China passes Hong Kong “patriot” election law
axios.com
axios.com
What to do? Perhaps more explicit instructions will help. I've put together the following algorithm. Bug reports and pull requests are welcome.
Before you comment on a topic like this, please follow these simple steps:
(1) Read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, which describes the intended use of HN.
(2) If you understand that flamebait, name-calling, ideological rhetoric, nationalistic rhetoric, and flamewar are off topic on HN regardless of how right you are or feel you are, go to step 3. Otherwise go to step 1.
(3) If you understand that anything which has been repeated many times is off topic here (example: "$x is evil" for any popular or unpopular $x), go to step 4. Otherwise please see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... and then go to step 1.
(4) If you think I might be posting this because I'm secretly a foreign agent, communist, racist, or $x-sympathizer, go to step 1.
(5) You now have enough information to know whether or not you want to use HN as intended. If you do, great! skip the remaining steps. If you don't, proceed to step 6.
(6) It's ok if you don't want to use HN as intended, but in that case please don't damage HN by posting to it. This ecosystem is fragile and needs protecting. You wouldn't drop a lit match in a dry forest, dump engine oil in a mountain lake, or litter in a city park, so please don't do the equivalent here. Plenty of other platforms are designed for engagement-above-all and will welcome your posts. Pick one of those and comment there instead.
HN isn't optimized for engagement—it's for curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). That's a softer and more delicate feeling than the ones which drive internet flamewars, and it requires a baseline of kindness, openness, and respect in order to function. Not engaging is always an option here, and not engaging in ways that destroy the commons is a necessity. Before you hit "add comment" or "reply", ask yourself "is curiosity what I am feeling right now?" If the answer is no, please wait for that to change.
One wonders how long can CCP keep doing the same thing again and again. I guess we shall see.
My heart goes to those in HK.
Unfortunately the west stopped caring HK right as the COVID19 situation started, and barely got any press since then.
Following the events was sheer pain, and at some point you have to cut the stream because it really was despair pouring in news after news.
The world needs to realize the CCP is a truly evil party and if let uncountered, it would eventually engulf the whole liberal, democratic western socieites.
The CCP taking over now vs. after 2046 was the only predictable outcome here, but the freedom to speak your mind and disagree without threat of physical harm was lost before.
EDIT: The predictable downvoting without replying shows the downvoters don't refute the facts, being that protesters physically attack others who disagree. That's not democracy.
I think with major protest movements, the question becomes, is the cause worth the unrest? Unrest is a negative in itself, and always results in, at mnimum, damage to property and disruption of life and also more often than not injury and death. Some causes do justify some violence, but not every good cause justifies the unrest it produces. I do feel like China's illiberal and repressive attitude, including detentions, shutting down almost all forms of political speech, and, yes, violence do justify the (really, I think) relatively restrained HK protest movement.
If you're reading this in China, or are native Chinese, I ask you...do you feel there would be consequences for you if you spoke up in defense of the protests? Put aside whether you think the protests are a good idea or not. If you defended them publicly, what would happen? Whether or not you support the protests, I think you should consider that question, and decide if you like the answer.
And, yes, the US isn't all unicorns and rainbows. We may be moving in an illiberal direction ourselves. But we're not quite there yet, and there are still people here who can speak up, and even make a career, criticizing the, I'll just say it, evil decisions of our government.
That's not true. There have been countless violent protests that have destroyed shops owned by mainland companies (like bakeries, nothing particularly nationalistic), set fire to and destroyed MTR (subway) stations, thrown petrol bombs at other unarmed civilians who disagreed and the police of course, and beat a guy in the head with a large pipe for removing bricks in the road. They even videotaped this because they were so proud of their actions. The people they severely burned were ridiculed in online forums (calling them "barbecue", etc.). Hundreds of posters chimed in and liked replies like this.
At the end of the day many people on that side will argue that each case of violence against other citizens was just undercover police trying to make them look bad, or just an isolated incident. It's like saying "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" on the CNN chyron. People can't credibly claim to be "for democracy" will silencing critics with violence. Otherwise anyone can claim to be a/for democracy, and who is anyone to say they aren't? Might as well add the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the German Democratic Republic (former East Germany), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the list.
| ... is the cause worth the unrest? ... and, yes, violence do justify the (really, I think) relatively restrained HK protest movement.
I'm repeating myself here, but violence against fellow citizens is not justified in the name of democracy. Democracy would be the ideal outcome for HK, obviously, but neither the protesters nor the CCP are offering a path to that. It's possible for both sides to be bad. Quoting another poster in this thread:
"If we cannot beat them, at least we should get to see it burn to ground."
Well, guess what? Many people in HK aren't up for destroying everything in their lives and don't agree with the "protesters". Does their opinion not count, while they're claiming to care about democracy?
Quoting the same person:
"I think the best move for us HKers is to work overseas whenever possible."
So these protesters want to destroy everything they can in HK, and _then leave_. Thanks for nothing I guess. Perhaps they should change the order - leave for another country, then start assaulting people and setting things on fire. Maybe elsewhere they will be prosecuted and face justice for their actions.
| And, yes, the US isn't all unicorns and rainbows. We may be moving in an illiberal direction ourselves.
There needs to be an absolute standard for what's acceptable in a democracy, so it's not necessary to compare HK to the US or the US to anywhere else, but since you mention the US it's worth mentioning CHAZ in Seattle. There is absolutely zero chance that something like CHAZ could secede from the US had they wanted to do that. It's equally naive to believe that China would relinquish Hong Kong, or that any other nation would do anything other than write a strongly worded letter if the PLA were to move in and take over. Hong Kong _did_ have an agreement to have a separate way of life until 2046, but the CCP finally got the perfect excuse to move that date up by 25 years. Losing 25 years of relative autonomy with nothing to show for it was decidedly _not_ worth it.
| If you're reading this in China, or are native Chinese, I ask you...do you feel there would be consequences for you if you spoke up in defense of the protests? Put aside whether you think the protests are a good idea or not. If you defended them publicly, what would happen? Whether or not you support the protests, I think you should consider that question, and decide if you like the answer.
It's ok if you don't want to address it, but maybe you shall take some time to think about why.
Please follow https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26637365 in the future.
From CCP's point of view, there is absolutely no advantage in giving democracy to citizens of HK. The only objective of HK is to be (economically) "prosperous" and "stable, quoting from official slogans.
Many mainlanders come to HK for its high salary, often more than double that of Shenzhen and Shanghai, and even more compared to smaller cities in China. I think the salary of professionals in HK exceeds at least Taiwan, Japan, some of Europe, among others.
Last year's District Council elections resulted in a landslide of anti-establishment getting in office. Then CCP decided this is not acceptable and stripped them of the right to vote for the head of HK. But this view is never shared in the years before, where the District Council is filled with pro-establishment parties like DAB.
Considering economical "prosperity" is the only metric of success as seen by CCP to HK, no wonder they are doing this move to further make HK "stable".
That said, I think the best move for us HKers is to work overseas whenever possible. Shameless plug: HKU EE/CS graduate here up for hire.
If we cannot beat them, at least we should get to see it burn to ground. Laam Chau.
I mean just look at here: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Hong-Kong/... Basically safer by an order of magnitude.
It is not just the media, many western countries are unacceptably unsafe relative to their wealth and that includes the US. I mean, when you have to lock a bike with a lock that is heavier and more expensive than the bike itself, there is a problem. Going to low-crime country is always a pleasure and I would understand Hong-Kongers for refusing to leave for that reason.
That said, it makes sense that someone from a city-state that was formerly part of the british commonwealth would want to move (back) to the commonwealth.
One example: the higher education systems within the commonwealth are more interlinked and university degrees more widely recognised across borders. I'm sure there are many more benefits as well.
Also, most of the physical violence in the US is restricted to specific cities or areas within larger cities which you should generally be able to avoid.
Regarding ethnic violence against Asians, it's even more inflated by the media. The statistics don't support the narrative of regular violence against people from Asia:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in...
*) Unless the media sensationalism is from the US media against China. What happens on US streets, regardless how awful it is, is always nothing, but as soon as a single person protests in Hong Kong it's a human tragedy.
That's incorrect, a misleading exaggeration. In any ranking about safety, it does not occupy the extreme end, but around the median or average.
It would be accurate to say that the US, in the international comparison, is at best a somewhat safe place.
I don't agree with your characterization of overall safety based on ranking positions. The US, as a few other countries, has very localized violence and that sharply skews averages. This means that it's quite possible to live in a safe area even within notoriously violent cities (which often have high violence numbers in relatively small areas).
Also, by international standards, the US has very accurate reporting and crime statistics. So while you can see a few countries with surprisingly lower violence numbers, don't assume you are comparing apples to apples in terms of how accurate these countries' statistics are.
So while it's true that in aggregate the US doesn't sit well in safety rankings, this doesn't mean that a clear majority of the country isn't extremely safe - as in the chances of you suffering violent crime being very low by international standards.
By the way - I'm not saying it's okay to have localized violence. However, it's quite possible, and easy, to enjoy very high safety levels in the US even if you are not rich (while this isn't necessarily the case if you are poor due to limitations on where you can live).
If you want to improve, then you first have to admit to the problem and not make excuses.
Unless someone from HK has a good reason to want to move to the US then all of Scandinavia, most of Europe, some of Asia and some of America outside the US would be a way safer choice.
Anyway, the streets are fine.
China doesn't seem to be a big problem in any other country across the globe. Strange. It's also quite funny how so many more countries in the world are afraid of the USA, particularly those with oil reserves and other natural resources.
Huh?
The people of Hong Kong have a claim to the land of Hong Kong. The people of I don't know, Shanghai have a claim to the land of Shanghai. The People's Republic of China doesn't even "by all rights" have a claim to the mainland. They do have de facto control. They have de jure control in the broad international view. The don't "by all rights" have control over anything, not over Taiwan, not over Hong Kong, not over Shanghai or Beijing. What does "by all rights" even mean?
That said, the US doesn't have "by all rights" have control over its entire territory either (native Americans, Hawaii, etc., etc.), but Hong Kong is meant to be in a special situation until at least 2047 by international treaty and beyond that by the people who reside there having a claim to the land they reside on and have since well before the founding of the PRC.
t. non-BNO-Holder.
It will be very interesting to see if the rest of the world allows Hong Kong to maintain it's independent financial status or if HK is considered 'China'.
[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/world/a-record-flight-of-capit...
Anyway it has been so for several thousands years of totalitarian rules. There is no way out of that horrible culture. Hong Kong showed them a more liberal way of life. Taiwan showed them the more Democratic way of life. Instead they choose to use power and a system with no succession rule. It is karma of that culture. An ever looping of bad luck, prosperity then chaos.
Cry my beloved city.
Either the people of China, even after a lifetime rule by the great CCP, are somehow inherently worse by those above criteria than those in all functioning democracies or they're being played like a fiddle, gaslit like no one's ever been gaslit before.
Achieve results, Because this is the natural way. Achieve results, But not through violence.
Force is followed by loss of strength. This is not the way of Tao. That which goes against the Tao comes to an early end.
-Lao Tzu
Perchance there is an empirical relationship when a population grows to a sufficiently large n that sneakiness would be rightfully ignored as a function of implicitness, which is perhaps the trajectory in which hn-as-a-community is embracing a more reddit-ish sentiment. Hmm I guess it's a feature and not a bug?
They tore up the agreement when it became expedient (they declared "historical document of no significance") to do so.
That will be shortest war ever. If China does an embargo on Taiwan and encircles it, there's nothing that Taiwan could do in the long run. They will be forced to negotiate. And you can bet the US has no intention to intervene.
This wasn't the one I read but there's plenty like it:
https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-...
Chinese economy is also completely dependent on imports. US does not need sail its carriers to Taiwan, it needs to park half a dozen attack subs on Chinese trade routes. Same applies to Taiwanese program to build indigenous electric subs with help of Japan, once even few those are complete the equation changes completely.
PRC has no chance in hell for an amphibious landing operation in Taiwan. So this is going to take quite a while.
Having said that US resolve switches around every 4 years so given a proper timing they might sit it out. However there are some interesting consequences. Japan will test a nuclear weapon and a delivery system and commence crash manufacturing program to assemble an arsenal in matter of weeks. US will get kicked out from Okinawa and mainland Japan and most likely a containment alliance between India, Japan and Australia will become not just paper but more like NATO with Joint command, staff, plans etc. I wonder what Vietnam will do, lets hope for their sake they have a secret nuclear program.
PRC would easily have air superiority in no time.
Landing a modern military force ashore then suplying it requires immense naval capacity that PRC just does not have. They could obtain it but such buildup would be impossible to hide and would take time. Not to mention you need to practice actually doing it.. before D-day allies landed in Diep, in NA, Sicily and Italy. From zero to landing on beaches in Taiwan would make Galipolee seem like height of military genius.
Taiwan is now building their own long range missiles to enable them to counter-attack strategic locations (marine bases etc) along the China mainland coast. A war would be devastating to China, both economically and to their military. Trying to actually invade Taiwan would incur huge loses considering how defensible Taiwan is. If Taiwan managed to weaken them, it's a real possibility that the US will step in to defend. And most likely China would have to back off if the US made anything resembling a serious threat. The US has stepped into global conflicts for far less. A war or embargo on Taiwan would be the biggest crisis in the international economy since the oil crisis of the 1970s.
I'm split on whether China would actually do this. I'm certain it'd be a huge mistake, but the CCP has no regard for what's reasonable outside of their own self-preservation. They are facing the biggest senior citizen boom in history, and they have really not built up their economy well enough to face it. They're getting stuck in an unfortunate situation where they want to move low-value manufacturing out of China to continue to grow. But they have not built up enough international trust to do high-value design and manufacturing for export. Not at a scale that'd support one billion people. It's possible that the CCP will make moves on Taiwan to drum up support and distract from a growing economic crisis. It might work, but the Chinese people are not stupid. They'd not be happy. I don't think a large peoples uprising is likely, but it could destabilize the party internally, shifting power from one faction to another. It'd be extremely destabilizing, and stability and economic prosperity is really the main thing that has built support for the CCP.
There's a small chance that it'd trigger some uprising in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Hong Kong too.
The US will make a lot of noise, but I’m going to say there’d be no hot war between the US and China.
Also, I suspect the PRC will do a fair bit of soft work before making that move. You’ll see pro PRC activism rise in Taiwan so that an invasion no longer seems so black and white.
Now, if China ever made a move on Japan, things would be different. But I don’t see that happening. Once China has Taiwan, they control the waters in that area, and there is no need to invade Japan. Japan would basically have to comply with China at that point.
From there, China just does their thing, expanding their sphere of influence, etc, taking over small targets that won’t raise too much ire from the rest of the world.
Anyway, if we’re making predictions, that’s my current one.
Pro-PRC activism is so dead that even anti-CCP activism in the form of the KMT is starting to look on life support.
Yeah, there's media organisations that have ties with the PRC and CCP. There's businesspeople that do. But the population at large is more and more that of the fiercely sovereign independent nation of Taiwan.
Saying Taiwan is an independent country would "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people" is more and more like saying Austria is an independent country would "hurt the feelings of the German people".
The 1938 Yellow River flood is taught as one of the great crimes of the KMT and is in the consciousness of most of the mainland Chinese as one of the unforgivable crimes of the KMT. It's in fact one of the big ways in which the CCP took control.
They also know it can happen again, with the Three Gorges Dam or some other infrastructure and the KMT has very little to lose, it's already taken the reputational hit for decades and independent Taiwan will do it as required for self-preservation - they're not internationally recognised so any prosecution for war crimes is likely to be irrelevant. Beyond being cancelled out by China's aggression in such a scenario in itself anyway.
Since China provides the rest of the world with everything + owns the debt of countries like the USA, It would be highly doubtful anyone takes even remotely significant sanctions against China.
The most absolutely do. They might not want to, but they have no choice. Taiwan is a shackle in a long chain:
From South Korea, across the Korean strait, to Japan.
From Japan, along the Ryukyu islands to Taiwan.
From Taiwan, across the Luzon strait, to the Philippines.
From there to Malaysia (and Singapore) and Indonesia.
Almost nowhere along this 4000 mile chain is there a gap wider than 100 miles.
It is this chain which keeps China from freely accessing the Pacific Ocean.
If China could break through they would have unlimited access to the Pacific. And from there to the rest of the world. That is an existential threat to the USA.
That is why China wants Taiwan. That is why the US can not allow China to take Taiwan. Both sides know this.
So yes, China could most likely take Taiwan through war (albeit it at a high cost). But wars are not over when one side says it's over. The USA would absolutely carry on a multi-year war to regain Taiwan. They would much rather fight the PLAN five miles off Taipei than fight it five miles off Honolulu or San Francisco.
Isn't that the exact reasoning which led to the attack on Pearl Harbor? "One quick strike and they'll be out of the war..."
>The US will sanction and draw lots of red lines in the sand and then tug its tail between its legs.
And that's the kind of reasoning that led to Ukraine being invaded by Russia. The inevitable result of China being allowed to take Taiwan is China sailing their own carrier fleets along the West Coast a decade or two later. Absolutely unacceptable. Great Powers will always use force when faced with an existential threat.
The thing that usually leads to a war is thinking the other side lacks the willingness to go to war.
>And that's the kind of reasoning that led to Ukraine being invaded by Russia.
Yes, the US will draw lines and do nothing. Just like with Ukraine.
PRC sailing a carrier fleet just outside US waters is absolutely acceptable. The US made it so by doing the exact same thing to everyone else. It's only a matter of time before they have the capability. The big difference is that the US might go to war over such a thing unlike anybody else.
Another superpower is needed to stop the aggression by the US. US navel fleets belong in US waters. US bases belongs only on US land. If it takes PRC to do this then I'll happily cheer them along.
Where is the sign that USA is beefing up for such an obvious confrontation in the future? I don't see it.
The end of what? Outrage culture strikes again. They never had democracy.
Hong Kong has historically always been a part of "China", you could say it was "invaded" by the British and then the Japanese during WW2.
I obviously disapprove of the suppression of the HK populace with force, but this is no different to how the CCP operate in the rest of China. If anything the British mandated China had to apply different rules to a portion of their own territory, in classic imperialist fashion.
Who cares about History? What matters is now and what people want now. If not, you could use that excuse "but X was always part of Y" to justify just about everything.
China has grown large and powerful. If history matters, Hong Kong is probably part of China. If history doesn't matter, Hong Kong is part of China.
I think the real question here is what was possible for Hong Kong vs. what actually happened. Riots were maybe not the best strategy, in hindsight.
Has any strategy ever worked with the CCP?
The reality is we don't know how many HK residents want to be independent. Ideally they could hold an independence referendum, but the Chinese government don't want that, and due to the geopolitical tensions in the world right now they're not going to take advice from Western nations.
You could make the same argument to the UK about Wales and Scotland, or Spain with Catalunia and the Basque Country. Neither government is going to let a referendum happen for quite a while.
If there was good reason to think Californians wanted this, I'd be all for it. Also, there most pressing issue is American investment in California, which isn't so much of an issue in HK.
> What if China told the USA to end the trade blockade on Cuba
Not sure what this has to do with HK, where trade and international relations are generally better than the mainland..
> we don't know how many HK residents want to be independent
and we never will because PRC don't want to know, don't want anyone to know, and make it clear that it will punish democratic support, let alone independence.
> You could make the same argument to the UK about Wales and Scotland, or Spain with Catalunia and the Basque Country
And indeed, I would. But the Spanish government isn't ripping up agreements like PRC, plus its a willing member of the EU.
History does matter. You cannot just invade a country, steal territory and then later say "it doesn't matter if this was once your territory, what matter is NOW and now I own it so get off my lawn".
That's just not how it works. In terms of history Hong Kong belongs to China and only in super recent history it was "taken" by the British always with the arrangement that it still belongs to China and would get handed back to China. So now that China does what is rightfully their right people act surprised, because the West hoped that if a little bit of time passes that China will stop caring but they were wrong. China took care of what was rightfully theirs and kept a tight grip over it because it saw what the West wanted to do and honestly fair play to them.
Making them miss the whole cultural revolution and great leap forward, how tragic.
To me, this obviously overrides the text or "spirit" of any handover treaty, specifically the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as the Basic Law is a constitution.
Leaning on that treaty as a Hong Kong citizen or non-British outside observer requires either complete ignorance, or complete desperation to ever reference it. Which I understand for the people of Hong Kong who have no options and don't want the change of life, but it doesn't embolden me to see it as exceptional as it follows their form of due process, by the book.
So, I agree with you. Disagreeing with you requires me to have a completely separate higher standard than how governments we actually respect operate and what they would tolerate.
I'm not comfortable with any of the procedures, but I really do see how we get a very distorted view of what China is, its goals, and how it operates. And there is a level of constitutional consistency towards territorial unity, which is very predictable. If you are willing to accept that (and how almost every action can be construed to undermine territorial unity) then China is very easy to operate and live in comfortably. Not so dissimilar to an institution or amusement park where you never look behind the scenes and just do the PG-rated activities made available to you, and if you stick with that you're fine. Obviously not what we are used to and strive for in "the west", but not really the nightmare its portrayed as either. Its sad to me that even trying to explain things to you all in a pragmatic way could get me detained in China (because its not completely exalting the territorial unity of China and raises questions about it), but I really think its useful to understand and that its impossible to explain another way.
The attempts to silence and stigmatize opposition, to close opposition media outlets and deplatform them on social media, harassing advertisers to make sure they don't advertise with the opposition, and the media working with the government to promote some events or views and to bury some others — that all is painfully similar to Hong Kong.
You guys over in the US should take a closer look at that.
More seriously, see any discussion on Tibetan Buddhism, underground Catholicism, underground Protestantism, Islam in western China, Winnie the Pooh, letters found in Halloween decorations, Taiwanese airspace, forced labor, etc.
Hong Kong will fall because China can’t allow it the freedom it needs to operate. The intellectual and financial capital that hasn’t already departed will exfiltrate and all that will remain are CCP party faithful who never had the skills or motivation to succeed the way the original companies did.
The outside world will see the same Hong Kong names but those will be preserved hides over an eaten-out corpse.
The citizens of China are only tolerating the CCP due to continuing growth. When the economic benefits stop rolling, people will start speaking up against the tyranny. Hopefully this happens before it's too late.
No they won't. They've been gaslit, backed by the supposed evidence of thousands of years of history, that they themselves, though more so the uneducated rural population, are a violent, vindictive, power-hungry sort and that any overthrow would cost millions and millions of lives... and thus make the economy worse. And the gaslighting will only get stronger should the economy ever go south.
I mean, Hong Kong is the greatest thing that could happen to them. People in Hong Kong a bit upset with the Communist Party? Massive civil unrest in Hong Kong, helped of course by foreign agitators (see "Century of Humiliation" for that narrative). No way do we want that in China, no siree!
Put the violent mobs on every front page in China. The situation in Hong Kong is one of the best things that could ever possibly happen to the CCP. Does it matter whether there's provocateurs? Does it matter if there's foreign agitators for real? Not one bit. All you need is pictures of things on fire or teargas and the CCP rules for another decade through the stability it and so many preceding dynasties represented.
Does it matter if any of it is true? Of course not.
Hong Kong shouldn't be independent but is China the right country for us, is how I jokingly troll both extremes.
End of the day nobody cares, we're still discussing who elect the mayor of the city and people are talking like we're losing insane amount of representativity. We had not much to begin with :D
I d be more interested to move on and start discussing how we elect the president of our country now that we all agree we should be patriotic ;)
The Home Office never does anything without wealth caveats and significant fees.
lmao
>lmao
Shill logic is always easy to spot xD and its always hilarious.
Is HN so mainstream that political bot are sent to spam their propaganda here?
If it's propaganda to ask the communists to give us the right to vote, then the country has progressed :D
> I come from France where we have the tradition to use saints' names (mine is a very classical example) and I moved to China and got a daughter there with my local wife.
It might not be correct to comment on local HK.
So I'm getting politically excited, shouldn't I ?
And from an NPR interview covering the book 'Less Than Human'
> Nazis referred to Jews as rats.
> Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches.
> Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals
Dehumanisation. It's so frequently accompanied by dehumanisation.
You are truly intolerable, in the exact Karl Popper sense and we shouldn't tolerate a word you say.
But I d never call them cockroaches and I find it shocking the police does, if that reassures you... and I dont really dislike monkeys, just I find them a bit more disorganized than I wish political activists aiming at a higher level of government would be.
I dont disagree with the beautiful cause, just the ugly means, like for the communists.
I take this as evidence that you are planning to overthrow the current government? You do realise posting this is an offense under the National Security Law?