Hong Kong pro-democracy tycoon Jimmy Lai gets 20 years' jail

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d5pl34vv0o

by tartoran • 5 months ago

214 157 5 months ago

Sad that the international community doesn’t do more to intervene in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet. As a reminder, China has violated the treaty around Hong Kong’s handoff. So really the UK and the rest of the world should have demanded its return.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

Galanwe3• 5 months ago

The UK was happy to ignore the violation of the handover agreements and offer BNO passports to steal all the young brains of HK, unfortunately.

ori_b• 5 months ago

Steal? You mean at gunpoint? Or did these people want to leave of their own free will, and take a chance they were given?

jyscao3• 5 months ago

Because “international law” is a farce, recent U.S. actions against Venezuela is but the latest example of that fact.

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

Yizahi7• 5 months ago

The dissonance between this comment and the one above is striking really :) . One user asks for non-China countries to intervene in China or the occupied territories, and another user is outraged that the same has actually happened in Venezuela, despite that the only person to suffer had been one of the top-10 worst alive humans in the world (per millions humans harmed directly).

Pray tell me, how exactly do you see international law intervening in Chinese crimes, so that it won't look like ops in Venezuela (at minimum)? Issuing a strongly worded letter and Xi would comply?

pjjpo• 5 months ago

I think the main issue people have with this comment is the word "recent" and to a lesser degree "U.S.". All countries have done anything to further their goals regardless of any common point of agreement, some times framing within that framework, sometimes not. This is not a recent or US-only phenomenon, it's the definition of geopolitics.

I'm all for an alien invasion uniting us but not sure when that will happen.

ecshafer• 5 months ago

How many people should've died for Hong Kong? Should we have invaded China? Should we have drafted millions of men from across the west and put boots on the ground?

2OEH8eoCRo0• 5 months ago

There are more options than nothing or war.

mothballed4• 5 months ago

Chinese Muslim Uyghurs who were preparing to fight for their people in China started consolidating a home base in Syria where they collected arms and a militia.

They are finally off the terrorist list a few years ago, but for a long time the US policy was to feign outrage but then declare anyone using any teeth to push back against China as a terrorist.

AlotOfReading• 5 months ago

If we measure the cost of freedom, that simply becomes the level of violence a would-be oppressor needs to promise in order to deny it. There isn't an easy or universal answer here and I'd argue there can't be. To give two historical examples, many Americans raised similar objections against entering WW2 to fight the axis. Some of those same people also opposed the US Japanese concentration camps, for the same reasons.

You might disagree on whether HKers' freedoms are truly being abridged or whether you care, but the questions you posed weren't complete enough on their own.

raven12345• 5 months ago

That is, some people want more people to die, to prove they are righteous.

hn_throwaway_99• 5 months ago

Welcome to the real world. The UK is obviously in no position to challenge China. And with the US invading and threatening to take over other sovereign nations solely because "it's in our national interest", we're certainly not one to talk.

sampton• 5 months ago

Sad that international community doesn't do more to intervene in US. Seriously, please help.

munk-a• 5 months ago

If any external force tried to "fix" the US it would result in stubborn revanchism and a deeper slide into corruption. To grossly generalize - the American culture of self-reliance means that any imposition of order, even if positive, would be rejected by most of the population (which is somewhat fair, since external impositions do compromise sovereignty).

If a good outcome is to happen - it needs to be driven and supported domestically.

zelphirkalt5• 5 months ago

Are you saying the rest of the world should have stood up for what ultimately is colonialism? And colonialism of the British out of all the people? And also in a territory, that is directly on or neighboring the Chinese landmass? The Chinese people have a long history of others trying to conquer them or colonize them. They are probably pretty allergic to such notions, and will reject them. Realistically speaking, no one would have had the resources to force HK staying the same enclave it has been. This all sounds rather unrealistic.

We can agree on the treatment of HK being far from ideal, and I would go as far as saying, that even economically for China itself, it was not good to handle the matter as they did. That is where their ideology shows. HK was an economical hub. In recent times though many businesses left and more are unwilling to invest. This is the economical downside, that could simply have been avoided by not doing what they did. The question should be asked "Why not just leave it as it is, since it is working well, economically?" But they had to mess with it. Another downside is international reputation damage of course. China has achieved many great things in the past decades and now has cities more modern and convenient than most of what you find in Europe. Their one problem remains ideology. That they sometimes feel the need to do things, that are not economically sound, for the sake of ideology.

However, I can't agree with anyone arguing, that HK should not be part of China, like some people do in the comments here. It's a separate matter from policies implemented. Of course I wish for HKers to keep their freedoms. Who doesn't. Of course I wish China would not implement policies, that endanger the freedom of its people. But territorial? Nope, HK always was bound to become a part of China.

What I can say more from visiting HK twice is, that they still got Internet (uncensored), in contrast to other parts of China. Every week I am speaking with someone from HK, using Signal, which is not practical for anyone from (most?) other parts of China. When traveling in China, I used a HK eSIM, to have reliable and uncensored Internet. I hope that these aspects still remain intact for a long time, or that the rest of China will open up. At some point they should have the confidence in their own economy to compete on global scale.

StopDisinfo9104• 5 months ago

Last time, I checked Hong-Kong didn't become a free city but part of another country. So they have traded a master for another one.

I am genuinely lost in your argument. You start against colonialism then justify Hong-Kong being reintegrated to China because they would have taken it by force anyway which is pretty much the same thing as colonialism.

You then pivot to arguing HK was always going to be part of China for a reason I find unclear. Hong-Kong was never part of the PRC before the handover so I don't really see the appeal to continuity.

Have you considered that people are not arguing for colonialism but actually against any form of coercitive control?

morsecodist2• 5 months ago

HK always was bound to become a part of China

Why so? Do you think Monaco should be part of France? Do you think Singapore should be part of Malaysia? A lot of big countries respect the sovereignty of neighboring smaller countries, although that is unfortunately becoming less true now.

It isn't about colonialism. I have never seen anyone seriously argue it should go back to the British. It is about a framework to ensure they maintain their rights. It would be great if that looked like expanded rights for all of China but it can also look like some degree of sovereignty, which was in place for quite some time.

jimmydoe• 5 months ago

Given what US companies did to ICC, it’s not hard to imagine, if UN intervine, their officials’ Chinese EV will be taking over remotely and driven off the bridge.

UK “taking back” HK is also very imaginative , like white people dreaming of recolonizing Asia in 21st century? Good luck.

dzonga• 5 months ago

UK and the rest of the world should have demanded its return

Demand its return based on what principles ? How did the UK gain control of Hong Kong

Would the UK be able to go to war with China over HK ?

in the words of Dave Chappell - hello UN, if you got problems, bring ya army! oh you ain't no army

duxup• 5 months ago

I always wonder what exactly the “more” is that other countries have to do that would prevent any of this?

insane_dreamer3• 5 months ago

Unfortunately nothing could be done, once HK was China territory. Enforcing the domestic policies of an SAR inside of China was completely unfeasibly for the UK and they knew it when they signed it. Zhao Ziyang (CCP chairman at the time), who signed the treaty, was a reformist and if he had remained in power and China continued down that path, things might have ended very differently for HK. Unfortunately the hardliners won out after the Tiananmen Square protests and he was removed from power.

zeroq• 5 months ago

World did nothing (meaningful) for Gaza. It's hard to believe anyone will be willing to act against China which is much more powerful than Israel.

It was easy to turn the blind eye on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. because for most people in western hemisphere it's a different culture and it's somewhere else.

It was heart breaking when Russia invaded Ukraine and western media were doing lengthy coverage on every single civilian casualty when thousands of people were silently dying in Gaza without a single mention.

And the initial reaction to the invasion was that the Ukraine should simply surrender. It's like calling police about home invasion only to hear "oh, just give them what they want and stop calling us already".

And now US is doing exactly the same. The attack on Venezuela was a carbon copy of what Putin did, only difference was that the US succeeded. And now Greenland.

It's time to stop pretending there are good and evil forces out there. There's no difference.

jorblumesea• 5 months ago

cruel and obviously politically motivated, meant to send a message to HK and anyone who publicly criticizes the CCP.

jajuuka9• 5 months ago

Not surprising to see all the comments devolve into hyperbole. Nuance and thoughts on China in the west are just impossibilities.

StopDisinfo9104• 5 months ago

There are plenty of nuance to be had on the situation in China but I wonder what you mean here.

Are you arguing that it's legitimate to put a 78 years old from a former democratic city forcefully reintegrated to another state in jail for 20 years because he is saying that the will of the people should be heard?

hnfong4• 5 months ago

Nice strawman. Where's your nuance?

skinnymuch9• 5 months ago

Forcefully reintegrated? Colonialism was the forceful part. Not a country having control of its own land.

He isn’t demanding any will of the people. Unlike the EU, US, etc, Chinese people are actually happy with their democratic China. In no way in Europe or US can a city claim they want “democratic” independence and go completely against the rest of the country on the side of recent protests and meddling by outside state depts. They would correctly be viewed as traitors and agitators.

jajuuka9• 5 months ago

That's not why he and his company was convicted with multiple counts of sedition. This is what I am talking about. It's a rewriting of reality to fit a neat black and white narrative to suit whatever agenda you want.

throw4r53632• 5 months ago

Just one point of clarification, Hong Kong was never a democratic city.

All previous governors were simply appointed by the UK.

skinnymuch9• 5 months ago

The smugness and superiority about how the rest of the world are immoral barbarians and the global status quo of white/western hegemony is amazing and very moral is pretty funny. It’s pretty obvious these same people in the past would’ve said the US’s chattel slavery is not that bad because other countries do slavery too. The equivocations westerners will do.

komali28• 5 months ago

Meanwhile Han Chauvinism being used to justify CPC imperialism isn't bad because uh, their country has a cool flag.

EB-Barrington2• 5 months ago

China is repressive, autocratic, dictatorial, illiberal, unaccountable, coercive, censorious, surveillance-heavy, propagandistic, corrupt, brutal, heavy-handed, intolerant, secretive, and very very very militarised.

Just an FYI.

palmotea2• 5 months ago

FYI, you're shadowbanned. Your comments by default show up as hidden for most users.

EB-Barrington2• 5 months ago

Thanks, I looked into it. I seem to have a few flagged comments, but I'm not yet fully hellbanned. I guess I have to be a little less political on here.

adolph• 5 months ago

I was confused how someone could become a tycoon in "pro-democracy" but it seems as if he became a wealthy businessperson before and has been active and influential in preserving Hong Kong autonomy since the transfer of management to the PRC/CCP.

  Born in the Chinese city of Guangzhou, Lai was 12 when he arrived in Hong 
  Kong as a stowaway on a fishing boat. He started working menial jobs and 
  eventually founded a multi-million dollar empire that included the clothing 
  brand Giordano.
  
  Lai began a new journey as a vocal democracy activist after China's crackdown 
  on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989.
  
  He went on to launch pro-democracy news outlets like Apple Daily and Next 
  magazine, while regularly participating in demonstrations.

insane_dreamer3• 5 months ago

Right. His business empire, and Apple Daily, were started before the handover.

Hong Kong pro-democracy tycoon Jimmy Lai gets 20 years' jail

Related Stories