Chansol Park, this is my response to your opinion. This is my personal opinion. Please dont be offended. I hope no one is offended by this post. Please forgive me if I offend you. I hope there are no hard feelings after this. Disclaimer: Many mainlanders will feel that I am being racist towards China. However, I dont intend to be racist (I am of Chinese descent). I am opposed to the party that is ruling China right now, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). Now, allow me to explain why I support the struggle for true democracy. Disclaimer: Im not saying that I completely support Occupy Central. It is true that Occupy Central is making people go out of business, and people cant buy food for their hungry families. It is true that the protests are blocking roads and hindering emergency vehicles. However, I believe in the concept of fighting for true democracy. For example, maybe Occupy Central protestors can protest during daytime, then on the next day protest during nighttime, and keep switching, while always keeping a lane open for emergency vehicles. That is my thought on Occupy Central. I believe that the fight for full democracy is completely justified and possible. China probably cares about Hong Kong, and the demands of the protestors are possible. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that the PRC does in fact care about Hong Kong. Mostly, the PRC cares about Hong Kong because Hong Kong makes money. Initially, you may think: Pfft. China already has such a high GDP, why would they care about a small city like ours? I have an answer. It is because the PRC is very thirsty for money. They wanted to increase economic growth, so they built many factories. This polluted Beijing so badly that state media reported over 700 micrograms of particulate matter for every cubic meter between 1981 and 2001 (and of course, state media is known to alter statistics to make the PRC seem better, which could possibly mean that actual air pollution levels are much higher). The air quality report of New York City as of October 4th, 2014 was an AQI of 46 (healthy). As you can see, both are dense major cities, but Beijing has much more pollution. Anyways, thats enough of me ranting about air pollution. The point is, the pollution of Beijing shows that the PRC will build as many factories as possible to boost Chinas economy, even if it means harming the health of the people of Beijing. Heres a second piece of evidence to show that the PRC is hungry for money. The PRCs actions in Tibet suggest that it wants to earn more money. After all, why else would the PRC send over 30,000 soldiers to secure the territory? Some people argue that China wants to take Tibet so they have the Himalayas as a natural barrier which protects China from big military threats. However, India and Nepal are on the other side of the Himalayas, which are not big military threats. However, if the PRC captures lots of land and controls the Tibetan people, they can sell Tibetan land to rich Chinese people and tax the Tibetan people. They can also take Tibets natural resources and sell them for money or use them for other purposes. My third piece of evidence is that China is not afraid to harm foreign relations to earn more money. They quarrel with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. They make aggressive territorial claims, especially in the South China Sea, which anger countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan. The PRC is surrounding China with enemies, just to earn more money (even though Chinas GDP is already very high). Although this could be a result of arrogance, there is no doubt that oil in the sea is a huge motive. My final piece of evidence is that China gave very little aid to the Philippines after the Supertyphoon Haiyan. The US promised 20 million dollars and an aircraft carrier for help, Britain promised 16 million dollars and a warship for help, the Vatican promised 4 million dollars, Japan promised 10 million dollars, and New Zealand promised 1.7 million dollars. China, which has the second largest economy, only gave 100,000 dollars. This shows the bad relations with other countries (caused by territorial disputes, which is motivated by money) and how the PRC is hesitant to give away money that it wants so much. Before you accuse me of being racist, let me remind you that Im ethnically Chinese. Again, I oppose the Peoples Republic of China, not the Chinese people. It is true that the PRC has more important issues to deal with - however, you mustnt forget that the PRCs desire for money is also quite extreme. So, why does China still fight with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands when Uyghurs are murdering innocent people? Why does China still fight over territory in the South China Sea when people are burning themselves in Tibet? Well, one of the reasons that the PRC is doing these things is that these territories have oil beneath them (yes, there is oil under the sea). And oil is worth large amounts of money. So, as long as Hong Kong tempts the PRC with money, there just might be a chance that the PRC will at least come to some sort of agreement. Yes, to China, Hong Kong is no more than a tiny mosquito - a golden one, that is, that the PRC would love to catch and put into her own pockets (Hong Kongs GDP is 274 billion USD!). Also, even though Shanghai is a busier port than Hong Kong, Hong Kong still handles huge amounts of trade between China and the rest of the world. If Hong Kong suddenly stops becoming a port city, either 1) China loses much of its precious trade, or 2) foreign companies will go to other ports such as Shanghai, which will overload Shanghai with too much cargo and trade will be handled less efficiently. Think of it like this. Say that there are two people who make doughnuts. One is faster than the other. The faster one is Shanghai, the slower one is Hong Kong. In total, they can make 100 doughnuts an hour. If the slower one stops making doughnuts, either 1) doughnuts made per hour will decrease, or 2) the faster one will be overloaded with work. The faster person will have to work even faster to make the same amount of doughnuts, and that may tire him out. Even though the faster one is still working, there is less manpower. And as you know, the PRC loves doughnuts very much. I hope this analogy helped. If you still believe that China doesnt care about Hong Kong, here is a question. If China doesnt care about Hong Kong, why did they issue a white paper to Hong Kong consolidating their authority? Why did they suddenly break their promise of true universal suffrage? Why does Chinese state media report about the Hong Kong protests? (Perhaps they want to brainwash mainlanders, as they use emotion words and label the protestors as criminals). Now, I will talk about the Hong Kong economy and how it relates. The Hong Kong economy is being hurt, but that is the whole point of the protest. If Hong Kong doesnt hold its money at gunpoint, why should the PRC care? Again, the PRC will care if there is money involved. Basically, Hong Kongs money is the hostage. The Hong Kong protestors point a gun at the hostage. Give us true democracy or we fire! And the hostage is already getting shot. The protestors will keep holding the hostage until they get full democracy. I already explained Chinas attitude towards money and economic growth. I do not believe China will just ignore a precious port city that facilitates so much trade. Now, many of you ask why true democracy is good. I will explain why. China is notorious for its lack of human rights and corruption problems. Did you know that the PRC kills innocent people and sells their organs? (This further proves that the PRC is greedy for money). The PRC also restricts freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, etc. Relatives of communist officials murder innocent people and get away with it. You might say: Bertrand, you are being ignorant. Hong Kong is one country, two systems. My response: The ultimate aim of Basic Law is election of the Chief Executive though Universal Suffrage. Something that the PRC has promised, but they broke their promise. What is going to stop the PRC from breaking its promise of one country, two systems? This is why the Hong Kong people want a true democracy. We dont want to be ruled by a communist puppet who censors the press, allows corrupt officials to stay, kills innocent people, etc. We want a leader who will make Hong Kong a better place. To most Hong Kong people, this will affect their future. Theres a saying that goes along the lines of: Dont cry for what you lost if you dont fight for what you stand up for. The main point of this entire thing is this: China wants money. Hong Kong protestors say: Give us true democracy or you wont get as much money. Maybe China wont completely accept these demands, but its better than choosing a Chief Executive from a list of communist puppets. I believe that as long as theres a glimmer of hope, we should never give up the struggle for a true democracy and a better future. Now, Tianjiu Zuo. Please do not be offended, I am trying to change your opinion on this subject. Please forgive me if I offend you. With all due respect, I disagree with what you say. Firstly, the protests are largely peaceful. Protestors are extremely civilized. They hold signs which say: do not use violence. They clean up rubbish after protests. Occupy Central is actually known as: Occupy Central with Love and Peace. These all show that the protests are not very violent. Even if there are a few minor clashes, most of the protests are not violent. Secondly, the PRC will not listen to dialogue and discussion. Again, the PRC only cares about money (explained above). Tibetan people BURN THEMSELVES ALIVE, and the PRC doesnt care. If the PRC doesnt listen to people who open their matchboxes and burn themselves alive, will they listen to people who open their mouths and talk? Of course Hong Kong people would rather use dialogue and discussion, but it isnt working. Thirdly, the PRC just announced that the Chief Executives had to be approved by them - clearly, they are not gradually implementing democracy, theyre gradually taking it away from the Hong Kong people. You say that the British government was much harsher. Thats a very good point, but let me defend the Hong Kong protestors. I dont mean to offend anyone when I explain this. I will make an analogy. Lets say youre in the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King Jr. was a very good man, who stood up for freedom. No offense, but if I used your logic, you would call Martin Luther King Jr. childish and stupid. If I used your logic, then black people should stop blocking roads to protest for more rights. Why do you protest for more civil rights when the old US government treated you even worse!? How come you didnt protest when the old US government was ruling!? The new US government is even giving you more freedom, and you are still protesting!? The new US government has freed the slaves, you still want more freedom! Childish and stupid!!! I believe there is a reason. It was because after the emancipation proclamation, many blacks were still uneducated. Compare this with Hong Kong. Even in the 1950s, much of Hong Kongs population was illiterate and uneducated. Only 60 percent of the population was literate. And uneducated people are less able to protest. Illiterate people, especially the Hong Kong people of the 1950s, were less exposed to western ideas such as democracy. So, just as the freed black people were less able to protest against injustice, the Hong Kong people under British rule were no different. Fast forward to the Civil Rights Movement. During this period, a greater amount of Black people were educated. They had more knowledge, thus they had wider perspectives. Think of this. If Martin Luther King Jr. didnt have as much knowledge, would he still have known about Gandhi and started a Civil Rights Movement? This is similar to modern day Hong Kong. Nowadays, almost 95 percent of Hong Kong is literate. A new generation of educated people learn about democracy and freedom. They learn more about protests and civil disobedience of history. Armed with this knowledge, they can act and protest against injustice and a lack of freedom. Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. organized road blocking on his marches as well. Are they stupid and childish? So, let me summarize. Under British rule, most Hong Kong people were uneducated. Under the old US government, most black people were uneducated. Both were unaware of the concepts of civil disobedience, nonviolent protests, etc. They were less able to organize mass rallies to raise awareness and support. Fast forward to the Civil Rights Movement. More education created leaders (Martin Luther King Jr.) who drew inspiration from Gandhi and started a struggle for social equality for African Americans in the United States. Fast forward to Hong Kong in the modern day. A more educated Hong Kong population can protest for greater democracy. This is why Hong Kong didnt protest under British rule, but protests under the PRCs rule. Under British rule, Hong Kong people were too illiterate to effectively stage protests. Some didnt even know the concept of democracy! Under Chinese rule, many are educated, and they have the ability to protest. I hope you understand my views. You say there is a political conspiracy. What exactly is it? I would like to know, because to me, Occupy Central looks like a complete legitimate and authentic cause, aimed at giving people true democracy. In conclusion, I believe that there is a chance of China listening to the protestors demands. I believe that China still cares about Hong Kong, mostly for economic reasons. I believe that as long as theres a chance of getting true democracy, then people should never give up. Note: Google used as cross-reference Works Cited Tang, Ming C. Occupy Central: Hong Kongs Fight against Neoliberalism.Global Research. GlobalResearch.ca, 30 Sept. 2014. Web. 04 Oct. 2014. . AirNow - New York City, NY Air Quality. AirNow - New York City, NY Air Quality. AirNow, 4 Oct. 2014. Web. 04 Oct. 2014. . Dizikes, Peter. Innovative Study Estimates Extent to Which Air Pollution in China Shortens Human Lives. MIT News. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 8 July 2013. Web. 4 Oct. 2014. . Krueger, Anne O. Still Achieving, Still Pursuing: The Global Consequences of Asian Growth, Remarks by Anne O. Krueger, First Deputy Managing Director, IMF. Still Achieving, Still Pursuing: The Global Consequences of Asian Growth, Remarks by Anne O. Krueger, First Deputy Managing Director, IMF. International Monetary Fund, 14 Dec. 2005. Web. 05 Oct. 2014. . The Tibetans. Tibet (n.d.): 1-49. USC. USC. Web. 5 Oct. 2014. . Beech, Hannah. China to Philippines: Here, Have a Measly $100,000 in Aid | TIME. World China to Philippines Here Have a Measly 100000 in Aid Comments. Time Inc, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 05 Oct. 2014. . W, P. T. Chinas Territorial Disputes. The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 27 Aug. 2014. Web. 05 Oct. 2014. . Merk, O., Li, J. (2013), “The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: the case of Hong Kong – China”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/16, OECD Publishing, dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3wdkjtzp0w-en
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 04:40:21 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015