111–120 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wondered how dangerous it would be using those services in China, wouldn't the secret police come knocking if someone was found using them?
Not dangerous at all. The cops will not arrest you if you are using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-commun…
> I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this "In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, Chi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Essentially no. As yorwba points out in a sibling post the GFW is wise to the protocols being used. Algo doesn't work either. Or more accurately they don't work for long. The GFW slowly degrades the connection over the course of some minutes, making it unusable after a while. This then resets every day or so. After a series of days or weeks the IP address associated with the server is completely blocked. The situatio…
Curious. I have a colleague who works from China a couple times a year and VPNs in to work (a well known US company) using Cisco AnyConnect[1] and tells me he's never had any trouble. 1. Which has an alternative open source client – http://www.infradead.org/openconnect/
Experiences with the GFW is perhaps the starkest example of YMMV I've seen yet in the world of computing.
This reminds me of people who say that we can free North Koreans by (physically) airdropping tapes and books on Pyongyang - surely the only reason they support their government is because they're heavily censored, once they see the truth they'll rise up in arms! It's a narrative that's somewhat condescending. It makes it seem like all these people are just being held hostage by their governments. The reality is that…
Most protesters never try to investigate the real thoughts of ordinary mainland people, who are just regarded as a stereotype of ignorance, impoliteness, nouveau riche, and pathetically waiting to be enlightened. Protesters know mainland people as little as, if not less than, ordinary mainland people know them. This is not a big deal in daily life, but could severely diminish the effect of the propaganda towards main…
In one of the Hong Kong forum related to the protest, posts reflecting how mainlanders think got overwhelming upvotes (in Cantonese [1], [2], [3]).
As a matter of fact, those posts and their views hardly get mentioned in the press (local or foreign).
But if you have more to add, it would be very much appreciated.
[1]: https://lih.kg/1291046 "以一個大陸人的角度看向自由行宣傳"
[2]: https://lih.kg/1290746 "關於7/7遊行, 我有一個喺尖沙咀做服務業嘅朋友, 佢有啲嘢想講..."
[3]: https://lih.kg/1305083 "(開拓視野)看看大陸人真實既看法"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for voicing out your view, very much appreciated. > A large portion of tourists do know there are protests in Hong Kong lasting for a few weeks and it's about the extradition bill, where criminals as defined in both Hong Kong and mainland at the same time could be transferred to Beijing with Hong Kong judges' approval. These are publicly reported in mainland. It's useless just retelling the story itself, or ev…
Thanks for your patient and kindy reply. I believe many people in China, especially young students or businessmen have read or heard what you mentioned more or less. People from mainland definitely know the official news is not the full picture. But just don't simply assume they have no picture at all or their knowledge is totally incorrect without anything in line with the facts. That's my core point. > They could o…
> How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?
This entry on Prima Facie may be helpful [1], though perhaps a bit light.
On a related note, Hong Kong’s conviction rate is just 50% [2], so statistically speaking prima facie is a much lower bar than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in Hong Kong. Moreover, one additional concern is that cases could be made-up for extradition, such as the case for Gui Minhai in the Causeway Bay Books disappearances [3], making it much easier to produce prima facie evidence for extradition. For a more relevant essay on the difference between Hong Kong’s and Chinese legal system especially on the issue of anti-extradition and the (lack of) independent jurisdiction, see [4] in Chinese.
[1]: https://legaldictionary.net/prima-facie/
[2]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/183380...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...
[4]: https://www.master-insight.com/內地法制難被接受：法院為何不敢做「無罪判決」/
> I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.
Thanks for your opinion. There is no denying that the protestors could do better in conveying their message, but arguably their audience, the mainlanders, is so diverse that sometimes it is hard to satisfy everyone. But the protestors would try I think.
> > a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability
> Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.
Thanks for the words. Yes, even among protestors, there are values that is more obvious to some but less obvious to others, so your view is completely understandable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would millions of minority citizens interned in "re-education" camps count as "trifles" in your estimation? Because a lot of people internationally are not fans of that, and it's hardly a matter of pride or power struggle. It's an authoritarian government mistreating its citizens without due cause. That's exactly what HK people are trying to prevent happening to them... The old guard, many immigrated from the mainlan…
I fully understand your hatred towards the Chinese government. I want to point out what I believe is the root cause. It has nothing to do with communism. Chinese has a deep rooted culture of long range thinking (think "Sun Tzu"). It has always been willing to sacrifice piece for the whole, sacrifice short term for the long term. We read those historical stories as we grow up. It is very scary at times, especially whe…
I've seen the argument by mainlanders often that these protests "don't represent the opinion of the people". You know what would reveal the opinion of the people? Universal suffrage and free choice of legco candidates, or Legco elections where the people could vote in a true majority (i.e. abolishing functional constituencies). Until then the only way people can make their voices heard is protest. And with two million on the street a few weeks ago, an unprecedented turnout as a share of population for any kind of protest anywhere in the world the opinion of "normal Hong Kong residents" is clear. But again, want to find out for real? Democratize HK and find out. But we all know what the result would be, including Beijing.
While a majority don't actively support storming LegCo or clashing with police, the majority definitely are against the extradition bill and further mainland encroachment, and they empathize with the protesters' intentions. That is abundantly clear.
Hong Kong is separated from China by a long period with a different value system. While mainlanders might be happy to sacrifice the minority (the "others") for stability—a preference well explained by turbulent Chinese history—the people of Hong Kong most firmly don't. And never will.
I don't hate the Chinese government, although I despise many of those in power there. Overall it's done well in modernizing the country and bringing people out of poverty. And they have done so in part by restricting civil liberties, some might say it's worth it. But interning millions of people or denying due process to dissidents is a red line for me. I cannot accept any justification for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is the conviction rate in China is over 10 times higher than that at 99.9% [1,2] and thought to be driven by political interference/corruption rather than only targeting high yield cases. Bear in mind the context of china’s top court rejecting the notion of an independent judiciary [3], it is clear there is a difference between a high conviction rate in these countries and China. [1] https://www.washin…
>The difference is the conviction rate in China is over 10 times higher Actually, it's not over 10 times higher; I double checked, Japan's is also 99.9% and has been for some time. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap... Statistics from Wikipedia link: http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/en/61/image/image/h002003001001h.j... If you just take guilty/not guilty, the % is actually 99.98% in Japan (e.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-commun…
> I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this "In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, Chi…
I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion.
The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think.
> I still don't
Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good.
> would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time.
My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this "In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, Chi…
> OK, so you accept it but reject it. I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion. The…
It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'.
But the point was britain tried to give in the 1950s what you say it didn't until the 1980s, and it was down to chinese pressure - they threatened to invade!
I'll read up on the link to the young plan, thanks.
> It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side
You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.
> the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think
Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protestors think? I literally don't understand what you're saying. I realise your english is infinitely better than my chinese is ever likely to be (regrettably!), I'm not criticising that, just asking you explain what you mean.
> But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people
Okay, you are exactly right, we have to be precise about meanings, and propaganda distorts. But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour. That is not tolerable in the west, same as anywhere. The reaction of UK politicians to images of that were real dismay and shock.
And I can (theoretically) make the case for chinese communism as a source of stability. Whether that kind of stability (which places the state above the individual) is something I would wish to live under or impose on others is quite another matter.
So let's talk - what are those shared values between east and west? This is a very important point you raise and I'd like to know because other than trivial stuff (looking after your kids etc) it would be important for me to understand where we unite, and divide.
> My mistake, it's not just sanction...
From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).
But yes, rights and wrongs aside, the fact there was a uk-supported embargo and china still threatened to invade, is interesting and I can't explain it. Point taken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> OK, so you accept it but reject it. I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion. The…
> I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'. But the point was britain tried to give in the 1950s what you say it didn't until the 1980s, and it was down to chinese pressure - they threatened to invade! I'll read up on the link to the young plan, thanks. > It…
> It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'.
Read the first image of https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
> You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what Britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.
Read the Young plan.
> Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protesters think? I literally don't understand what you're saying.
Some protesters think the colony is a good symbol of democracy. Many mainlanders disagree. Because to prove colony really cared about democracy, abandoned plan is not enough, and practical action records are required, like limited democratic legitimacy for a small area within Beijing's tolerance. I can't see how China wound invade just because of any small-scale democratic experiment.
> But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour.
I noticed that. I believe we would agree with each other on freedom and many other values most of the time. I am not arguing with you on the difference between us or between protesters and tourists. The point I raised is that some propaganda towards mainlanders did distort, without spelling out the meaning clearly and excluding extremism carefully, and this is bad, even if their heart is good, that's all.
> From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north Korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).
Nobody denies this. It's in the name of United Nations and everyone knows Uncle Sam is the leader of the embargo. What I want to say is, Hong Kong was strong enough at that time to neglect certain pressure from the mainland and push Britain's policy.