Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Note that these are the academic's views, not that of the NYT.
I think it is very imaginative but very far-fetched, and extremely unlikely.
The tradition of political governance in China's history tends to show an inevitable trend towards political unification and centralization.
In effect, the trend would be "Rule from the Center".
I don't think any political body or government in China could possibly survive if it is not seen to unify the country or lose any part of it.
Even outside China, history show that confederations either centralize to become nations or empire or just fall apart into individual states until one state conquers the rest and become a regional power (well, maybe Europe is the exception).
Well-written article. I like the conclusion as well - that a Chinese Federation would allow Hong Kong to BE Hong Kong with all of it's great things it has going; and in turn would NOT threaten Mainland China to be what it wants to BE as well. As it is, China appears to feel very threatened by HK, and vice-versa.
Wow, the NYT tells China how to run its country, how typical. Maybe the CCP should start preaching the US about how to actually build some high speed train instead of constantly talking about it for 50 years? Or how to reform its immigration policy instead of bickering all the time?
That being said, it is fine to comment on such matters, however, again, western magazines mislead (intentionally or out of ignorance) its audience on the Chinese matters.
First, it describes a HK that is somehow superior where culture needs special "protection" and gives the false illusion that the rest of China simply doesn't care about traditional culture any more.
"In addition to undergoing many political changes, it abandoned orthodox religious customs, traditional written Chinese and the classical pronunciation of local Chinese languages like Cantonese. In Hong Kong, however, those things were preserved, even nurtured" - what the hell? What orthodox religious customs China abandoned? And local Chinese languages are abandoned as well? In many urban cities their influences are waning, but what's so surprising? More and more migrant workers are able to move to big cities and therefore they need a common language to communicate. Go to a more remote area in Fujian or Zhejiang, you will find plenty of people who don't speak Mandarin. Most of my relatives in my hometown can hardly speak proper mandarin, and speak local dialects 99% of the time. How are local dialects lost? Shouldn't NYT reports do more research? Shanghai doesn't constitute the entire China.
I laugh at the idea that "HK is more authentically Chinese". Another slogan attempting to brainwash gullible readers. China is so large and diverse and it is capable of possessing all sorts of cultures. Saying HK is more authentically Chinese is like saying Sicily is more authentically European. Different parts of China show different Chinese cultures and the southern culture is just a small part of it and is quite different from other parts. You can't say HK culture keeps most tradition because somewhere in the north never shared the same thing. For example, worship of Guanyu in HongKong is something most other parts of China never practiced.
Before preaching China how to protect culture, maybe the NYT should teach various parts of the US to develop some culture to start with? From Seattle to Miami, San Diego to Boston, people talk the same, eat the same, watch the same games and listen to the same music. In China, you would find these are vastly different from region to region.
And China is not threaten by HK. It is rather HK feels threatened by China. You know why? In the 1980/90, the Chinese look up to HK, admire them, and want to be in HK. Nowadays, it is nothing but another city to shop in. The Chinese feel more and more equal to Hongkong and show less and less interest in it. The rapid rise of Shanghai for example makes HK less and less appealing. The HKers on the other hand, have lost the superiority they always had, and start all these nonsense protest against this and that, even against Chinese tourists, claiming they harmed their city. The real reason is not so different from low income Shanghainese share some sort of resentment against new Shanghainese who managed to be more successful and wealth than they, who used to feel all superior.
I don't really mind a Federation system if that's what HK wants. HK can feel free to be HK, whatever that is. China should not threaten HK (such wording is ridiculous, why would China threaten HK, a part of its own?), but China should no longer treat HK preferentially either, in terms of policy, taxing etc, and provides no protection whatsoever. China should just other coastal cities such as Shanghai to compete with it and let's see how HK's aura can last.
Let's be honest about two things
1) HK's success largely exists in the fact that it is part of a strong China (or proximity to China) - not because it is governed by the British or the city itself did something particularly amazing.
2) HK's wealth is largely due to it being the free port connecting China (an insulate one previous) with the world. And let's not kid ourselves, China can create half a dozen free ports if it wants to. HK is completely replaceable if it insists to be this annoying.
Wow, the NYT tells China how to run its country, how typical. Maybe the CCP should start preaching the US about how to actually build some high speed train instead of constantly talking about it for 50 years? Or how to reform its immigration policy instead of bickering all the time?
That being said, it is fine to comment on such matters, however, again, western magazines mislead (intentionally or out of ignorance) its audience on the Chinese matters.
First, it describes a HK that is somehow superior where culture needs special "protection" and gives the false illusion that the rest of China simply doesn't care about traditional culture any more.
"In addition to undergoing many political changes, it abandoned orthodox religious customs, traditional written Chinese and the classical pronunciation of local Chinese languages like Cantonese. In Hong Kong, however, those things were preserved, even nurtured" - what the hell? What orthodox religious customs China abandoned? And local Chinese languages are abandoned as well? In many urban cities their influences are waning, but what's so surprising? More and more migrant workers are able to move to big cities and therefore they need a common language to communicate. Go to a more remote area in Fujian or Zhejiang, you will find plenty of people who don't speak Mandarin. Most of my relatives in my hometown can hardly speak proper mandarin, and speak local dialects 99% of the time. How are local dialects lost? Shouldn't NYT reports do more research? Shanghai doesn't constitute the entire China.
I laugh at the idea that "HK is more authentically Chinese". Another slogan attempting to brainwash gullible readers. China is so large and diverse and it is capable of possessing all sorts of cultures. Saying HK is more authentically Chinese is like saying Sicily is more authentically European. Different parts of China show different Chinese cultures and the southern culture is just a small part of it and is quite different from other parts. You can't say HK culture keeps most tradition because somewhere in the north never shared the same thing. For example, worship of Guanyu in HongKong is something most other parts of China never practiced.
HK isn't more "authentically Chinese," but it weathered the latter half of the 20th century without going through the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, and ensuing decades of correction, and so it does indeed have a different and unique culture from the mainland - all the same that Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou are different.
Quote:
Before preaching China how to protect culture, maybe the NYT should teach various parts of the US to develop some culture to start with? From Seattle to Miami, San Diego to Boston, people talk the same, eat the same, watch the same games and listen to the same music. In China, you would find these are vastly different from region to region.
I guess you've never been to any of these cities, or you'd know how different they are... just stop. Your whole assertion that the US is monocultural is absurd.
Quote:
And China is not threaten by HK. It is rather HK feels threatened by China. You know why? In the 1980/90, the Chinese look up to HK, admire them, and want to be in HK. Nowadays, it is nothing but another city to shop in. The Chinese feel more and more equal to Hongkong and show less and less interest in it. The rapid rise of Shanghai for example makes HK less and less appealing. The HKers on the other hand, have lost the superiority they always had, and start all these nonsense protest against this and that, even against Chinese tourists, claiming they harmed their city. The real reason is not so different from low income Shanghainese share some sort of resentment against new Shanghainese who managed to be more successful and wealth than they, who used to feel all superior.
No, I don't think that HK feels "threatened" by China because the Chinese "no longer look up to them." That is completely wrong and so overwhelmingly Sinocentric... you could go ahead and listen to the reasons that HK'ers feel that the PRC is a "threat," and none of it has to do with Mainlanders "no longer looking up to them." It has to do with changing the laws and suppression of rights that they had been used to for generations, fear of influxes of mainlanders who have a different culture from them and who will price out HK natives, and things of this nature.
HK is another city to shop in? It's also another city to send your kids to school in, to have your kids in, to seek medical attention... no, Mainlanders see many things about HK quite differently, some of them in a superior light and some not so much, but your prejudice against HK for not being "Chinese enough" is showing.
Quote:
I don't really mind a Federation system if that's what HK wants. HK can feel free to be HK, whatever that is. China should not threaten HK (such wording is ridiculous, why would China threaten HK, a part of its own?),
You treat HK as something "other" from China all the same that Western HK sympathizers do, just for totally different reasons.
Quote:
but China should no longer treat HK preferentially either, in terms of policy, taxing etc, and provides no protection whatsoever. China should just other coastal cities such as Shanghai to compete with it and let's see how HK's aura can last.
Let's be honest about two things
1) HK's success largely exists in the fact that it is part of a strong China (or proximity to China) - not because it is governed by the British or the city itself did something particularly amazing.
2) HK's wealth is largely due to it being the free port connecting China (an insulate one previous) with the world. And let's not kid ourselves, China can create half a dozen free ports if it wants to. HK is completely replaceable if it insists to be this annoying.
The difference is that China can't simply create new port cities out of nowhere and install robust and powerful banking and financial sectors to compete with HK's long legacy of both and just sit back and watch $383b per year roll in. If China had never closed itself off from the rest of the world and had stayed on a more economically-robust path for the last half of the 20th century, maybe things would be different... but, that's not how it worked out, is it? HK's status is one it earned over time, and it will take time before that status is taken away.
You always love to repeat that it's nothing special, but, it is, and the powers-that-be in China recognize that or they wouldn't have given HK any concessions or differentiating treatment and just re-absorbed it into the PRC. The PRC has been smart to allow HK to be much more economically free and has in many ways re-adopted it as a gateway to a foreign power... just in the opposite direction of how it used to be.
If you read Tigerbalms post, he stated: Note that these are the academic's views, not that of the NYT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
And let's not kid ourselves, China can create half a dozen free ports if it wants to. HK is completely replaceable if it insists to be this annoying.
You are kidding yourself. Free means no control. This is the opposite of what the CCP stands for. Control and stability above all else.
Obviously, HK is not replaceable. If it was, shanghai would have replaced it by now. It makes a crapload of money. Otherwise, they would stormed in with tanks just like Tienanmen. The PLA doesn't care about human rights.
What happened in Hong Kong may probably an example of the difference between the different governing systems.
For example, the trial and imprisonment of Zhou Yongkang 周永康, former Zhongnanhai member, was a closed trial. Very unlikely there would be a closed trial in Hong Kong.
On another hand, very surprising that the pro-beijing legislators in Hong Kong's legislative council would walk out before the vote; which ended up with "Yes" votes for the reform package being reduced to a minority.
If you read Tigerbalms post, he stated: Note that these are the academic's views, not that of the NYT.
As if the professors know how to run a country, LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerous-Boy
You are kidding yourself. Free means no control. This is the opposite of what the CCP stands for. Control and stability above all else.
Obviously, HK is not replaceable. If it was, shanghai would have replaced it by now. It makes a crapload of money. Otherwise, they would stormed in with tanks just like Tienanmen. The PLA doesn't care about human rights.
The word human rights being repeated so many times is becoming so tiring. What the hell constitutes "human rights"? Is there a universal interpretation?
As to HK ports, do you know how much HK has done just so Shanghai doesn't get any preferential treatment from the central government so that it remains to be unchallenged? And you think HK is HK only because of what it did right? Give Shanghai sometime. It only got 25 years and look at how much it changed. I was in Shanghai in 1995 and 2015 to witness it, unlike you guys who only learn things from English language magazines.
Closed trial does not exist in HK. If closed trial does not exist in England's legal system, it will not exist in HK's system, which closely follow English legal precedents. And there are still many British judges in HK's courts, reflecting very similar law systems between England and Hong Kong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerbalm1985
.
Very unlikely there would be a closed trial in Hong Kong.
On another hand, very surprising that the pro-beijing legislators in Hong Kong's legislative council would walk out before the vote; which ended up with "Yes" votes for the reform package being reduced to a minority.
The writing in that article is terrible. Can someone give me the main points?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
