I want to express an unpopular opinion. As someone who speaks Cantonese (same language used in Hong Kong), who was born on the mainland, who has a mainland wife, who was brought up with Hong Kong television and culture, who looked up to Hong Kong as a shining example for decades, I care about the Hong Kong topic deeply.

> Do you disagree with me? If so, I'd love to hear why. <

What I say will most likely not fit your understanding of the situation. I know it is tempting to dismiss me out of hand. However, I ask you to remain open minded. I don't just make a bunch of claims: I've provided arguments and sources. You don't have to agree with me, but I invite you to at least investigate my sources, and to discuss with me with arguments as well.

Here goes:

----

The Hong Kong "protests" are not about freedom or democracy. That's just a pretext for xenophobia, hate against mainlanders, and secessionism. Neither are they "peaceful".

Why do I say this? Everyone knows China is an authoritarian regime and everybody in the free world must stand up against the big baddy, right?

I used to be sympathetic to the Hong Kong protests. As someone who has lived in Europe for more than 25 years, I understand the importance of democracy. I used to call for mainlanders to be more understanding of the Hong Kong people's cause.

However, more and more evidence popped up that "freedom" and "democracy" are just excuses. The movement have long been hijacked by violent rioters who:

- Attack innocent civilians, whose only "crime" is that they disagree with the "pro-democracy" rioters. Famously, a man was literally burned alive[1] simply for disagreeing. In another case, a woman was gang-attacked by rioters[2] simply for removing roadblocks that the rioters put down to hinder the police.

- Vandalize public and private property. In particular, shops and businesses, whose owners are seen as not supportive of the "pro-democracy" movement, are vandalized. See for example [3], where rioters vandalized a bank. They later apologized for vandalizing "the wrong bank", meaning that it's okay to vandalize as long as it's the right target!

[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30...

[2] https://www.scmp.com/video/hong-kong/3085864/online-video-fo...

[3] https://mothership.sg/2019/10/news-hong-kong-protest-east-as...

RECOMMENDED:

Have a look at this letter from a Hong Kong resident, explaining the situation much better than I do:

https://thefinanser.com/2020/07/am-i-wrong-about-hong-kong.h...

You might be wondering, how representative are the above examples? Could I have just cherry-picked a few violent cases to prove my point? Surely it's just a few bad apples, right?

The violence is widespread (although dying down since November after the police arrested a huge number of rioters, who sheltered in Hong Kong Polytec University and turned it into a bomb-making factory). It's not just "a few bad apples". Take a look at this compilation of rioters' violence: https://www.truth-hk.com/

Am I saying all Hong Kong protesters are rioters? No, many are indeed peaceful. What I have a problem with, is that the western mainstream media uncritically paints all Hong Kong rioters as heroes. Despite the fact that the entire movement have been hijacked by criminals, the media is mostly still willingly blind to their crimes, because it fits their prejudice that anyone who "stands up to big bad China" must be freedom fighters.

The rioters know this and make use of this. They want western media to portray them as heroes, so they threaten people who dare condemning the violence.

----

You may ask: even if all this is true, why is all this important? Isn't violence a legitimate means against the Chinese state? Isn't violence justified in a fight for freedom?

According to the 2019 Human Freedom Index by the Cato Institute, Hong Kong ranked number 3, according to measurable freedoms. And the Cato Institute is by no means a pro-China organization.

What freedoms are they fighting for, that they don't already have? Let's say they get universal suffrage. What's the first concrete thing they want to change? Strangely, most aren't able to answer.

And yet, the violence in the past year has uprooted many people's lives. Isn't it ironic that the biggest loss of freedom and normal live has been caused by the very people who say that they're fighting for freedom? Isn't it ironic that the people who say they're supporting rule of law and freedom of speech, break the law and engage in violence with anybody they disagree with? Where is the justice in this?

Have a look at this argument in Germany, between a pro-China mainlander and Hong Kong protesters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_SqKY5haqg
Luckily, these protesters weren't violent. But notice how the protesters are repeating a mindless mantra, and are unable to engage in a rational discussion with good arguments. Isn't this very strange? What freedoms, exactly, are they fighting for?

We've seen rioters waving the UK and US flags[4]. There were even open calls for Trump (of all people!) to "liberate" them. Isn't that a bit strange?

----

This isn't about freedom. This is about secessionism.

Why secede? You may think: isn't it obvious? Who wants to be part of China, an authoritarian regime?

Well, these people want to secede by whatever violent means possible, even if it means destroying one's home and destroying the lives of fellow citizen. Can you call this justice? Can you call this a good thing?

And is the depiction of China as an authoritarian regime, a dystopia, really correct?

The fact is, for mainland China, the past 30 years have been the best ones in the past 3000 years. When it comes to individual political freedoms, mainland China still lags behind the best. But individual political freedoms aren't the only things that matter. What about the freedom to live? Freedom from fear? Freedom to not starve? Freedom to be able to build your family and to have a good life? In these, mainland China have made tremendous progress. Have a look at this article, "The American Dream is Alive in China": https://palladiummag.com/2019/10/11/the-american-dream-is-al...

This progress should not be understated. It isn't "they've only managed to do a little bit worse than 30 years ago", it's the freak'n biggest endeavour in human history!

Think about: if China is so bad, why do hundreds of millions of Chinese travel abroad every year, and why does nearly everybody return willingly? Heck, why do I still visit China?

What has Beijing concretely done so far? For the past year, people have been yelling non-stop that "soon" Beijing will roll in the tanks, Tiananmen style. That never happened. During the only time the People's Liberation Army headed out of their barracks, they were off-duty — not wearing their uniforms — and all they did was clearing roadblocks placed by rioters.

Am I saying China is a utopia? By no means. China has many problems. But the depiction of western media of China as some sort of dystopian hellhole, is incorrect.

Back to secessionism. Why do some people want to secede? One reason is because they've been fed a lie about China: that it's a backwards, dystopian hellhole. Their educational textbooks largely ignore all the progress made in China in the past 30 years.

In most recent cases, a primary school test question: "what were the benefits from Japanese invasion to China in WWII?"

Can you imagine a text book asking, "what were the benefits from Nazi Germany's holocaust"? The Japanese during WWII were pretty much the Nazis of Asia. With "education" like this, is it any wonder that 80% of the rioters are teenagers?

This isn't even a "we are against the CCP, not the Chinese people" thing. Racism against mainlanders is rampant. Some Hong Kongers feel superior to mainlanders, because supposedly Hong Kongers are more "civilized", more "free", etc. Some newspapers openly called mainlanders "locusts": https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-16828134

Some want to secede, because they are indoctrinated to think they are "superior" to mainlanders, not because of any actual, rational interests or policy disagreements.

Have a look at this long discussion (warning: 1+ hour) with a guy in Hong Kong who wants to establish a new party that aims to be a middle ground group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xer6dQlzSSs
He speaks of the fact that the pro-democracy group rarely actually discusses any, concrete policy disagreements, nor do they propose any useful policy changes. It's all filibustering and obstructing China just for the heck of it. How is any of this freedom? How will this sort of behavior result in a better life for the citizen of Hong Kong?

----

Am I a CCP shill? Am I a bot? Well, have a look at my long Internet history. My Github has been active for 10+ years.

Why am I saying all this? Because I can't stand the injustice.

Am I defending China? I ask: why does that matter? Isn't truth more important?

Am I saying that the Hong Kong people shouldn't ask for more freedom? No, they should be able to. But this should be backed by rationality. At the very least, don't you think it's important to be able to answer the question of what they concretely want to change? What we see today is not rational, nor does it actually improve people's lives.

Am I saying China didn't pressure the pope? No. I don't know what's going on there.

Do the Hong Kong people agree with what I say here? Well, take a look at this letter from a Hong Kong resident (if you haven't already):

https://thefinanser.com/2020/07/am-i-wrong-about-hong-kong.h...

Furthermore, 3 million people signed a petition in SUPPORT of the national security law. https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2020/06/...

Think about it. 3 million signatures: that's more than the number of people who joined the freedom marches.

You may be thinking: signing a petition is so easy, so 3 million signatures mean nothing. But think about it: it's a freak'n national security law, who would be so crazy to sign it, no matter how easy it is to sign? But apparently, people are so fed up with the rioters, that they would rather risk supporting this law than to put up with the status quo where there is no security law.

Do you disagree with me? If so, I'd love to hear why.