Home > Analysis > Growing anti-Beijing sentiment is shifting focus away from Hong Kong’s real problems

Growing anti-Beijing sentiment is shifting focus away from Hong Kong’s real problems

1476ed798b8ab46fc87115a950cfc9c7Hong Kong saw another big demonstration on July 1, when more than 100,000 people marched against the local government and Beijing. Despite having established an even closer economic relationship with mainland China since the handover, anti-Beijing sentiment has now become prevalent in the special administrative region.

But this is a manufactured problem. Beijing has been adhering to the “one country, two systems” policy on Hong Kong since 1997. Interference in Hong Kong affairs has been minimal. Instead, Beijing has offered tremendous assistance and support during difficult times.

The so-called “contradiction” between Hong Kong and mainland China is being propagated by those who want to shift the focus away from real conflicts within Hong Kong society. In the past decade, Hong Kong’s economy has become increasingly marginalised in the wave of globalisation. Domination by big businesses, the gap between rich and poor, and social injustice have all got worse. Taking advantage of such internal conflicts, some foreign political forces and local politicians have shifted the blame to Beijing and mainlanders. No solution can be found without recognising this reality.

Manufacturing, once employing 20 per cent of the working population, was a pillar of Hong Kong’s economy. As globalisation and China’s market reforms took off, Hong Kong’s manufacturing sector contracted as factories moved north. From about one million in the early 1980s, the number of Hong Kong workers in the manufacturing sector had dropped to about 20,000 last year. While this is a common problem for all developed economies, Hong Kong suffers much more than its Western counterparts for one reason – the West, with its leading position in hi-tech and luxury brands, is still making high profits globally, whereas in Hong Kong, low-end jobs in retailing, food and beverage, logistics, and transport have become the only options for ordinary working-class citizens.

Secondly, property prices have skyrocketed. Moving north enabled Hong Kong factory owners to reap huge profits in the 1980s and 1990s. The profits, however, didn’t stay in China and flowed back to Hong Kong, mostly into real estate.

As a result, Hong Kong has become polarised, with big businesses and low-end workers increasing while the middle class is disappearing. Society has entered an unstable phase.

In the past decade, Hong Kong has received more than 120 million mainland tourists under the individual visit scheme. This has lifted four key industries – tourism, servicing, finance and transport. It has also provided plenty of low-end employment opportunities and plays a significant role in keeping the current unemployment rate low, at 3 per cent.

However, this development contributes only marginally to economic growth. In 2012, while mailand tourists’ consumption created HK$26.1 billion of added value, that was equivalent to only 1.3 per cent of gross domestic product. In other words, it helps prevent massive unemployment, but the jobs it helps to create remain mostly low-end. The real winners are Western luxury brands and local landlords.

According to Forbes’ ranking last year, the four richest men are all property developers. Land domination is nothing new in Hong Kong. The “big four” developers held a 55 per cent market share by the end of last century, leaving almost no room for any new player. Making astounding profits, big developers subsequently bought public utilities and services. Nowadays, Hong Kong’s transport and energy companies and even supermarkets are concentrated in the hands of big developers.

Meanwhile, as the middle class keeps shrinking, the real income of ordinary people has been decreasing. The nominal incomes of most people remain unchanged since the handover – a university graduate earned about HK$10,000 per month 10 years ago; now, it is basically the same. However, everything else – property prices and rent in particular – has risen sharply. As the real income of ordinary folks is falling, big developers keep accumulating astounding wealth. This sharp contrast has caused strong discontent among the population.

Meanwhile, according to the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s political system shall remain unchanged for 50 years. In fact, that has not exactly been the case since the handover.

Beijing, when drafting the Basic Law, did promise to allow a change in Hong Kong’s system; that was, transitioning from a system under which the governor controlled everything to a more democratic one. Under the Basic Law, the power of the chief executive and the make-up of the Legislative Council are very different from those under the colonial system.

Before the handover, the governor had all the power, with both the Executive Council and Legco firmly under him. Legco was more or less an advisory and not a legislating body. The governor controlled the appointment of the legislators and the agenda of the legislature. Members had no power to initiate any motion. In the SAR, the executive branch has become a weak government hindered by a much more powerful legislative branch.

Another major political change lies in the role of the sovereign power in Hong Kong. The British government could fully exercise its political will in Hong Kong. For example, when London demanded Hong Kong bear half of the expenses of the British military stationed in Hong Kong, the colony could not say no. After the handover, while Beijing holds the final governing power, this power has been delegated to the SAR government. If one compares how Beijing is and how London was controlling Hong Kong, the differences couldn’t be starker.

The crux of the matter is that the opposition in Hong Kong is trying to do away with the Basic Law and contradict the Chinese constitution. They want to negate Beijing’s ruling power and give Hong Kong complete “autonomy”. That’s the fundamental reason why the radical opposition is promoting a “contradiction” between Hong Kong and the mainland by trying to shift the blame for Hong Kong’s internal conflicts onto the central government.

Contrary to the promise of keeping things unchanged for 50 years, as stipulated in the Joint Declaration, there has been too much political change in Hong Kong. While the SAR does need reforms, such changes can’t be towards a break-away from the central government, ruining the rule of law, destroying the economy, inciting civil strife and splitting society.

Hong Kong doesn’t need any political movement to provoke internal conflict. The radicals will never achieve their aim, but in the process of trying, they might destroy Hong Kong. What Hong Kong needs are economic reforms to deal with the marginalisation caused by globalisation and political reforms to design a redistributive process to address social injustice.

Han Zhu is a columnist for guancha.cn This article was originally published in scmp, which was a translation of an article originally written in Chinese and distributed by the Guancha Syndicate

Categories: Analysis Tags: , ,
  1. Black Pheonix
    July 9th, 2014 at 06:07 | #1

    Even the business community in HK came out against the July 1 protest, so in response, the Protesters went to do an illegal sit-in in front of some business building, until the HK police dragged them away.

    That kind of protest is what I would call intimidation against those who don’t agree with you, not democracy.

    What happened in HK is similar to what’s happening in the Bay Area, CA. New money came in, property values went up, but the “natives” income didn’t rise up. “Expats” are the ones who benefited more.

    That has nothing to do with the “political system”.

  2. Black Pheonix
    July 9th, 2014 at 07:45 | #2


    “Big Four accounting firms warn investors could leave HK over Occupy Central protests”

    I say they should.

    Pack up and take their money to Macau. FDI to China will go through Macau instead.

    Better yet, go to Shanghai Free Trade zone.

    then, HK will really have something to complain about.

  3. pug_ster
    July 9th, 2014 at 10:20 | #3

    Wow, I’m surprised that this is published in SCMP, which is usually has anti-China propaganda.


    I’m glad that some people woke up and try to explain the real problems in Hong Kong. Considering that more than 50% (I think about 52%) live in public housing, China has a real problem with poverty. Hong Hong government has good social programs from keeping people from being homeless, has real problems of upward social mobility.

  4. Black Pheonix
    July 9th, 2014 at 12:33 | #4


    SCMP has been getting some pro-China voices publishing actively now. Of course, they always get the comment feedbacks of “Communist propaganda”, etc., to shout them down.

    But I’m not surprised. HK may have some vocal anti-China people, but the pro-China camp is a significant portion too, as well as the “Don’t Rock the Boat” factions that make up the majority of the Legco’s Functional Constituency seats.

    Many of the protesters were just protesting that the CURRENT system is unfair, a “plutocracy”.

    Well tough luck, that’s what was agreed upon. The same people never liked it, since 1997. Just a bunch of old whiners trying to recruit new whiners.

  5. Zack
    July 9th, 2014 at 14:16 | #5

    aint it a bit rich to see Chris Patton, the former US governor of HK coming out against the HK authorities and Beijing when this fucker and his British colonial office never saw fit to introduce democratic reform or suffrage during their tenure of the colony.

    Fucking hypocrites, it was fitting for the Chinese Premier to put the UK in their place when he went to visit.

  6. Black Pheonix
    July 9th, 2014 at 14:58 | #6


    Exactly, the British put in the “functional constituency” system, which is relatively unchanged since 1997.

    Then, right after the hand over, they start bitching about how that system is not “democratic” enough.

    To be clear, some have analogized the “functional constituency” system as corrupt as the “rotten boroughs” of the old English Election systems, where some small almost defunct segment of the population is given a disproportional number of seats.

    But this is completely off basis. “Rotten boroughs” were effectively abandoned towns where the few remaining residents could be bribed into voting for the highest bidding political party.

    In HK, there is no such “rotten borough”.

    The “functional constituencies” in HK are actually more closely resembling corporate lobbyists, thus, the HK system actually gives corporations direct votes in Legco.

    It’s interesting, because it actually eliminated the need for corporate lobbying in HK. Corporations have their own votes in the Functional Constituencies of the Legco, they have no need to lobby other legislators. They can bring political initiatives directly to the Legco.

    Little wonder then, even US companies in HK put out ads to oppose the July 1st protest.

    I wonder if this system actually reduces corporate corruption. (In a way, the corporations are then flushed into the open, they have to compete with each other, and compromise with each other, for seats in their own functional constituencies.)

    I’m not entirely sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, to give corporations votes in the legco. But I feel like it’s better than all that BS lobbying in US that is basically open bribery.

  7. paoburen
    July 9th, 2014 at 16:53 | #7

    The article fails to mention that some HKers are upset about Mainland behaviours and etiquette (or lack thereof) when they visit the SAR. This is a point of contention.

    Go to HK and look at the escalators — all the people who queue to the right are HKers, and you can see Mandarin speakers blocking the escalator. This is only one example, other examples of behaviour that are unacceptable in HK are always seen.

    The article too much relies on economic arguments and ignores social aspects of society. A purely economic bent ignores that people are not economic units, but social creatures with social expectations.

    Regardless, nice article. It’s good that SCMP publishes stuff like this, it’s good to see press freedom in HK.

  8. Black Pheonix
    July 9th, 2014 at 17:07 | #8


    “The article fails to mention that some HKers are upset about Mainland behaviours and etiquette (or lack thereof) when they visit the SAR. This is a point of contention.”

    And that has to do with the political system?

    Some people will find just any excuse to let out some racist steam.

  9. paoburen
    July 9th, 2014 at 17:46 | #9

    @Black Pheonix

    How is it racist if they are all Chinese? That’s absurd. It’s regionalism, not racism. All big countries have regional issues. Once when I went to Xi’an I was warned by my Guangdong colleagues — “Be careful, those Shanxi people aren’t good like us Guangdong people!” Not racism, just regionalism.

    There are political debates about issues such as tourism, immigration, and anchor babies. These are social-political issues.

  10. Black Pheonix
    July 10th, 2014 at 06:13 | #10


    I wasn’t referring to HK people. I was referring to you letting out some racist steam.

  11. Zack
    July 10th, 2014 at 06:42 | #11

    there is nothing more pathetic than seeing Hong Kong people like Anson Chan etc pining and begging for Western leadership and rulership. Once a slave, always a slave it seems, with their mealymouthed ways and ardent desire to feel superior over their fellow Chinese, even if it means aping the white man in all his ways.

  12. Black Pheonix
    July 10th, 2014 at 07:12 | #12

    HK pro-China groups to hold “anti-Occupy Central” referendum.


  13. paoburen
    July 10th, 2014 at 14:11 | #13

    @Black Pheonix

    What did I say that was racist?

    Go to HK and look at the escalators — it is considered common to stand on the right and walk on the left, yet more and more you can see people standing to the left.

    That is not racist, it’s an observation. People from different cultural backgrounds behave differently, dress differently, etc. To say that is not racism.

    Don’t go call me a racist, especially when I have said nothing of the sort. That’s harassment and not acceptable on this forum.

  14. Black Pheonix
    July 10th, 2014 at 15:46 | #14


    I’m going to WARN YOU just once on this subject.

    You are using an offensive racist stereotype to denigrate an entire group of people. And that kind of “cultural racism” is not allowed here.

    If you don’t understand what “cultural racism” is, you can go do your research else where. We are not here to discuss that issue.

    Do it again, and you will be banned. You are on thin ice. Because you are “new” here, you get ONE warning on this issue.

  15. sleeping_box
    July 11th, 2014 at 08:09 | #15

    I work in a European company in Singapore and have quite a substantial number of colleagues from Hong Kong who harbor anti-China sentiments. Much of the complaints of Chinese public misbehavior is pretty much similar experience to what Singaporeans are going through, so I would venture to say there is indeed some merit to the grouses coming from Hong Kongers.

    However my take is in the grand scheme of things, such supposed social transgressions by the Chinese are hardly the main catalyst behind the manifestation of these large scale socio-political displays. Much has been said by many (including the author of this piece) on the machinations behind this trend, so I don’t have much to add.

    As someone who has an interest in China current affairs, I’ve spoken pretty extensively with many of these colleagues to understand their psyche and where they are coming from. My overall impression is many of them seem to have fallen in love with the romantic idea of what it means to be a sovereign power without the accompanying responsibilities.

    They seem to desire an abstract notion of de facto independence, i.e. complete freedom of speech, powers to elect legco and Chief Executive fully, ability to snub Beijing on matters they disagree with as an equal etc. What I sense lacking from them, however, is the determination to be self-sufficient and survive in a hostile geopolitical and economic environment should they really operate fully as an independent entity.

    I often cite Singapore as an example of what it really means to be an independent nation. We are surrounded by two significantly larger countries whose ethnicity and religion is different from us. Our relationships with them have gone through ups and downs from benign neighbors to outright hostility and threats to cut our water and food supplies to starve us. Many of us here in Singapore were really feeling angsty in 1997 when the minority ethnic Chinese were persecuted, raped and murdered in neighboring Indonesia.

    In times of crisis, we have no “big brother” to turn to for help. We must think of ways to weather the crisis and fend off any opportunistic behavior from our neighbors at the same time. We devote huge amounts of economic and manpower capital into securing basic food/water and energy supplies and defence to the point of conscripting all male citizens for two years. This is something most Hong Kongers take for granted because UK and now China has been shouldering that responsibility for them.

    My Hong Kong colleagues seem not to fully understand the gravity of the situation if China views them as just another competitor to be subdued on the economical and political front. The assumption seems to be when it comes to ideals like democracy, freedom and human rights, we will tell China to get lost and sit in one corner; when it comes to real practical stuff everything will be status quo since China is “supposed” to help us.

    Pretty naive when you think about it, especially these folks aren’t even the unwashed masses, but professionals and managers who are highly educated.

    Just my personal observation and narrative, not supposed to be an academic discussion on Hong Kong – China relations.

  16. July 12th, 2014 at 09:32 | #16

    Just go to a US prison and you can see that the overwhelming majority of prisoners there are the minority. So should I come up with the conclusion that the minority are more prone to commit crime?

    “That is not racist, it’s an observation.”

    If you do not see what’s wrong with your observation I sincerely hope you ponder this phrase seriously. The worst racists are those who didn’t realize they are!

  17. July 12th, 2014 at 10:32 | #17

    Very insightful observation there. The overseas ethnic Chinese be it they are from Singapore, Malaysia, HK, Taiwan have a love hate relationship with mainland Chinese. Of course, I am generalizing here so if you have other perspective please chip in.

    Most overseas Chinese actually welcomed the ascend of a wealthier China. However, at current development stage, the majority of overseas Chinese still have a sense of superiority. It is mainly due to having bigger material wealth (although this gap is narrowing) and above all a sense of being more “cultured” and “civilized”. The example paoboren point out where so-called mainland Chinese don’t even have the “basic etiquette” of standing on the right and passing on the left of escalator is very illuminating. This simple incident alone is used to label a whole group of people (which doesn’t necessary mean only Chinese) as lacking in manner.

    Is being judgemental on petty matter good manner? Is writing on a blog penalizing 1.3 billion people for failure to follow some traffic rule which obviously they have not been briefed on good etiquette? A week ago someone send me a video of a ethnic Chinese Singaporean man berating a mainland Chinese server for not being able to understand his instruction in English. To my chargin I can’t find it or I will post in here. Basically, he lamented that she should not work in his country if she can’t speak English.

    Basically, the overseas Chinese groups have this feeling that they are being “dragged down” by the mainland Chinese. I will give one personal encounter. I was flying from HK to Toronto. Sitting next to me was a Chinese lady teacher who is in her 40s. She is visiting her daughter who is going to the U of Toronto. I get to know her as in the beginning of the flight she wanted to switch seat with me so she can sit with her friends. When being presented with the immigration form which is only in English and French, they realized none of them know how to fill it in.

    The cabin crew which are mostly from HK eventually helped them filled up the form while I help the lady next to me with hers. Maybe I am being sensitive but I can tell those crew held a little bit of smudge superiority and disdain for these “uncultured” mainlanders.

    Mainlanders currently made up the largest “foreign” tourists in HK and Taiwan. However, certain political groups like to capitalize on only the negative aspects of these interaction. They like to project the impression that HK and in the future Taiwan as being ruled by a bunch of uncultured, ill mannered mainlanders and they want to change that. However, as economic progress in HK and Taiwan mostly stagnant for the last decade, to convince voters to actually vote for them is another matter.
    Nevertheless, these die hard groups seems to come to the conclusion that they are better than the mainlanders because they are “more cultured and have democracy”, and this is basically their battle cry in the mass rallies.

    Sad to say, if they cannot improve the standard of living for the people they alleged to care so much for, it is more senseless vote baiting than any real progress. Singapore and Macau was able to avoid the fate of economic stagnation as compare to HK and Taiwan because it didn’t get caught up in the meaningless tussle of political sensationalism but rather concentrate on how to improve the economical well being (and thus employment, education and healthcare) of the populace. And tapping on the growth of mainland China allow them to do just that.

  18. ersim
    July 12th, 2014 at 11:20 | #18

    I will give paoburen the benefit of doubt of “not being racist”. He’s just a victim of having a “colonized mind”. Frantz Fanon’s book: “The Wretched of The Earth” gives a very good explanation.

  19. Black Pheonix
    July 12th, 2014 at 11:50 | #19



    Doesn’t matter what he is. It’s done. I told him that kind of remark is not allowed.

    It’s not an issue, unless he does it again.

  20. sleeping_box
    July 13th, 2014 at 00:55 | #20


    Thanks for sharing your observations. Indeed what you have highlighted resonates with my experience as a Singapore born Chinese.

    On a personal patriotic (to Singapore) note, I worry very much for my fellow countrymen who are still behind times in viewing PRC Chinese and not ready to adapt themselves to compete with a resurgent China. In fact many seem to have forged some sort of emotional alliance with Hong Kongers, kind of like the band of brothers who are under a common PRC scourge.

    As a senior manager in a MNC, I have the opportunity to interact with many crème de la crop Chinese. As a group they have been advancing rapidly and I must say their English language capabilities, personal cultural upbringing, technical skill sets and confidence to interact in a globalised world are now comparable, if not exceeding, the very best Singapore has to offer. The membership of this group of Chinese only looks set to grow bigger and better in quality in the future.

    Instead of recognizing this perilous talent landscape and upping our socks to make sure we don’t fall behind, many of my countrymen seem to have fallen prey to the Ah Q mentality of constantly whining and sneering at Chinese they see here who are at the lower end of the socio economic ladder, i.e. construction workers, operators, prostitutes, frontline service staff and the occasional misbehaving nouveau riche businessman. The food court lady abuse incident you mentioned is but an example and manifestation of the xenophobic mood over here.

    Singapore used to be able to weather all this nonsense in the past, but with the weakening of the current government since the 2011 elections, politics has started to creep in and now our pro-capitalist government has to start enacting various protectionistic policies to pacify the people.

    However no government can insulate its citizens from global macro realties forever and there will come a time where the likes of Singapore and Hong Kong will have to recognize the situation as it is, acknowledge their place in the real world and forge a path of survival under the new rules of the game.

    I can only hope we don’t take too much damage during the transition.

  21. N.M.Cheung
    July 13th, 2014 at 05:48 | #21

    Such an apt description of Ah-Q mentality. As a Chinese American I sometimes really feel disdainful of the colonial mind set of Hong Kongers. The agreement is for 50 years of transitional period for Hong Kong to merge with China, which is now more than 1/3 over. Yet those so called Democracy advocates, mostly from upper middle class, with Indonesian or Philippine maids cleaning their homes, feel entitled for sneering at the mainlanders’ faux pas, and demand absolute democracy and de facto separation from China. No wonder China issued the White Paper to set them straight even if it might be bad public relation wise. They don’t realize the solution for many of the Hong Kong’s problems is move more to the left, more toward socialism, higher progressive income taxes, ,more social services, cut down on income inequality,. which I am sure they will abhor as Maoism.

  22. Black Pheonix
    July 13th, 2014 at 07:32 | #22


    “The agreement is for 50 years of transitional period for Hong Kong to merge with China, which is now more than 1/3 over. ”

    Yes, 1st they thought the “Commies” were going to destroy HK economy by robbing from the rich and giving it all to the poor in China.

    Then, when HK economy actually grew (because of investment into China), now they are complaining that there is too much economic disparity between the Rich and the Poor (of HK).

  23. pug_ster
    July 14th, 2014 at 06:47 | #23


    Go to wikipedia and look up the definition of racism. While people in Hk and mainland are mostly from the same race, racism is not just about race itself, but because people of different religion, place of origin or economic backgrounds.

    @Black Pheonix

    I would disagree about the treatment of paburen, as long as he didn’t offend anybody personally, it is okay for this person to post stuff here. I think it would be nice to have dissenting voices here.


    Excellent point. I think this anti-China sentiment from HK that Mainland Chinese are ‘uncivilized’ is because by in large an average Chinese is not as educated compared to Hong Kong or Singapore. The stigma is changing though, slowly but surely. I mean, people today are not laughing at Chinese’ high speed rail and they are building more high value goods compared to the ‘cheap junk’ production of the world years ago.

  24. Black Pheonix
    July 14th, 2014 at 07:18 | #24


    I have no problem with him posting his “dissent”, but as I told him, “racism” is not allowed here, (even if he doesn’t know what it is), and changing topic to the irrelevant tangent is not allowed, and misrepresentation of other posters’ comments are not allowed.

    We are not going to have some one posting racist BS here on the pretense of ignorance. (If they don’t understand racism, they need to watch their own words carefully).

    This forum already had previous experiences with Trolls blowing up the comment onto the tangent of “what’s not racism according to trolls”, just to degenerate the topics down to personal insults. So, we are NOT going down that road again.

  25. United Chinese Diaspora
    July 14th, 2014 at 16:59 | #25

    @Black Pheonix

    My dear BP, I would like to second pug_ster that paoburen should be allowed to post without restrictions in the name of freedom of expression. While I agree with you and I myself am becoming more convinced that he is a troll for the the same reasons that your have mentioned.

    If he is judged to be a troll, he should be banned. But until he is judged to be guilty, he should be allowed to have his voice.

    @pug_ster, I think this blog is holding up very high standard of tolerance for different opinions, if you would ever go to the CBC.ca, you would really experience the hypocrisy of Western censorship disguised as freedom of expression. If paoburen were to post degrading Chinese comments (also inaccurate) on the CBC.ca like he had been doing on this blog, his comments would be posted immediately without hesitation. But if someone were to post factual pro-China comments on the CBC.ca, the comments would never see the light of day or at best it would take anywhere between 5 to 10 hours before the comment would be posted.

    So comparatively this blog is already quite tolerant in allowing paoburen to monkey around like this, posts here are allowed to be posted right away, whereas all the comments to the CBC are moderated, ie parsed and controlled before showing up.

  26. July 14th, 2014 at 17:34 | #26

    The editors on this blog has tremendously wide discretion on what they say, as well as who they “censor.” I will continue to allow that since I know this blog cannot be what it is without their contribution.

    With that said, I like to say I rarely, rarely, very rarely ever censor another’s comment. I may take out parts of it for foul language, or for unnecessarily revealing others’ personal information for the purpose of intimidating them. The reason is I would like readers to make up their own mind. I already feel privileged that they spend time reading what I have to say. I will not go beyond to tell them what to read. Besides, I actually implicitly already exercise tremendous “censor” power on this blog … with my complete discretion on what to write in the posts! 😉

  27. Black Pheonix
    July 14th, 2014 at 18:27 | #27

    @United Chinese Diaspora

    I have given him plenty of room to make his comments, and given him clear rules.

    But at every turn, he has tried to play around the rules like a game. Seeing just how far he can push.

    Well, don’t say I didn’t give him the chance.

    As I have said, he can “dissent” as long as he stays within the rules. I will moderate any comments that fall out of the rules.

    If he will not abide by the rules, that’s his choice, and not my problem.

  28. curious
    July 17th, 2014 at 12:31 | #28

    The hands of the Western Cabal behind the Hong Kong/Mainland issues should not be overlooked. The worn
    Western buzzwords of “Democracy”,” Independence” “Freedom” etc etc spread as usual by the Western media smack of predictable Western skullduggery. Let’s not forget. as the past decades show, these shenanigans by the US and its installed lackeys are often times used as the precursor to “color revolutions”.

    It should never be forgotten, despite China’s economic success and ability to trade with the West, it is locked in a serious political battle. The US and its lackeys subscribing to the capitalistic system are sworn enemies of China and countries not conforming to its standards. The latest conflicts around the world attest to this.
    One only has to look at the South China Sea issues, Tibet, Hong Cong etc etc to see the sinister hands of various Western agencies to make life difficult for China and its allies.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.