HK protestors prove George Orwell’s point

The announcement by Hong Kong’s chief executive Carrie Lam that she was suspending the proposal surprised many China-watchers, who had assumed that President Xi Jinping in Beijing would be reluctant to back down and lose face. The fact that Mr Xi decided to hit the pause button suggests that the Chinese president and the Hong Kong government have collectively realised that the greatest risk facing them now is not perceived weakness, but chaos and violence on the streets of Hong Kong that could have significant domestic and international repercussions.

FT Gideon Rachman

Emphasis mine

Well George Orwell did write

Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi.

“No, Not One”, Adelphi (October 1941)

A few yrs later, he elaborated further about the uselessness of pacifism or civil disobedience where democracy is absent (emphasis mine)

[Gandhi] believed in “arousing the world”, which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi’s methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing? The Russian masses could only practise civil disobedience if the same idea happened to occur to all of them simultaneously, and even then, to judge by the history of the Ukraine famine, it would make no difference. But let it be granted that non-violent resistance can be effective against one’s own government, or against an occupying power: even so, how does one put it into practise internationally? Gandhi’s various conflicting statements on the late war seem to show that he felt the difficulty of this. Applied to foreign politics, pacifism either stops being pacifist or becomes appeasement. Moreover the assumption, which served Gandhi so well in dealing with individuals, that all human beings are more or less approachable and will respond to a generous gesture, needs to be seriously questioned. It is not necessarily true, for example, when you are dealing with lunatics. Then the question becomes: Who is sane? Was Hitler sane? And is it not possible for one whole culture to be insane by the standards of another? And, so far as one can gauge the feelings of whole nations, is there any apparent connection between a generous deed and a friendly response? Is gratitude a factor in international politics?

http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi

Related posts:

Keeping power in a one-party state

Would this happen in a one-party state?

Did Hali ask Xi for this app when they met?

“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech”

 

Advertisements

TKL shows how cheapskate and blur he is

And 5% of voters voted for him in PE 2011 helping him and Goh Meng Seng help the preferred PAP candidate to win?

Difficult to register for Business Times Online

I received an email asking me to subscribe to Business Times online for $0.99 per month.
I clicked on the link and proceed to register.
I had the trouble with the following:
a) They require my password to be at least 8 characters with capital and lower case.
b) I have to give my address with level and unit number.
After creating the password that match their requirement, I have to write it down somewhere – as it is not my usual password format.
Why do they need to have such a format? This is not something that hackers are interested in.
I could not pass through the address check. My address does not have a level and unit number.
They provided a telephone number and email address for me to seek help.
Before I could call their telephone number and hope that it does not get me to a “terrible call center”, I saw* that the subscription is $0.99 for 3 months and it will automatically revert to $34 a month (or thereabout) after that. This was too costly to me.
I abandon the registration process.
I wish our business organizations are more transparent in their operations*.

Tan Kin Lian

Nice to know that this cheapskate lost his $48,000 presidential deposit deposit. Must have hurt.

---

*I too have received the email. The caveat while in smaller print, is clearly visible. TKL either very careless, misrepresented the facts or he too cheapskate or vain to use spectacles.

 

 

Why Hongkies sang ‘Sing Hallelujah to the Lord’

I refer to HK: See the people walk, Hear the people sing.

Hallelujah to the Lord” became the unofficial anthem of crowds protesting against a controversial proposed law that would allow people accused of crimes in China to be extradited to the mainland not because the protesting Hongkies are Christians, or are ang moh tua kees or because CIA and MI6 operatives taught the organisers of the protesters the song in boot camp.

And definitely not because the protesters want to annoy Grandpa Xi and the other Chinese leaders who are all atheists.

Maybe it could to shame and irritate his head prefect in HK? After all Carrie Lam was once head prefect in a convent school and this song could be to remind her that as a devoted Roman Catholic she should not be the HK running dog of the atheistic Chinese Communist Party?

Here’s why according to BBC

For Christians in Hong Kong, the hymn is a sign of faith but also of their concerns that it’s not only political but also religious issues that are at stake, should the bill ever pass.

And

The hymn was picked up by other protesters – soon even non-Christians were singing it.

Because

“People picked up this song as it is short and easy to remember,” Edwin Chow, 19, acting president of the Hong Kong Federation of Catholic Students, told the BBC. “There’s only one line: ‘Sing Hallelujah to the Lord’.”

Also

The protesters said they sang it hoping it would have a calming effect on police, and would help diffuse tensions.

This was especially needed after police had earlier fired tear gas and shooting rubber bullets towards protesters.

Finally

The song also acted as a political shield, of sorts.

“According to the law, any religious assemblies in public areas are not considered as illegal, so if people sing hymns together, it could actually work as a protection and guarantee that [they] stay safe,” said Mr Chow.

“Therefore people started to sing this song to protect themselves.”

Btw, in case Terry Xu or Mad Dog is thinking of starting up a church, this loophole doesn’t exist in S’pore. Related post: Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right