Live data from Hacker News

HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

reuters.com

31–40 of 261 posts

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hong Kong (not even China!) Hong Kong is China since 1997 with same nationality law that's the reason its called one country and two systems. Obviously the thin layer between two system is getting thinner, because like any law, basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be. I believe all of this is happening given China does not want to be another USSR. Hong Kong was used as a lau…

China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047. Beijing is in flagrant violations of its international treaty obligations. The New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but Britain was under no obligation to transfer Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back at any time for any reason. They graciously agreed to return them for China,…

> They graciously agreed to return them for China

Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#32

Hong Kong is dead, and the CCP killed it. Daily reminder that the Chinese Government should never ever be trusted. China agreed not to touch Hong Kong's system politically or economically until at least 2047. They couldn't manage even half of that, and there are now many Hong Kongers sitting in jail for the "crime" of supporting democracy in Hong Kong (not even China!), which was made illegal by the CCP under "nation…

> Hong Kong (not even China!) Hong Kong is China since 1997 with same nationality law that's the reason its called one country and two systems. Obviously the thin layer between two system is getting thinner, because like any law, basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be. I believe all of this is happening given China does not want to be another USSR. Hong Kong was used as a lau…

What city in the USSR was equivalent to Hong Kong? I am not aware of any cities in the USSR that enjoyed freedom of the press and an independent judiciary at the level that Hong Kong did prior to the NSL crackdowns.

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047. Beijing is in flagrant violations of its international treaty obligations. The New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but Britain was under no obligation to transfer Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back at any time for any reason. They graciously agreed to return them for China,…

> They graciously agreed to return them for China Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.

The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. It's not a question of who "should" own Hong Kong based on some centuries old history. It's a question of who the people of Hong Kong choose to govern them. Had an open referendum been held in 1997, it's almost certainly the case that the citizenry would not have voted to return to the tutelage of the dictatorship in Beijing.

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#34

This is tragic, the US, Japan, Canada, GB, AUS, the EU need to band together to counter China’s egregious rights abuses instead of solely pursuing their own business and national interests. They could all offer residency programs for the bright students and others that are currently suffocating there. China can’t punish all these countries together. If no one stands up Taiwan will be next to fall and then China would…

In the current climate if the US doesn't move nobody will (or it will just be a "look at me" gesture) Why do I think so? Because the US accumulated that unprecedented power you refer to, and Japan or GB or Canada trying anything from themselves just means they'll be pissing in the wind until the US decides to do it as well. The EU seems to me the only exception to that, but then I am not sure its majority sees a big…

There are no actions the US, EU, Japan & Co. can collective take that will alter China's political system from the outside.

It's why whenever people talk about ganging up on China, they're always extremely vague about it. That's because it's entirely bunk. Do something! What? Something! Do a thing! Which thing? The thing! It's identical to bumper stickers that (used to) say: Save Tibet, it's largely empty virtue signaling or wishful thinking. It's not realistic.

You can sanction them. It does not matter. You can stop all trade with them. It does not matter. They're free standing now, their domestic consumer market doesn't need the US & EU. Their banks don't need outside financing. Their government doesn't need outside financing. Their households have $65-$80 trillion in wealth. They don't require the West's technology trade, they can clone most of it. And so on.

The world population count will add two plus billion people outside of the US, Europe and Japan in the next ~30-35 years. Those people will all do business with China, no matter what the US/EU/Japan do. Those 2.x billion people will represent an economy comparable to the EU.

Trump's Admin took a severe counter-China / stop-China position (as staunch as we'll ever see in the US), it made no significant difference. China is more powerful now than they were five years ago, both economically and militarily. Their share of global manufacturing has never been higher.

Their military can't be opposed anywhere near their borders, they're the world's clear #2 military now, and are increasingly superior to Russia (which can't come close to keeping up in either hardware numbers or technology at this point). At the rate that China's military capabilities are accelerating, they'll easily be twice as powerful militarily overall as Russia within the decade, including having at least four aircraft carriers and a vastly superior space program to what Russia has. Russia will soon be a joke compared to China in military terms (which tells you what the EU is going to look like next to China). So, there's zero threat to pose to China militarily to alter their behavior. The US also has no interest in committing suicide to fight with China, eg over Taiwan. The odds are that Taiwan is already gone, it's just a matter of buying as much time as possible to diversify off of relying on Taiwan for tech manufacturing. The US plan is to make it difficult on China, to add expensive drag to the context, everyone in DC knows the US can't stop China from taking Taiwan if they want it.

And China is going to keep getting stronger in most respects for the next decade or two. During that time Russia will be entirely stagnant, and so will most of Europe. China will tower over everyone except the US (China will have an economy twice the size of the EU given a few decades). The US will be borderline stagnant (average US growth will continue to push toward zero across this decade and next, a long-term trend), as it can't afford its present level of military spending or government spending at all. Meanwhile China's military spending and capabilities will expand while the US capabilities go sideways or contract. China knows all of this, time is on their side.

What's left? Nothing. Attempts would be feeble at best, it would change nothing. We're 30 years past the time to try to flip or contain China, if it was ever possible to begin with. The sole reason to blockade China today (politically, economically), is for your own moral reasons (which is an entirely fine reason), not to try to change China (which isn't possible) or otherwise meaningfully restrict them. The West de facto blockaded Soviet Russia for decades, however that's not what stopped them, that's not what collapsed their system. The West barely traded with the USSR. It took 3/4 of a century for that monstrosity to fail regardless. China's system is at least several times more sustainable at this point than the USSR ever was, and dramatically more potent economically.

Whatever change might happen in China will be of their own doing. Whatever leadership follows Xi will be the next opportunity for the people of China to have a shot at altering their trajectory. That could easily be decades away yet. China is unlikely to ever liberalize, the best you're ever going to get is either Deng Xiaoping or Xi/Mao in terms of authoritarianism; it's for exactly the same reason Russia will never liberalize, there is no other means to hold their territory together other than through authoritarianism, it would immediately begin to unspool otherwise. Things that would not exist organically/naturally (such as the USSR, or Russia's present territory), will cease to exist unless you hold them together through great actions of force. Tibet and Hong Kong do not willingly belong to China, nor will Taiwan, as an example of that in action.

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hong Kong (not even China!) Hong Kong is China since 1997 with same nationality law that's the reason its called one country and two systems. Obviously the thin layer between two system is getting thinner, because like any law, basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be. I believe all of this is happening given China does not want to be another USSR. Hong Kong was used as a lau…

What city in the USSR was equivalent to Hong Kong? I am not aware of any cities in the USSR that enjoyed freedom of the press and an independent judiciary at the level that Hong Kong did prior to the NSL crackdowns.

I have no idea but maybe west Germany?

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They graciously agreed to return them for China Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.

The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. It's not a question of who "should" own Hong Kong based on some centuries old history. It's a question of who the people of Hong Kong choose to govern them. Had an open referendum been held in 1997, it's almost certainly the case that the citizenry would not have voted to return to the tutelage of the dictatorship in Beijing.

Given most of the pro democracy groups are funded by the CIA/NED, I really doubt that.

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#37
post #25

Well deserved. Apple Daily is not pro democrazy but pro-chaos. It routinely manufatures fake news and rumors that only matched by the mainstream fake news. I'm all for pro democrazy. But there is a clear line between pushing a democratic agenda for the benefit of Hong Kong people and that of provoking dissidents at any opportunity possible with whatever means possible, to foster agendas by local tycoons and foreign i…

>> It routinely manufatures fake news and rumors...

For which there is and should be plenty of room in a functioning society that is free to voice its opinion, however "pro-chaos".

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hong Kong (not even China!) Hong Kong is China since 1997 with same nationality law that's the reason its called one country and two systems. Obviously the thin layer between two system is getting thinner, because like any law, basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be. I believe all of this is happening given China does not want to be another USSR. Hong Kong was used as a lau…

China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047. Beijing is in flagrant violations of its international treaty obligations. The New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but Britain was under no obligation to transfer Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back at any time for any reason. They graciously agreed to return them for China,…

> China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047

Independence in domestic matters is still there in Hong Kong, as it was before 1997 (at that time also chief executive is not elected). Hong Kong earlier worked under common law system and it still has the same system (China system is continental law system). Nationality law was enacted using provisions of basic law which provided a thin layer between one country and two systems. Also this is in response to threats of using Hong Kong as launch pad for attack on China in cold war.

> They graciously agreed to return them for China

Lived long enough in Hong Kong to know it was anything but gracious. UK left because they milked enough from Hong Kong and risking a war with China for a small gains were not worthwhile.

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#39
post #3

This is another nail in the coffin of the Hong Kong we knew and loved… I was a resident for many years, I witnessed the peaceful protests of 2014, I witnessed horrifying wanton violence in 2019, I witnessed the rapid destruction of the freest laissez faire city state in the world. Above all I feel great sadness for the people of Hong Kong. The CCP cannot tolerate any dissenting voices as a matter of preserving their…

While I agree, as a current resident, I also witnessed the insane destructive behavior of Apple Daily, who did exagerate quite a bit the situation and was far from a neutral observer. I'd even say that telling kids the police murdered 2000 people was not exactly helping them strategize rather than throw themselves in desperate waves at the police... These guys all pushed the situation towards a point of no return for the communists, which could have been instead worked around.

Ofc a strong and self assured nation would be able to swallow it, and China shows us how weak and self doubting it is, but I won't cry too many tears for that newspaper.

I'm even a tad annoyed Lai is presented as a glorious press freedom figure when I felt reading it that it was on the abusive side of freedom. I guess we all need now to redraw the line at which we collaborate vs resist and Im not yet at the resist stage.

Re: HK's Apple Daily raided by 500 officers over national security law

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's inevitable. There is no chance the CCP will allow a free press under it's umbrella. They just need to find the right bit of populism to excuse the rundown i.e. 'They are causing sanctions'. They'll get no sympathy on the mainland, and in HK they'll try to go on as normal as though it did not happen. What the 'Rest of the World' should do is just recognize that HK is not 'China' and remove their special access to…

Do they need HK as long as there are no sanctions otherwise?

HK is the financial gateway between China and the Rest of the World and that's how most foreign direct investment happens.

It's because HK is open to the world and also China, but ROW not really open to China.

China, by 'taking over HK' really implies that HK shouldn't really enjoy fee access to world markets.

This is unlikely to change though as the situation benefits everyone financial and it's not based on human rights rather it was based on transparency, commercial law, accounting standards etc..

So as long as investors stay protected, that commercial law remains in place, they can get their money out, that balance sheets still mean what they did before ... it's probably just going to stay that way.

China doesn't need to change those things to control HK, all they need to do is clamp down on the political system and eject anyone 'causing trouble'. Which they can do.

If China went after foreign account holders, or if vaporware mainland accounting standards start showing up in HK companies it may eventually be a problem, but I don't see why that would change.

Due to the fact the lease to UK was a set timeframe, China holds all the cards here.

Post reply on HN