices are being silenced, debate stifled, and opposition is put down by force.
We can agree that each government in the world has its problems – we have ours here as well, obviously — but it is naive to say that China’s is no better or worse. That, to me, is a dangerous false equivalency. To me, a good place to start is to evaluate a country’s level of political and economic freedom. Where these freedoms exist, you usually find countries that respect individual rights and the rule of law. Most countries are not rounding up citizens into camps and limiting access to the outside world. Are you saying that China doesn’t do these things? That those reports are all propaganda? If just 10% of what was said in the recently leaked documents (as reported by the NYT) is true, wouldn’t you say that’s a massive human rights violation? If it was reported tomorrow that the President of Switzerland was rounding up hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans into a concentration camp, do you think the people or the international community would allow them to get away with it? Should they be allowed to get away with it? Just some food for thought. We can say that the protesters in Hong Kong are wrong or that their tactics are unjust — that’s fair. But we cannot then also say that Beijing’s actions towards its own citizens are excusable or somehow “not as bad as any other government.” Appreciate the conversation.
Hi Mike,
This is a most rational conversation I had so far on this topic. Thanks for all the comments.
I think this gets down to a simpler question: which one is more important? Economical freedom or political freedom?
To me, economical freedom is much more important than political freedom for the majority of Chinese mainlander at this stage. But I can totally see the different perspective if you and others think political freedom is more important or equally important.
China has been really poor since 1600. I am one the lucky generation who saw the tremendous improvement in peoples quality of life (economically) during my 18 years in China. Born in small city from a working family, I would not have the opportunity to study in the U.S. 20 years ago, because we were so poor.
It’s a ground truth that Chinese mainlanders enjoys 10x if not more economical freedom compared to 30 years ago, thanks to the strong government focusing on economic growth (while perhaps suppress some political freedom to ensure centralized stability).
This is hard to foreigners to imagine, if you already enjoyed the economical freedom for more than 1 centuries.
But, I do believe as the basic economic freedom needs are met, the government will make a gradual transition into a two-party system, perhaps split between left and right among CCP. I believe that will happen, but it will never happen over night. I hope it happens in a peaceful and gradual way which has no interruption of the economic freedom of the people.
In short, political freedom is important for westerners, because you already enjoy economical freedom for long. But for $1.4B people that needs to be fed first, I don’t think it’s so bad to have the one party system focusing on growth. Regarding Hong Kong, their hostility towards mainland are ignited by a variety of factors, including biased media, foreign fundings, economic recession, fear towards losing the free-trade zone position, and (I do not deny) the unfulfilled promise for election.
Again, not to deny that there are certain accusable facts the Chinese government have done, but economical success is the top priority for Chinese people now, and I believe the transition will happen gradually, peacefully.
When you say that China has much more economic freedom today, you’re of course right. Since 邓小平 began the process of opening up the economy first through the liberation of agriculture and the creation of the Pudomg special economic zone China has experienced an immense increase in freedom. Further as a result of that economic freedom China has considerably improved the lot of the ordinary man.
But you’ve to ask yourself – why is it that China has experienced such a rise in economic freedom since 1987? I don’t mean why, the answer is obvious. The party tried to run against the tide of history, killed millions of people in the process, and then were forced to eat Crow and abandon the command economy established under Mao so that the mainland could tap into its potential.
That is of course China’s story – rapid growth after years of stagnation under Mao – what about Hong Kong’s? Hong Kong had long since been a developed economy and it has experienced economic freedom for a much longer time than the mainland. If your idea is true – you need economic freedom before political freedom – then why does Hong Kong need political oppression?
Further we can dismiss this nonsense idea regardless. The United States and Europe were not always more economically better off. China had a very efficient system of microbusinesses where artisans could produce products and this resulted in China having a substantially higher share of the world economy for many years. Prior to the industrial revolution – which would see China’s dominance end – England had already written the magna carta nearly 500 years prior. America was politically free long before it was any kind of economic juggernaut, with our industrial revolution really kicking off after the civil war.
Likewise you’ve nations that are economically free but are the farthest thing from bring politically free. Singapore is economically a relatively free state, politically this also isn’t true. Chile under Pinochet was the furthest thing from being politically free but it certainly was economically free. South Korea was an economic basket case before the Parker years, but when the Parker years came Korea so was not politically free. And of course China now, where the dual track system has slowly seen the rise of private Enterprise supersede the state in terms of importance, is certainly much mo e economically free but there is no indication that this is changing politically from what I can see
I’ll end on this quote, “i once thought that everywhere you had economic freedom you had political freedom. But the situation in Hong Kong has convinced me that this certainly isn’t true. So economic freedom while a requisite for a free society isn’t a sufficient condition.”-milton freidman
Thank you Mike. I appreciate rational exchange of idea. I see how you come to this idea and it’s totally reasonable. I would like to share some points from my understanding.
– Hong Kong thriving economically since 1970 is a result of performing as a bridge of business between mainland China and the rest of the world. It’s obvious why these years Hong Kong is experiencing economic recession. China has more direct connections with the rest of the world.
– The confrontation was caused by the extradition bill imposed by HK government. But vandalism and protests are no longer regarding the extradition bill after it was officially failed by HK government two months ago. I remember the five appeals asserted by HK protesters includes no punishment after protests(or vandalism?) and retreating condemnation of violence claimed by HK government. Do they mean they will be left free after destroying the city? It becomes vague between destroying and rationally striving for ‘freedom’.
– Why Chinese government needs to gain more control over Hong Kong is because :1 many corporations in HK are oversea Coms or controlled by Oversea interest groups(Ex: Cathay Pacific Airline). 2 Biased criticisms by mass media to China thrived with freedom of speech. The situation becomes worse when HK people are receiving western education. If you look at the HK textbooks, it teaches these students Chinese government is evil and is threatening the western democracy and capitalism world (sounds familiar?). Even though HK is handed over to China, Chinese government’s power over HK is so weak that a lot of reformations imposed by the government failed.( Ex: digital Barbour 2001, exploit lands for living issue 1998, Chinese national education 2003) Any of them successful will help HK’s economy nowadays. it’s hard to imagine what’s going to happen if HK government gives these protesters more ‘freedom’. On the other hand, what’s the protesters’ opinion and proposed policies if they are given their right? How is there to turn this turmoil? Note that they are asking to turnover the current HK government.
I think Chinese and HK government needs to figure out a way to properly convey idea and opinions to the westerners, even though it’s extremely difficult and the western government won’t let this happening.
Thank you Mike. I appreciate rational exchange of ideas. I see how you come to this idea and it’s totally reasonable. I would like to share some points from my understanding.
– Hong Kong thriving economically since 1970 is a result of performing as a bridge of business between mainland China and the rest of the world. It’s obvious why these years Hong Kong is experiencing economic recession. China has more direct connections with the rest of the world.
– The confrontation was caused by the extradition bill imposed by HK government. But vandalism and protests are no longer regarding the extradition bill after it was officially failed by HK government two months ago. I remember the five appeals asserted by HK protesters includes no punishment after protests(or vandalism?) and retreating condemnation of violence claimed by HK government. Do they mean they will be left free after destroying the city? It becomes vague between destroying and rationally striving for ‘freedom’.
– Why Chinese government needs to gain more control over Hong Kong is because :1 many corporations in HK are oversea Coms or controlled by Oversea interest groups(Ex: Cathay Pacific Airline). 2 Biased criticisms by mass media to China thrived with freedom of speech. The situation becomes worse when HK people are receiving western education. If you look at the HK textbooks, it teaches these students Chinese that government is evil and is threatening the western democracy and capitalism world (sounds familiar?). Even though HK is handed over to China, Chinese government’s power over HK is so weak that a lot of reformations imposed by the government failed.( Ex: digital Barbour 2001, exploit lands for living issue 1998, Chinese national education 2003) Any of them successful will help HK’s economy nowadays. it’s hard to imagine what’s going to happen if HK government gives these protesters more ‘freedom’. On the other hand, what’s the protesters’ proposed policies if they are given their right? How is there to turn this turmoil? Nothing is showed yet. Note that they are asking to turnover the current HK government.
I think Chinese and HK government needs to figure out a way to properly convey idea and opinions to the westerners, even though it’s extremely difficult and the western government won’t let this happening.
Thank you Mike. I appreciate rational exchange of idea. I see how you come to this idea and it’s totally reasonable. I would like to share some points from my understanding.
– Hong Kong thriving economically since 1970 is a result of performing as a bridge of business between mainland China and the rest of the world. It’s obvious why these years Hong Kong is experiencing economic recession. China has more direct connections with the rest of the world.
– The confrontation was caused by the extradition bill imposed by HK government. But vandalism and protests are no longer regarding the extradition bill after it was officially failed by HK government two months ago. I remember the five appeals asserted by HK protesters includes no punishment after protests(or vandalism?) and retreating condemnation of violence claimed by HK government. Do they mean they will be left free after destroying the city? It becomes vague between destroying and rationally striving for ‘freedom’.
– Why Chinese government needs to gain more control over Hong Kong is because :1 many corporations in HK are oversea Coms or controlled by Oversea interest groups(Ex: Cathay Pacific Airline). 2 Biased criticisms by mass media to China thrived with freedom of speech. The situation becomes worse when HK people are receiving western education. If you look at the HK textbooks, it teaches these students Chinese government is evil and is threatening the western democracy and capitalism world (sounds familiar?). Even though HK is handed over to China, Chinese government’s power over HK is so weak that a lot of reformations imposed by the government failed.( Ex: digital Barbour 2001, exploit lands for living issue 1998, Chinese national education 2003) Any of them successful will help HK’s economy nowadays. it’s hard to imagine what’s going to happen if HK government gives these protesters more ‘freedom’. On the other hand, what’s the protesters’ opinion and proposed policies if they are given their right? How is there to turn this turmoil? Note that they are asking to turnover the current HK government.
I think Chinese and HK government needs to figure out a way to properly convey idea and opinions to the westerners, even though it’s extremely difficult and the western government won’t let this happening.
Well, I certainly appreciate the exchange of ideas and the willingness to engage. I wish I could share in your optimism that there will be a peaceful transition to a multi-party, democratic system, but something tells me that Xi and the CCP have no intention of allowing that to happen. I hope I’m wrong! To the extent that the modest economic reforms pursued over the past two decades have lifted people out of poverty, I think that’s a good thing. But in my view, economic freedom and political freedom are intricately tied together, and you cannot have one without the other. Despite the economic progress and regardless of what the CCP says about its focus on growth, I think a closer inspection would find true economic freedom sorely lacking.
It may or may not happen. No one can accurately predict the future. The fundamental assumption in this whole conversation is: democracy is always better than non-democracy. What I am trying to say is: this assumption may not always be true. I am skeptical that democracy is always better, but I can see both sides.
I do not appreciate if anyone thinks my skepticism about democracy is due to brainwash, because that’s prejudice. If this forum is a truly free and open to different voices, I am happy to do a named interview, because there is nothing to be ashamed of as being patriot, and rational thinking.
I don’t think there is an underlying assumption about whether all democracies are always better than all non-democracies. Personally, I think the question is more about individual freedoms vs. state control. In non-democracies, autocracies, and Communist states, there is more state control over the individual. Liberal democracies, for the most part, are conceived upon the idea that the Individual reigns supreme and the government is subservient to the individuals that make up society. Rights are not granted by a central authority. Rather, individuals have natural rights and the government is put in place to protect those rights from being infringed. The opposite exists in authoritarian systems. Here, State power reigns supreme. The State decides what rights to grant and not grant. Individuals may exercise some freedoms in their daily lives, but those freedoms only exist because the government has allowed them. Rights aren’t natural – they are derived from the Government, and they can be taken away without recourse.
I’m not saying that democracies are all good — there are some that are democratic in name only, some have a greater respect for individual rights than others, and in some, the power of the state grows over time. So, I think it’s fair to be skeptical of democracy. I think it’s healthy to be skeptical of all governments. But to me, the fundamental issue is about individual freedom and state power. History (and data) have convincingly shown that, given the choice, people choose to be in free societies.
I never insinuated you were brainwashed — I apologize if I came off that way. Interestingly, I have several Chinese colleagues that like to talk about these topics and they express their frustration about the practices of the government. They talk about the restrictions on speech, the inability to publicly criticize the government, the lack of a free press, etc. etc. But they only do so in private. They have this underlying fear about even putting those words into a computer, let alone the Internet. They’ve relayed stories about friends getting in trouble for sending chat messages that are only mildly critical of Beijing. There are probably some students reading this exchange that would like to say something, but they don’t. You said earlier that people shouldn’t form opinions about places unless they’ve visited and spent time in that place. I agree that traveling and exploring new cultures is perhaps the best way to broaden your perspectives. But we also can’t hold everyone to this standard – we can’t say that people are only able to have opinions about places that they’ve seen firsthand. There wouldn’t be many valid opinions, in that scenario. We have to form opinions based on a wide variety of information and sources. Based on what I’ve read, and seen, and heard — if you were starting a new country from the ground up, I don’t think Beijing is necessarily a model of government that should be emulated by others.
Taking it back to Hong Kong. Hong Kong lived with a relatively high level of individual freedom in an open society for a long time until control was passed back to China (kind of). I think at the heart of the protests is a fear that those freedoms will be lost if Beijing is allowed to assert more control.
HI Mike,
Thanks for this long conversation. To this point, I think we are pretty much aligned.
I agree the Chinese government is trying to control the freedom of speech. Yes, you can not say things like you want to overthrow the government, and you’ll get into trouble. But I do feel optimistic that changes are happening, again gradually. These days we see more balanced news in China from different perspectives: e.g. scandal, corruptions are more exposed than before, and open to public critism. Is it completely free and unbiased? No. Censorship exists and will exist for a long time.
But who does not have censorship? Perhaps censorship in western world is to a smaller degree, but it does exist. Certainly, there are a lot of things that can be criticized, and need improvement from government perspective. But does that lay a foundation to say a two-party system selected by the public is definitely better? I doubt.
I think every country and government has its own way to seek the path forward. The bottom line is for the better interest of the majority of people. (No government can satisfy every need of everyone)
Back to Hong Kong, perhaps it’s the time to give them the election right they want. But I am pessimistic about the government of their own choice would be the best representative of majority of Hong Kong people’s interest. Because the crowd in Hong Kong now cannot see the two sides of things. Their minds are filled up with hatred. They put violence towards anyone who disagree with them. Would you trust such extreme crowd without rationality to establish their own government? Does it sound familiar? ISIS was viewed as democracy and freedom for their supporters as well.
This is again a no answer question. There is no perfect solution of the world. And perhaps we should all go back to study and earn a living instead of commenting on things that is out of control 🙂
Have a great day!
Well, I confess I didn’t see a connection to ISIS coming. I think there is an answer to that question, because I don’t believe you can in any way compare the protesters in Hong Kong with ISIS. And I wouldn’t even know where to begin with that one. So, maybe we should leave it there.
Have a great day!
By the way, the last thing:
I major cultural difference I observed in China, Europe and U.S. is:
In China, Taiwan and Europe (Switzerland, Germany): People tend to think from their own perspectives when things do not work out: what did I do wrong? How can I improve?
In France, Hong Kong and some part of U.S.: many people would blame someone else when things do not work out: what did they do wrong? How can they improve? Government is at the center of being blamed for many things.
I don’t want to over-generalize: both types exist for all countries, and I have met a lot of American friends who are very humble, intelligent and self-disciplined; I also know many Chinese finger pointers who like to blame everyone else. It’s perhaps more a personality rather than cultural thing. But I think that at least explains part of the reason for the protestor’s behavior in Hong kong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtFlljI5t1I
For those interest to watch the double sided view.
I feel rather humiliated for those idiots who did this. The contemptible protesters don’t respect the work of our BU staff, don’t obey the law here, and don’t have any reason or excuse to attempt to split China! Hong Kong is always an indispensable part of China, which is incontestable. Liberate Hong Kong? What a daydream. Go back home to study history! And, just list some truths: one third of electricity, massive vegetables and meats, and almost all the fresh water in Hong Kong is provided by mainland China.