So we are becoming increasingly tightly bound to China in many ways. This is probably limiting our leverage. China is totalarian and seems more and more willing to aggressively assert themselves. This sounds like a problem for the US that will not go away, in fact will worsen and eventually come to a head. The world is not getting less complicated.
1
China who wishes to be respected at a world stage has failed yet again. Its very embarrassing and unacceptable that a Basic law agreed on cant be kept.
5
Chinese culture is the most remarkable and accomplished on the planet. And yet in all these centuries, they simply have not learned how to govern.
2
The political system in China is inherently unstable and this instability is bad for the people of HK, bad for those on the mainland, bad for the Taiwanese, and bad for the world. It is hard to know what is worse, perpetuation of the status quo or a meltdown. I despair that peaceful transition to stability with a semblance of representative government is unlikely.
5
The results of the Taiwanese election are push backs to China and its bullying behavior. Taiwanese elected Ms. Tsai, the chairwoman of the Democratic Progressive Party which traditionally is pro-Taiwan independence. The credibility of CCP has bankrupted in Taiwan since current pro-China president Ma Ying-Jeou has brought Taiwan ever closer to China. Taiwanese do not have to look far, what is happening to Hongkongers is the clearest evidence that the so-called "one country. two systems" is but a farce. No sane people would choose to be associated in any way or form with China.
13
China observers are correct in interpreting the discordant responses both official and non official to the disappearance of the HK booksellers as evidence of internal conflict within the Chinese leadership with regard to how to deal with Hong Kong. But it's also an indicator of related but much less discussed and equally important weaknesses in the Chinese government's command and control system from top to bottom that influences these divisions. The Chinese leadership is often presented as a monolithic and omnipotent force feared by the people and local leaders across the country. The reality is somewhat different. To get a sense of how this impacts policy implementation think of the US South during the Civil Rights era and their open resistance to Washington's initiatives. There's a lot going on now both within the Chinese government and outside it with regard to liberalisation and its limits. The bookseller case is an important window into how these struggles are playing out. One thing for sure the faction or level of government that authorised these actions is currently at the centre of a storm and ideally that storm will result in a reassertion of the "One Country Two Systems" philosophy that ultimately benefits both mainland China and HK. BTW a major motivation for this "two systems" approach to Hong Kong was to demonstrate to Taiwan how smoothly reintegration with the mainland could work. Taiwan will be watching closely.
4
How exactly will this "One Country Two Systems" benefit both China and HK?
Are we only thinking financial gains here, or basic human wellness?
I'm doubtful about the financial gains, especially since the future collapse of China's economy, and HK's current way of life, among the richest in the world.
The human wellness, can not be under brutal force and subjugation by China.
Taiwan, should watch close, and they're watching, no one wants to be with China.
Are we only thinking financial gains here, or basic human wellness?
I'm doubtful about the financial gains, especially since the future collapse of China's economy, and HK's current way of life, among the richest in the world.
The human wellness, can not be under brutal force and subjugation by China.
Taiwan, should watch close, and they're watching, no one wants to be with China.
5
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
6
I'm glad there is another story that proves there will be no "peaceful rise of China".
On the other hand, Global Times is well justified in saying that if other major world powers can abduct people in foreign countries, why can't China?
On the other hand, Global Times is well justified in saying that if other major world powers can abduct people in foreign countries, why can't China?
5
@Anton: If Lee posed a direct threat to China's national security and China was unable to get him extradited through a legal process, then yes I could perhaps see how China might be justified in taking extraoridinary measures that were necessary to defend its people from a clear external threat. In fact, though, Lee is a book publisher selling material that is at worst defamatory in a territory with a very effective judicial system and well-established extradition procedures.
8
Gert, That is the lovely thing about using fear and paranoia to govern,. you can make anything sound dangerous to "us". And if you are being honest Free Speech is a threat to Communism.
3
@magic: I don't know who you mean by "us" in quotation marks. Yes, free speech in general is a threat to the Communist Party's rule, but I think Anton/the Global Times/Beijing would have a hard time justifying the abduction of these Hong Kong booksellers based on their publication of possibly libelous material on the basis of defending China's national security. Of course they can try to do so, but you have to apply common sense when evaluating such claims.
1
The "fear and outrage" should extend well beyond Hong Kong. Corporations doing business with China should demand accountability along with any nations with diplomatic relations. If this can happen to an obscure publishing company that trades in gossip about China's leaders, what does that say about their trustworthiness or honor. How petty. Given Donald Trump's extensive dealings with China(and pettiness), maybe a diplomatic mission to China would be appropriate. Take Sarah Palin along for good measure.
7
Why are they doing this? Because they are Communists and they can. As Churchill said, tyrants are horrified of anything given out by the "tiny mouse of truth."
6
Excuse my pendantry Mr Spade, but isn't it 'thoughts' and not 'truth': i.e =
"They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse! – of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic."
The sentiment remains largely unchanged though.
"They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse! – of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic."
The sentiment remains largely unchanged though.
3
The Chinese Govt is like a collective bunch of boys (no girls allowed), From just exploring the limits of what they can get away with, knowing once you are in China, they have won. There is that small problem with PDNK but that's manageable. When those people pour across the Yalu en masse, the strategy will need re-evaluation very quickly.
Why is Beijing using brute force to close down a tiny publisher of two-bit political gossip?
The answer is fear. Some are genuinely fearful of the free wheeling nature of free speech and others being true Communists know that they cannot allow free speech as they need the fear that suppressing free speech creates to hold onto the power they abuse.
Either way the fear comes from ignorance and insecurity, neither of which can be dealt with by focusing on things external to the person who is ignorant and insecure.
The answer is fear. Some are genuinely fearful of the free wheeling nature of free speech and others being true Communists know that they cannot allow free speech as they need the fear that suppressing free speech creates to hold onto the power they abuse.
Either way the fear comes from ignorance and insecurity, neither of which can be dealt with by focusing on things external to the person who is ignorant and insecure.
5
No, Imperial China was pretty much the same when it came to freedom of speech and human rights. Its got pretty much nothing to do with "communism" and a lot to do with Chinese culture and ingrained attitudes and pratices built up over centuries. Labelling "communism" as the problem is a complete misdiagnosis of the problem - and when you misdiagnose the illness theres no chance of identifying the correct cure.
Also, if you have spent time in China youd know its not a communist country except in name - its more like a wild west state capitalist zoo. My wife is mainland Chinese (and anti CCP to the core - as am I). While I acknowledge the many serious problems in China that doesnt stop me loving the place..
Also, if you have spent time in China youd know its not a communist country except in name - its more like a wild west state capitalist zoo. My wife is mainland Chinese (and anti CCP to the core - as am I). While I acknowledge the many serious problems in China that doesnt stop me loving the place..
4
I did not say it was due to communism, I said "The answer is fear.".
I listed two of the sources of the real world application of that fear I am sure there are more to include old cultural habits which BTW also came from fear.
You and your wife being anti CCP sort of justifies my inclusion of the CCP's need to use fear to control people. I'm sure you do not get in their faces and abide by laws you do not agree with to avoid the punishments that would surely come. That is due to fear of what that punishment might do to yourself and your family.
Fear is almost always the problem unless it is mental illness and even then the mentally ill person is usually paranoid which is a form of fear.
I listed two of the sources of the real world application of that fear I am sure there are more to include old cultural habits which BTW also came from fear.
You and your wife being anti CCP sort of justifies my inclusion of the CCP's need to use fear to control people. I'm sure you do not get in their faces and abide by laws you do not agree with to avoid the punishments that would surely come. That is due to fear of what that punishment might do to yourself and your family.
Fear is almost always the problem unless it is mental illness and even then the mentally ill person is usually paranoid which is a form of fear.
2
Hong Kong is doomed. The Brits had to know the CCP would never honor its promises about one-country, two-systems when they signed the kumbaya-like handover agreement. China was going to give the people of HK 50 years of democracy, something they had never had anyway, then take it totally away in 2047? And the people of HK would give it up, go from Democracy 100 to Democracy 0, just like that? Yeah, sure.
So, to answer the author's end question: neither. They're not becoming more ruthless, because they never stopped. And their political judgment is ever sharp.
They really couldn't care less what free people think about them.
So, to answer the author's end question: neither. They're not becoming more ruthless, because they never stopped. And their political judgment is ever sharp.
They really couldn't care less what free people think about them.
20
Uh, Hong Kong is not, and never has been, democratic - even under British rule (in fact its more democratic now). All the agreement with Britain did was guarantee the rule of law. Given that China talks a lot about implementing the rule of law (quite rightly, although they dont appear to understand what it is) there was no reason to believe China wouldnt respect that. the difference between Hong Kong's British rulers and Chinese rulers is one of attitude. China has a bad attitude and has been backsliding, probably as a result of the infighting at the top of the CCP.
1
Yes but the British made several attempts to introduce democratic reforms in HK in the decades preceding the handover but these were fiercely opposed by China. Democratic measures were seen as a means of maintaining the peace in the Asian colonies so as to enable Britain to maintain the empire. So kind of win-win (or selfish realpolitik if you like) and these measures were put into effect in Malaysia and elsewhere which enabled fairiy peaceful transitions to self rule. Even without formal democratic measures, the British were highly responsive to the public will. There is near-free universal healthcare and education and half the population lives in very heavily subsidized housing. The British hold on Hong Kong was often tenuous so they had to keep people happy.
1
The Chinese are not socially evolving as was predicted. They are not changing as they learn new ways and means of doing things. They are taking the new ways and means and using them to impose old ideas more effectively.
I predicted this to the ether when I first heard of the British decision to turn it over. I also thought to myself "I wonder what kind of private assurances and agreements the British made to make sure the cash kept flowing from HK or ??? back to London?
I predicted this to the ether when I first heard of the British decision to turn it over. I also thought to myself "I wonder what kind of private assurances and agreements the British made to make sure the cash kept flowing from HK or ??? back to London?
If this was Cuba our Republican politicians would be standing on the table, pounding their shoes and screaming.
China? Not so much, as their benefactors, corporations, make everything there because it let's them ignore whatever laws they choose and keep their labor costs down, which they must do to keep their salaries in the ten or hundreds of millions.
Don't ya just love capitalism, it's working hard for the .01%.
China? Not so much, as their benefactors, corporations, make everything there because it let's them ignore whatever laws they choose and keep their labor costs down, which they must do to keep their salaries in the ten or hundreds of millions.
Don't ya just love capitalism, it's working hard for the .01%.
9
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive: The Chinese Communist Party's increasingly ruthlessness tactics is a symptom of political judgement that has hit a creative wall. Of course, it's also the supreme belief that they can get away with it.
7
What's the difference between a forced confession on TV, in 2016, and a public humiliation in the hands of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution?
How in the world, today, China's leaders have any pretensions of portraying China as a modern country? And finally, how can we know, to what extend the leaders and members of the Communist Party are victims of their own propaganda?
How in the world, today, China's leaders have any pretensions of portraying China as a modern country? And finally, how can we know, to what extend the leaders and members of the Communist Party are victims of their own propaganda?
16
It is most deplorable that a giant like China trembles if a small voice of dissent is heard. Constructive criticism would elevate the conversation, and lend credit to inroads to a more open society. However, as it stands, the Communist Party of China shows its tremendous weakness in human rights and in allowing its own people to grow and contribute. Of course, dictatorships cannot stand a free Press, especially when there is ingrained corruption in their ranks. Too bad that the average citizen is misinformed, fed only with official propaganda, unable to access the truth and the reality behind it, so he/she can make informed decisions. At the end, China loses. And the losers are its people, Hong Kong not the exception anymore. Dumb policies? Indeed.
12
It is a lovely metaphor and all but it misdirects proper focus
One of the best parts of how our system is supposed to be run, a point of correct focus intended to prevent manipulation of truth is that the press and the people should not focus on false conceptions and misdirection’s by using names of inanimate entities like “America” when we are actually speaking about the POTUS or some other specific politician or group of politicians whom we should call out by name when making that reference.
The thing with China is not that “this giant country” is weak or fearful so much as it is that the person or persons in charge of making these things happen are weak and fearful and these actions in HK and other places are the signs of that fear and weakness.
China like “name of any country here”, is a concept that describes an inanimate thing. You must name the persons involved if you intend to speak about “government action” they have taken, saying the name of a nation or agency within that nation only obscures who is actually responsible. Sure they represent the agency or nation but it is ultimately them, a real person, who ordered the action not the agency or nation.
Knowing and following this correct process for describing things makes a larger difference than you might think. It affects everything about how the reader or listener thinks of the subject.
One of the best parts of how our system is supposed to be run, a point of correct focus intended to prevent manipulation of truth is that the press and the people should not focus on false conceptions and misdirection’s by using names of inanimate entities like “America” when we are actually speaking about the POTUS or some other specific politician or group of politicians whom we should call out by name when making that reference.
The thing with China is not that “this giant country” is weak or fearful so much as it is that the person or persons in charge of making these things happen are weak and fearful and these actions in HK and other places are the signs of that fear and weakness.
China like “name of any country here”, is a concept that describes an inanimate thing. You must name the persons involved if you intend to speak about “government action” they have taken, saying the name of a nation or agency within that nation only obscures who is actually responsible. Sure they represent the agency or nation but it is ultimately them, a real person, who ordered the action not the agency or nation.
Knowing and following this correct process for describing things makes a larger difference than you might think. It affects everything about how the reader or listener thinks of the subject.
It has been more cringe-worthy and frustrating to watch the pro-Beijing politicians here in Hong Kong try and make excuses for the disappearances. They have clearly not been informed by their CCP overlords and are dancing on hot coals making contradictory statements one after another.
First it was, "They must have crossed without their immigration documents because they were on illegal boats going to visit prostitutes! My friend texted me this" (said one legislative council member). Then later it was, "One of them sent a fax! This proves he is NOT in China!" (said the former secretary of security). Then China later confirms that they are all indeed in China. Oops. As citizens who cannot vote, we are waiting for these puppets to die out or be discarded by their CCP masters once their use has been extinguished.
First it was, "They must have crossed without their immigration documents because they were on illegal boats going to visit prostitutes! My friend texted me this" (said one legislative council member). Then later it was, "One of them sent a fax! This proves he is NOT in China!" (said the former secretary of security). Then China later confirms that they are all indeed in China. Oops. As citizens who cannot vote, we are waiting for these puppets to die out or be discarded by their CCP masters once their use has been extinguished.
14
It's interesting that this publishing company has focused on spreading slanders and gossips about Chinese leaders. There may be many topics deserving our discussion, but gossip has never been one of them.
It is understandable that this book is banned in China which has few convincing resources.
The author uses the whole page to talk about a gossip book and he wants to have further talk about politics. Can we talk about politics from a more meaningful perspective?
Last but not least, what does Hongkongers mean? HK has been one part of China for a long time. There are no HKers. They are Chinese.
It is understandable that this book is banned in China which has few convincing resources.
The author uses the whole page to talk about a gossip book and he wants to have further talk about politics. Can we talk about politics from a more meaningful perspective?
Last but not least, what does Hongkongers mean? HK has been one part of China for a long time. There are no HKers. They are Chinese.
The term "New Yorkers" exists to describe those inhabiting New York and who feel a sense of belonging there. They would not deny that they are Americans. Similarly, Hongkongers do not deny that they are Chinese. You, among many, often confuse Hongkongers' identification with their culture with being synonymous with denying being Chinese - which is often incorrect. Identifying with being a "Hongkonger" is not a cry for independence, don't be so paranoid. Nobody here is denying that they are Chinese. Similarly, criticising and questioning the CCP does not mean that we are unpatriotic.
7
Ah, I see our representative from the Ministry of Truth is here. The author does not use a whole page to talk about a gossip book. Indeed, if you actually read and understood the article, you will understand the book is itself has never been the issue. It is the way the Chinese government uses its power.
15
Hongkongers are those who were born and educated in HK when it was a British Crown Colony. They held Hong Kong British passport until the takeover in 1997.
Who are you to say there are no Hongkongers ? I am one with millions others.
Who are you to say there are no Hongkongers ? I am one with millions others.
10
This is hardly an opinion piece...just the facts here. And they are stunning. Beijing essentially incriminated itself through the Global Times.
10
Lian Yi-zheng's concise article about these ugly events is marred by the lack of the word that must not be said. Dictatorship. It is sad to watch him turning hither and fro desperately avoiding that one word that must not be said. Not even in the New York Times. But without using that one truthful word we cannot fully parse the tale of lawless intrigue that Lian narrates.
It is because the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist party is above the rule of law that Chinese are not safe in their own country; that Chinese are being abducted, that false confessions are being tortured out of kidnapped journalists, publishers, lawyers and human rights workers. It is because of the lawless dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party that the people of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, are frightened—and the current wave of kidnappings and forced confessions is deepening that feeling of fear
As this piece makes clear the dictatorship now feels threatened and thus behaves, more and more desperately, within China and without: desperate thugs struggling for power. We can only hope that current factionalism will bring about the end of the dictatorship soon.
It is because the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist party is above the rule of law that Chinese are not safe in their own country; that Chinese are being abducted, that false confessions are being tortured out of kidnapped journalists, publishers, lawyers and human rights workers. It is because of the lawless dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party that the people of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, are frightened—and the current wave of kidnappings and forced confessions is deepening that feeling of fear
As this piece makes clear the dictatorship now feels threatened and thus behaves, more and more desperately, within China and without: desperate thugs struggling for power. We can only hope that current factionalism will bring about the end of the dictatorship soon.
10
Well said: those who stand for freedom and democracy should have no truck with China--don't go there, don't partner with them for corporate or academic reasons, don't support their regime in any way. Boycott, pure and simple, in every way possible. The notion that "gradual change" will come has proven a fantasy. It's almost three decades since the Tienanmen Massacre, and the CCP dictatorship has only clamped down harder on human freedom and democratic rights. Meanwhile, Westerners ignore the struggle of Hong Kong residents and the nation of Taiwan to defend these rights and values. Either we wise up and choose freedom over dictatorship, or we deserve the consequences. Don't aid evil.
4
Thesis: Commie dictators behave like commie dictators, that is, like vain stupid humans with too much power inevitably do.
Where is the contradiction?
Where is the contradiction?
14
This is an informative and concise essay on the recent events in Hong Kong. Beijing has almost demolished HK newspapers critical of its government, and intends to do the same in Taiwan when its economic power through trade and investment could buy or intimidate newspapers there. No wonder young people in HK and Taiwan are up in arms when confronting such a dire strait.
The books by the publisher are indeed no more then "two-bits political
gossip", and worse, often slanderous. It is understandable that the Beijing
leaders are angry with such reports. But HK is still under the rule of law,
left by the British, they could easily win their case against the publisher,
if they choose to go to court to sue for libel and thereby bankrupting the publisher. However, instead of going through the legal channels, they forced the partners of the publisher to "disappear" from HK and broke
the Basic Law in the process. Not very sensible.
The books by the publisher are indeed no more then "two-bits political
gossip", and worse, often slanderous. It is understandable that the Beijing
leaders are angry with such reports. But HK is still under the rule of law,
left by the British, they could easily win their case against the publisher,
if they choose to go to court to sue for libel and thereby bankrupting the publisher. However, instead of going through the legal channels, they forced the partners of the publisher to "disappear" from HK and broke
the Basic Law in the process. Not very sensible.
41
But from Beijing to Moscow, we're seeing how dangerous the vanity of tyrants can be.