Hacker News Reader

Thank you for pointing this out.

Many outside of Hong Kong are unaware of the outrageous level of income and wealth inequality and poverty. While the extradition bill was certainly the proximate cause of the protest movement, the underlying dissatisfaction with declining quality of life and lack of opportunity for the majority of the population amplified the reaction dramatically and helps keep them going.

To better understand the socio-economic situation in Hong Kong, I highly recommend reading the summary of the Oxfam Hong Kong Inequality Report:

https://www.oxfam.org.hk/en/f/news_and_publication/16372/Oxf...

A few stats:

- One-fifth (20.1%) of the population is destitute and living below the poverty line (defined as ~USD 500/month). Post recurrent government intervention, that number comes down to 14.7%.

- Median wage is ~USD 2k / month, minimum wage is USD4.80/hr

- The average cost of renting a 400 square foot flat is ~USD 2k / month.

- An estimated 209,000 people (3% of the population) live in what are colloquially referred to as cage and coffin homes. These are individual rooms illegally subdivided by vertical wiremesh fences (cage home) and sometimes further subdivided verticaly (coffin home).

- 57% of 18-30 year old residents indicated they would like to emigrate if given the opportunity.

https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/so461.jsp

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/01/19/209700-people-live-sub...

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/10/06/hong-kongs-wealth-gap-...

Britain wanted to give HK democracy in the 1960s, but China said they would invade.

Britain democratized and/or gave independence to basically every other colony at that time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...

I already commented on this issue on another post so won't repeat again.

Britain never had intention to give democracy to Hong Kong which will require it to make economic contributions to a colony. Their first priority has always been to safeguard their own economic interests. [1]

[1] https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1419999...

Your comment doesn't explain why the British wouldn't have democratized Hong Kong when they did for all their other colonies at that time. And the SCMP is not a reliable source when it comes to British rule of Hong Kong.

Did you read the article I linked? It talked about the 1960s and china warning britain it would invade if democracy were attempted.

Your article is about the 1997 handover and how britain had limited room for maneuver. It absolutely does nit say what you say it says.

You mean to say Britain was so scared by China in 1960 that from 1960 to 1997 it could not grant autonomy, economic and political freedoms to Hong Kong. I am not sure what stopped them to democratically elect a Hong Kong CEO, which is an appointed head without any people involvement until Chris Patten in 1997.

Even during cultural revolution when China was going through famine, Britain could not do anything.

The declassified papers if you read whole, you will find that Britain did not fight for Hong Kong democracy because it will require economic contribution to Hong Kong and will impact Britain's economy.

Britain has never wanted democracy for India too the largest colonial example. It was its people who declared in 1921, quit India movement, they left because one can't govern person who doesn't want at any cost.

Indeed before leaving Britain did make sure India remains a divided country so that it does not challenge the Britain in future. India and the resulting Pakistan and Bangladesh still suffer the consequences.

>You mean to say Britain was so scared by China in 1960 that from 1960 to 1997 it could not grant autonomy, economic and political freedoms to Hong Kong.

Yes? China had beaten off the US in the Korean war and was a massive land power in the region.

Britain had just suffered a humiliating setback in the Suez crisis if 1956 and basically abandoned all imperial ambition.

More specifically related to HK, Britain withdraw almost all military forces "Easy of Suez". They were powerless in the east and both they and China knew it.

You yourself mention "fighting" for HK democracy, implying it wasn't their choice to make, really.

You're mixing timeframes by referring to India. They gained independence in 1948. My argument was the by the 1960s Britain was democratizing as colonies, having given up the empire. It's not unusual that Britain didn't give Hong Kong democracy in 1920. It is unusual that they didn't give it democracy in 1960 or 1970.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_of_Suez

As I said in my earlier comments please read through the declassified documents completely. Britain has no interest in giving democracy at the expense of its economic interests.

Even from 1960-1997, Hong Kong has been a cash cow, profit generating colony for Britain. So those interests were also very important.

> You're mixing timeframes by referring to India.

India is just an example of what does Britain meant by giving democracy to its colonies and for safeguarding its own interests. There is nothing noble about it, and what is happening in Hong Kong is just the repercussions of Britain's selfish economic interests. In history 22 years cannot be compared with 150 years, and it very well shows how Britain looked after the interests of Hong Kong and filled its own coffers.

I will agree with your one point that people of Hong Kong should have asked for autonomy and political freedom since 1960 or even earlier like other British colony with mass movements, they didn't.

But at least today Britain can come out and show a gesture to Hong Kong permanent residents from whom it profited for 150 years, by really granting them unconditional permanent residence in Britain.

Be careful of the pro-china anti UK comments on social media.

The facts are MUCH clearer, the Britain has a demonstrated history of moving former colonies to democracy. China does not.

Not sure why this makes the issue Britain's.

Was it a democracy when it was a colony?

No. As the article says, communist China threatened to invade if Britain made any moves in that direction in the 1960s.

Since people have downvoted this, here's text straight from article:

"The documents, part of a batch of typewritten diplomatic dispatches requested by reporters from two Hong Kong newspapers, reveal that Chinese leaders were so opposed to the prospect of a democratic Hong Kong that they threatened to invade should London attempt to change the status quo."

> Britain is as much to blame for this situation,

Anybody who doesn't think that modern Britain is the world's ultimate supervillain has a dramatically-warped view of history. But the blood on British hands and Britain's current denial/abdication of responsibility is the geopolitical backdrop of pretty much the entire non-Western world, and it's unfortunately pretty much immaterial to the situation on the ground.

It's a backdrop to a lot of the Western and Latin American world as well.

The people running Britain then are mostly dead. Are you saying that subsequent generations of individuals and leaders can’t have new opinions and that they wouldn’t do things differently today?

I'd say the protest is motivated by both, the economic issues (inequality, housing costs), and the political issues (gradual decline of civil liberties, encroaching Chinese influence).

The notion that Britain is to blame for the situation is interesting. Sir John James Cowperthwaite [1] introduced very laissez-faire economic policies in the 1960's (he famously refused to collect economics statistics (such as GDP numbers), as he argued that they'd just encourage technocratic government officials to meddle with the economy).

First, this tells us that libertarian ideas have their limits. They arguably made HK rich back then (but note that many other economies were growing rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s, with far more left-leaning policies; the USA had a marginal tax rate of 70% for the highest earners in those decades and grew just fine).

Second, it is well known that Britain tried to grant Hong Kong more autonomy and democracy way back then, but was thwarted by China in that. Furthermore, the democratic reforms Britain instituted before the handover were promptly revoked by China.

Thirdly, Hong Kong has been a Chinese SAR (special administrative region) for over 20 years by now. To blame Britain for the current conundrum is a bit far-fetched.

Note by the way that several Hong Kong protest leaders have been granted asylum in Germany.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Cowperthwaite

or see the recent book about him:

https://www.amazon.com/Architect-Prosperity-John-Cowperthwai...

I feel like you list conflicting reasons. I imagine as in most situations there is more than one root cause and this is a multi-factor problem.

Economic inequality may be one of the contributing economic factors.

Regarding your statement "Britain is as much to blame for this situation, they never had intention to grant autonomy". This statement does not touch on economic inequality but autonomy of the state. From what I can tell Hong Kong diverged from China on a cultural level where by many would idenify as being from Hong Kong over China which has a more homogeneous culture. You go on to say "they were very clever, as they did in every colony, to let the subsequent administration take the blame" which makes it sound as if a key objective of the transistion was to ensure subsequent administrations were to blame which is far fetched. This statement is followed by: "But they are the one to blame" where you put 100% of the blame on Britain.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Economic inequality and no hope for future triggers world wars and revolutions. This bears same signs.

If you see China as a single homogeneous place then there is no point to even argue. Even two individuals are not same painting 1.4 billion people with single brush, I can't even fathom.

Hong Kong is similar in culture to few parts of China not all of China. As China is also diverse in it's own way.

Hong Kong does differ in administration, judiciary and education which is still same in Hong Kong as granted under basic law. Today most of Hong Kong people are with Chinese Nationality i.e. Hong Kong passport with Chinese Nationality and all accepted on their own accord not by force.

I do put 100% blame on British for current situation, when they reaped profits and economic benefit for 150 years, they left without significant economic or political reforms in Hong Kong on the contrary worked to safeguard their own economic interests. They didn't put a fight, because it will cost them economically.

Did not offer British citizenship to all the Hong Kong people who wanted to choose British Nationality in 1997, which indicates they just considered Hong Kong as a colony for profit and economic exploitation only. That's the reason my point if Britain has any remorse and sympathy should grant British Nationality to all Hong Kong permanent residents, whether they take it or not is another issue.

Indeed British should pay reparations to Hong Kong like they owe it to other colonies. [1]

[1] https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2050394/does-...

> If you see China as a single homogeneous place then there is no point to even argue.

I said "more homogeneous". Please re-read my statement.

EDIT - You make it sound like I completely disagree with you regarding the implicatications of economic inequality. I do not. I said it may be a contributing factor to a complicated issue. Clearly there are cultural differences between HK and China.

I am not sure you have a firm grasp of English.

>Indeed British should pay reparations to Hong Kong like they owe it to other colonies

Hong Kong has a higher GDP per capita (46k USD source: World Bank) than either the UK (40k USD) or China (9k USD). So Hong Kong has been independent of the UK for 22 years and is richer than both the UK and China. Yet the current situation is 100% the fault of the British!? This screams victimhood.

From what I can tell, the people of Hong Kong are industrious, intelligent and hard working. The fact that inequality is so high is that the rich are richer than ever before. Are you telling me that the people of Hong Kong and China in the 22 years since independence had no say in the governing and running of the country?! That they made no choices in how the country was run? That they share no responsbility?

Often when things go wrong in former colonies, the people, rather than take responsbility and move forward in a constructive manner, they blame all their problems on the imperialists. Of course, the successes are of their own making but the mistakes and misfortune are laid at the feet of imperialists who have and will cause their country to suffer for forever more no matter what they do.

This is not a binary issues so I'm not saying countries like Britain are not at fault. The answer is far more nuanced and not black and white like you painted. In order for people to to make a change to their lives they need to take responsbility for their own actions.

As an example, Ireland has suffered under British rule for ~700 years but is now a successful, thriving, independent country.

>> Ireland

Is it? You can find a straight-face porn studio next to a LinkedIn office and an embassy in Dublin.

Guess who’s paying taxes?

On a relative basis, I would say Ireland has done well. There are hundreds of countries which are worst off. It's easy to be critical. Name any major top 10 country and I could give you a litany of faults...

This is some elaborate whataboutism that lets China (which has had control over Hong Kong for 22 years) entirely off the hook, or even praises the just-as-imperialist Chinese government.

You're not even wrong about Britain, which is why this kind of whataboutism is so effective.

Bravo. It's awesome that what will soon be the most powerful country in the world will be able to imperialize with impunity since they can always point to the past crimes of the West.

>> Hopefully they can correct the mistake by granting full citizenship to Hong Kong permanent residents who wants it, otherwise whatever they say is a farce. Same goes for USA, if they want solidarity with Hong Kong protestors grant them unconditional asylum or permanent residence, rest all talks are worthless.

This is something we should all be advocating for.

How do we start?

Good question. Given that the concept of asylum has been demonized by the current administration in the US, seems like the first step is electing the opposition party and demanding that they express their sympathies for HK protestors with legislation instead of words, thoughts and prayers.

We need to help evacuate Hong Kong and offer asylum and citizenships in the USA, Japan, Canada, etc to anyone who wants to flee totalitarianism.

So why haven't the protesters said this is one of their main issues?

Universal suffrage is a great way to get a lot of this changed. If your only choices for CEO are billionaires or their friends, there isn’t much you can do (if you can vote at all).

True but does not come close to addressing why this isn't even talked about - yeah it's not great in HK but let's not pretend that the Chinese are some sort of saviours.

if you can vote at all

You cannot, when it comes to the executive branch. The Chief Executive is "elected" by a ~1200 person election committee, which is heavily stacked in the interest of business and Beijing.

The candidates must be nominated by the same committee, and must be supportive of the central government (China).

In reality, the central government liaison office does whatever is necessary to ensure their preferred candidate is elected.

Economic issue should have been raised in protest and could have converted to mass movement to reject a house of car park size or make it illegal for developer to build such home. Force government through peaceful protest to take measures like Singapore for house, health and education.

Universal suffrage is not a panacea, indeed in many democracies money decides who become the head of state. In two largest democracy USA and India its not possible to win elections without the support of billionaire or being a billionaire.

Funny part in Hong Kong Uber is illegal and Taxi license is traded at astronomical prices and govt can't do anything due to powerful taxi union lobby (consisting mostly of taxi owners), they also involve in HK CEO election. In universal suffrage it will still be similar large number of bodies with vested interests.

So a structural change won't happen unless it's really part of the protest.

Recently read one another view on democracy quite interesting, although do not agree with it. [1]

[1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-ros...

Are you familiar with Hong Kong's public housing system? [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Hong_Kong

I am pretty familiar with it and how it failed the Hong Kong people, when government worked in the interest of billionaire real estate developers. The house ownership ratio will itself reveal the reality.

Singapore learned from Hong Kong but did it much better and today one of the best example of public housing (they call it Housing Development Board - HDB). I will not go into details but its a topic of its own to discuss issues of Hong Kong real estate and get rich quick ideas based on it.

The same reason young, social media savvy altrighters in the west dog-whistle. There's parallels in HK nativism behind these protests similar to your familiar altright talking points. A bunch of mainland immigrants "locusts" to HK to buy up real estate and perverting civilized colonial values. At the end of the day, it's a bunch of ignorant kids stewing over lost economic and social privileges and reminiscing about an era they never experienced and realities that never existed. They dress up the root of dissatisfaction as a noble pursuit for suffrage because they are naive students who got radicalized on semester of liberal studies informed by western textbooks without understanding greater economic / geopolitical ground truths.

40 years ago, while mainland was still agrarian, HK had an industrial base and competitive advantage that supported a working class. Then Detroit happened to HK, and the only socially and economically "valuable" people left are tycoons and bankers. Now you have a generation of kids trying to subsist in one of the most inequitable cities in the world, too stubborn to pursue all the opportunities afforded to them in exploding mainland sectors where their English proficiency and western cultural connections will give them huge advantages. Instead they live with their parents in tiny apartments with nothing better to do but protest destructively while utilizing their valuable English skills and cultural competencies to brigade western social media in a counterproductive effort to hold off the increasing irrelevance of their city state like living in a world class / Chinese tier1 city is a birthright.

Or you know, they could be protesting HK law being totally subverted with the new extradition bill.

This comment is extremely pro-China.

> The same reason young, social media savvy altrighters in the west dog-whistle. There's parallels in HK nativism behind these protests similar to your familiar altright talking points.

Yeah I stopped reading after this. The only person talking like an alt-right is you.

The fact that you think Hk people think mainlander are “locust” reflects a lot about your perspective and upbringing.

In fact, I have only heard mainlanders on the streets calling these protesters “cockroaches”. Not the other way around. I am neither pro or against these protestors.

I hope you seek the help you need. Mental health is no joke.

I'd rather apply occam's razor to the situation. As a result, I believe the student's own articulated reasons for their dissatisfaction.

Also, they're putting their lives and bodies on the line for this, the least we can do is extend them good faith.

If you're going to use the analogy of the west's alt-right movement, you need to explain what and who the eastern equivalent entrenched political and financial interests who would benefit from stoking protest/populism amongst the students. Without those components, you're comparing apples to badgers.

Same reason why the rich-controlled media manage to get the 99% in the US to be too busy calling each other bigots and nazis instead of fighting for their common economic cause.

Nonsense diatribe with little substance and totally fails to explain anything. Why even bother?

Can you really blame the British who left HK 22 years ago? I mean China claims to be an actual Communist country and Communism is at least to some degree incompatible with "[t]he whole economy [...] under the control of 14 rich billionaires." Even though there's the Basic Law providing a degree of separation, could the Chinese not have at least influenced the direction of inequality over 22 years?

I am quite surprised that the Chinese have allowed the crony capitalism that the Hong Kong Government system is based on to continue unabated.

The continually rising levels of inequality that it has generated have been an obvious risk to social stability for a long time, which presumably the CCP are very keen to maintain.

The government and press regularly celebrate achieving the title of "Freest economy on earth" (top place for the last 25 years). What is less frequently mentioned is that Hong Kong tops the Economist's Crony Capitalist Index, ahead of Russia in second place. [2]

With respect to the British, the structure of the government (functional constituencies etc.) can certainly be traced back to them. And as highlighted this SCMP article that examines the cozy business/government relationship in light of the protests [3]:

The roots of Hong Kong’s entangled ties between business and politics can be traced to the city’s colonial history, when hometown business elites were also local community leaders, endorsed and endowed by administrators with influence and leadership roles.

In the city’s first post-colonial administration after 1997, businessmen made up eight of the 11 non-official members of Tung Chee-hwa’s cabinet. The ratio was little changed at 70 per cent under Tung’s successor Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, falling to half during Leung Chun-ying’s term from 2012 to 2017.

[1] https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201901/25/P2019012500772...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony-capitalism_index#2016

[3] https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3025260/developers-cos...

> I am quite surprised that the Chinese have allowed the crony capitalism that the Hong Kong Government system is based on to continue unabated.

Eh? You have a similar crony capitalist system in mainland China, don't you.

And the understanding in HK is that there is sort of tacit "gentlemen's agreement" between Beijing and the HK elites:

Beijing doesn't interfere too much with the rich and powerful in HK and their (continued) ability to rake in money, while those rich and powerful refrain from supporting or advocating for more democracy etc. In other words, both sides are pretty interested in the continuation of the status quo.

You do indeed, but the the power distribution is far from even, as many a Chinese tycoon has discovered when they've come out on the wrong side of Beijing and found themselves in prison. There are always laws that can be selectively brought to bear when required.

My point is that the rich and powerful in HK are unlikely to do anything that irks Beijing. They don't need to be bribed into cooperating and will do as they are told regardless.

The risk to social stability of the status quo and the liklihood of it putting a significant portion of the population on the streets protesting seems a much greater risk.

So called communist societies are the most unequal in the world. Let's not pretend that communism is anything but an authoritarian state ran by a few people for their own profit and power. A few people own everything and everyone else owns nothing. That's been communism in every single instance it has ever manifested itself in the world. Reducing inequality is the last thing in the world communists want to do. Come to think of it, it's not that much different from the extreme capitalism practiced in the US and other places in that way but that's a different point.