Zheng Yanxiong is right in saying that demonstrations in Hong Kong should not be calling for the downfall of communism on the mainland. We thought so at the time, back in 2019. We’d taken part in early demos. We stopped when they became violent (except I went to a couple as an observer). We wrote here, at the time, how dangerous it was to call for Hong Kong independence and downfall of the “Black Party” 黑党 Hei dang. There was no “right” to do so in the Basic Law. And in any case deeply unwise to criticise those you’ve already identified as “tyrants”. For tyrants will do what tyrants do.The dragon, its tail tweaked, will turn and blast you. We’re lucky the blast was relatively mild. Recall at the time many were predicting (hoping?) that the PLA would turn out the tanks. The National Security Law, draconian as it is, is a mild alternative.
People, the teenage “democracy warriors” of 2019 forgot that Hong Kong was under the suzerainty of China, by international treaty, by recognition of the United Nations and by the Basic Law. Promoting democracy in Hong Kong is one thing. Calling for the overthrow of the communist party quite another. And I say that as no fan boy of socialism, let along the Marxist Leninist party in Beijing. It’s realism.
So, given all that, I find it positive that Beijing sees fit to confirm One Country Two Systems will continue, including past its notional expiry of 2047. That does mean a “high degree of autonomy” for us. Less than before 2019, for sure. But that lessening due entirely to the misjudged violence of 2019. Let’s keep what we have remaining. Which is still plenty freedoms, and a safe city.
The yellow highlighted bit in the article above is me taking note when our local officials do “commie speak”. That “fearless of struggle” is straight out of Mao Tse-tung. 艰苦奋斗 Jian ku fen dou. “Don’t fear difficulties or struggle”. It’s creeping in to the speech of our local apparatchiks. Which I don’t really like. But will.
ADDED: The above probably looks like apologia for the regime. But Occasional Readers will know that I’ve been critical of said regime over the life of this blog. It’s just that I don’t buy the “fearless democracy warriors” narrative. The demonstrations against the Extradition Treaty, which we took part in, were relevant and justified. They should have stopped when they were successful. Instead they went on with a set of incoherent and changing “Five Demands”, against a supposed creeping dictatorship with Beijing. And they went on the be much more randomly violent.
But
(1) there was no "creeping dictatorship" until it was prompted by a year of non-stop the violent rioting calling for “HK Independence” and downfall of the CCP. To which the response was the National Security Law.
(2) These young protesters would not have had any idea what was going on inside government and whether or not Beijing was interfering in the day to day work of our government. At the time I did know, at senior levels in the administration and through organising legislation to pass in the LegCo. There was nothing coming down as “orders from Beijing”. That only changed because of the riots; it was not the cause of the riots.
(3) It became clear that the rioters were out go get mainlanders and mainland-linked companies, because of a nativist hatred of them -- who had been coming into Hong Kong at a rate of 150 a day since the 2008 recession. That’s not me saying that: they said it themselves, openly. They called mainlanders “locusts”. It was some pretty horrid stuff, which would be “racism” were they not all Han.
The article yesterday:
ADDED: I just noticed the bit I circled: “…it won’t change if it’s improved.” ie, it won’t change unless it’s changed. Such is the logic of apparatchiks.
