One of the arguments many people in the West used to denigrate the HK and Mainland government in support of the Umbrella movement was that the rioters had a right to block streets and shut down districts to get their message out. When some Hong Kongers – siding with HK and Mainland government – pushed back that while freedom of speech grants them the right to protest but not a right to shut down entire districts, they were ridiculed and shamed by the Western press.
Of course, as we know, when the occupy movement flamed across the Western capitals of the world, those governments acted very differently. The police (even paramilitary forces) soon cracked down and order was soon restored. But in China, so-called rule of law quickly gets tossed aside in the name of mob rule (I mean “democracy”). All this reinforced in my mind how “political” “free” speech is. It is “free” when the politics is palatable. But when it’s not, the “costs” – be it national security, social peace, whatever – gets framed as the main (only) issues.
It seems that the Western Paid Rioters are at it again, this time they are ‘protesting’ against the removal of Illegal food stalls in Mong Kok and starting their ‘fishball revolution.’
These Right wing rioters including the HK Indigenous, Civic Passion, Hong Kong Localism Power, Hong Kong Independence Party that has plagued Hong Kong about 18 months ago with their ‘Umbrella revolution’ threw bricks, started fires, and beat up on police and reporters. Western propaganda seems to fixate on 2 warning shots up the air. Sad on the state of Hong Kong that this kind of riots are even tolerated because if this kind of stuff would happen in America these people would be promptly jailed as terrorists.
Besides the romantic, simplified “freedom” Official Narrative that framed the biblical David against Goliath story onto the Occupy Central protesters, seemingly for the purpose of indoctrinating media consumers in the West – is anything being left out?
Here, not so elegantly, are some raw YouTube clips – Occupy Central’s “peace and love” our supposedly free and objective media has choose to self-censor.
(Note: if youtube doesn’t work for you, scroll down to the bottom of post to get the videos we hosted here).
Foul-mouthed protester threatening people who disagrees:
As the Occupy protests continue in Hong Kong, articles, editorials and op-eds in the Western press continue to characterize the conflict as one between those in Hong Kong demanding “real democracy” and Beijing reneging on its promise of “universal suffrage” under “one country two systems.” Western media and leaders – including the New York Times Editorial Board and President Obama, for example – have all but argued that “universal suffrage” in Hong Kong means that Beijing should have no say in determining which candidates are eligible to run for elections … that the system China has proposed is but a “charade” of democracy.
The news of Hong Kong Police using tear gas to disperse crowds aimed at occupying government buildings and public spaces to protest against Beijing rules on how Hong Kong residents vote for its next leaders are plastered on the first page of all the major news site today.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, has this story.
HONG KONG—In the harshest response against protesters in Hong Kong in nearly a decade, police used pepper spray and several rounds of teargas to disperse pro-democracy crowds blocking traffic on some of the city’s busiest streets.
An effort by police to keep protesters away from government buildings appeared to backfire on Sunday. As police converged on the scene and protesters spread out from its center, the conflict spread across three of Hong Kong’s most important commercial neighborhoods.
When police started lobbing tear gas at the crowd, protesters dispersed but quickly regrouped and retook some ground. They ignored police signs telling them to leave and used metal barricades to prevent officers from moving them away.
Hong 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.
For the last week or so, Hong Kong has been (very publicly) celebrating the “rule of law” that it claims it has exhibited in letting Snowden leave the country despite strong U.S. pressure to arrest and extradite him. The Hong Kong government made this official statement after Snowden left Hong Kong.
The US Government earlier on made a request to the HKSAR Government for the issue of a provisional warrant of arrest against Mr Snowden. Since the documents provided by the US Government did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law, the HKSAR Government has requested the US Government to provide additional information so that the Department of Justice could consider whether the US Government’s request can meet the relevant legal conditions. As the HKSAR Government has yet to have sufficient information to process the request for provisional warrant of arrest, there is no legal basis to restrict Mr Snowden from leaving Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying later cited the government’s action as “a good example to illustrate the rule of law and the procedural justice that we uphold.” The people of Hong Kong for the most part do back Leung’s sentiments. Even those who suspects illicit political motives seem to concede that Hong Kong did right following its laws, protocols and procedures.
At a personal level, I can easily imagine Joyce Lau being a friend, and perhaps that may end up being one day. As some of you know, she reads this blog. Her latest article in the New York Times about the recent curriculum protest in Hong Kong over “patriotic” education is tantamount to pushing a British propaganda line. It’s misguided. Her article said nothing about the curriculum itself. It sheds no perspective from the Chinese side. Incidentally, before her article’s publication, reader perspectivehere had left a comment on this very topic. Through law, the British had already brainwashed Hong Kong citizens long time ago to propagate a friendly narrative towards British colonial rule. Apparently, for some (not all, but the 32k some where the brainwashing succeeded), wearing dirty British laundry has become a desirable fashion worthwhile taking to the streets for. And, sure enough, the expat ‘China’ bloggers will say what the NYT want their readers to think: “ominous, vile and dictatorial.” Another variation of that garbage can be found here, all without examining what’s in this education. Let’s see what perspectivehere had to say. Continue reading Curriculum protest in Hong Kong a sign some still prefer wearing dirty British laundary→
I usually don’t have much problems with Chinese women dating and marrying white men. Traditionally I typically view them on an individual basis. If the relationship last and works out for both parties, it’s a win-win for all – who cares about if two people are of different races?
Sure, I don’t deny that the phenomenon of Chinese women looking to date and marry white men do raise some broader potential social / cultural issues for me. Why does it seem like some Chinese women are purposefully shunning Chinese men? Why does one often find white men successful in looking to date and marry Chinese women but much rarer Chinese men dating and marrying white women?
I usually chalk up these nagging social issues to women looking to move up the social and economic ladder.
Because of the history of the last 200 years, Westerners typically make more money, are financially more successful and stable, than Chinese. To the extent women (Chinese included) marry for security, dating and marrying white men seems only natural. From the Chinese perspective, it might even be encouraged, if nothing else than to improve the quality of life some of its people through the fast track.
But recently, I came across this WSJ report that seems to turn that theory upside down. It appears in Hong Kong, the real action is not of poor Chinese women marrying rich foreign men, which I understand, but rich Chinese women seeking out to marry white men.
The above picture apparently caused quite a stir and went viral in Hong Kong cyberspace recently.
“In 1842, on a British warship anchored off the city of Nanjing, Chinese and British representatives signed a treaty that brought the First Opium War to an end. The British victory had been decisive, and along with the reparations and trade concessions exacted from China was the requirement that Hong Kong, a coastal island sparsely populated by farmers, fishermen, and the occasional pirate, be given to the British in perpetuity as a crown colony.’
A kind of upset of the article twisting history and the truth. It reflects the ignorance of the west and journalists.
How outrageous to say the opium pusher (the Britons), was good for the victim (Chinese)?
If it is your reason using force to enforce the opium trade to developing countries, what kind of civilization we’re in?
The British Parliament favored trade profit over justice. They had nothing to trade with China’s silk, porcelain…, but plenty of opium grown in India.
Britons did provide Hong Kong with stability (but stole a lot from Hong Kong as most colonial masters did). HK’s success is on mainly due to its special location (close to China), the expert businessmen from Shanghai and the cheap labor of the refugees.
Next Generation of Hongkongese More Spoiled Than Ever
The next generation of Hongkongese are more spoiled than ever. Survey revealed 8 out of 10 one-year-olds can not eat on their own, had to be fed by parents or nannies.
Hong Kong has one of the lowest birth rate in the world, with less than 1 rearing average. Although China’s one-child policy does not affect Hong Kong, due to the hardwork in raising children, many couples Hong Kong only have one child. University conducted a survay interviewing 1,100 some families, showing the majority feel Hong Kong’s only child are becoming more spoiled becasue the parents are over-protective of them. Not only does it feel this way, facts prove over-protecting children may not be good for them. Survey shows Hong Kong’s infants have hight % of doctor visits, with 3.47 doctor visit every 6 months. That’s to the doctor’s once every month and a half.
Wang Xizhe is an active US-based Chinese dissident who’s spent many years in opposition to the Communist government. He is co-chairman and founder of the China Democracy Party. Wang is rarely mentioned in the English press in the West, although he’s very well known in the Chinese community. Many believe this is because he’s allegedly refused to accept financing from American and Taiwanese “sources”, in contrast to other more famous dissidents (at least to the West) like Wang Dan, Wei Jingsheng, Yang Jianli accused of doing precisely that.
Wang Xizhe continues to publish regularly, including this essay issued a few days ago, in which he criticizes Hong Kong pro-democracy activists who protested the Olympic torch.